|
|
Post by AngelaG on Mar 23, 2006 8:56:54 GMT
Some good thoughts/opinions in this thread, from both sides of the argument. It's somewhat a shame that it's been mired by bickering and a surplus of "dicks". Please keep threads civil, that way people reading might actually learn something, rather than being turned off by the negative sentiments, which are nothing more than an annoying distraction.
I can actually see good points from both sides of the debate. I've heard stories of non-contact people pulling punches, and obviously other stories of similar style fighters demolishing people in a real altercation.
I'm not really a kumite person. I can see benefits, as highlighted by Andy above, but on the whole I prefer oyo and pressure testing kind of stuff. I do kumite as a fun exercise occasionally, but it's never been anything I've felt driven to really practice.
When I do kumite outside of lessons/competitions I tend to pick people that prefer a little bit of contact, that way I know if I've been hit, and if they've been hit. It also means that in lessons I train the control, when playing around I practice similar control, but with a little more penetration.
|
|
|
|
Post by pasmith on Mar 23, 2006 10:39:58 GMT
Aha...now we're getting somewhere.
Andy raises some very good points.
However I wiil direct him back to the orginal intention of the thread..
"Do karate competitions, by their rules, encourage bad body dynamics and bad habit forming, especially when then applying the same training to a real self-defence situation?"
That is what I was commenting on.
It wasn't about whether competitions are bad, good or indifferent *in and of themselves* but whether they encourage bad habits for reality.
When taken as a game, a bit of fun or one way of testing a particular facet of your art obviously competitions can be whatever people want. But when measured against reality I believe we can get closer to reality than semi contact. You don't need to point out that we can never actually re-create reality. I know that.
Andy called me insular before. One thing I am definately not is insular.
I pride myself on being open to many points of view and many approachs to training. That doesn't mean that my own views are completely fluid and liable to change at the slightest mention of a different point of view though. I believe Andy (and others) are probably of much the same mind. Open minded but not so open that your brain falls out?
A core belief I have is that a black belt (of any style) should be adaptable and versatile (as Andy points out too) and encourage people to train, spar and compete in many different formats to facilitate this.
One of my main training goals is to accrue enough experience and knowledge to be able to give almost anyone (I appreciate that I'll never get near the top guys in each format) a good "game" in any competition format. Semi-contact, full contact, grappling, kicking, punching, knife or stick. I want "game" in all areas.
I believe each format tests a different thing and therefore each format is valid to some degree (although I believe that some formats are "better" for testing "street" attributes).
As pointed out semi-contact can test sharpness, accuracy and speed and the abilirty to read an opponent quickly.
Ultimately what I think is a bad thing is for anyone to become stuck in any one format and thus potentially (negatively) influenced by the limitations of that format (again if they intend to fight well in reality).
Do semi-contact for a bit...then do some full-contact to make sure your strikes still carry authority...then do some knockdown to make sure you're not targetting hard areas due to wearing gloves...then add clinching to see if you can clinch safely while someone else is striking....then grappling.....then armour up and do some stick....then perhaps back to semi-contact to get some sharpness back. Fight in a ring, fight on mats and up against walls (no homo-erotic comments please). Damn fight standing on your head if you feel it would test something.
That is what I think training and competing should be like. The limitations of one format can be outweighed by the freedoms available in another.
Andy mentions moving from semi-contact freestyle and competing in semi-conatct TKD comps. That's moving from one competition format into a very similar format. It's no wonder that he did well. I'm not dismissing that as a valid point but believe that that adaptability can (and shouold) go much further than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Mar 23, 2006 13:40:34 GMT
Aha...now we're getting somewhere. Andy raises some very good points. However I wiil direct him back to the orginal intention of the thread.. Do karate competitions, by their rules, encourage bad body dynamics and bad habit forming, especially when then applying the same training to a real self-defence situation? That is what I was commenting on. It wasn't about whether competitions are bad, good or indifferent *in and of themselves* but whether they encourage bad habits for reality. To me, you need to have complete understanding, and preferably extensive experience in something before you can dismiss or adopt it. If all you focus on, is negative aspects of anything, then you stand to miss out on pretty much everything. My own conclusion is that the topic (no offence Angela) is a bit daft, because like I said way back, anyone who takes up a sport and somehow uses that to delude themselves about their own ability in Acronym de jour street blah blah needs their head examined. What that leaves you with, is the question; What good is it? Of course you can (get closer to reality than semi contact), but not a lot. Average Joe Bloggs MA guy/gal on the street wouldn't last two seconds in a boxing ring against an amateur, but people type and whine about the limitations of boxing. Someone training in the typical MMA gym for say two years would get KTFO by a top points fighter in a heartbeat. Like I said, comparisons are odious. Doing is the thing. Do what you do, and let everyone else get on with what they do. Well you did more or less say "La La La I'm not listening anymore"  The difference between an aethiest and an agnostic. Sadly, I think BB is pretty meaningless these days, except perhaps as the true sign of a beginner. If you spend enough time training, you won't have time to get into trouble on the street. Amongst other things. Even within point, there's what I refer to as the Big Fish, small Pond syndrome, where fighters don't go beyond a format that tests them, sticking to a circuit that nets them a shiny bit of plastic for the mantelpeice every weekend. That's not just point, but every sport though. Another facet of human nature. Yup, new challenges every day is the way. Do things you're crap at. Variety is the spice of life. Not sure I follow that. No I didn't and no it wasn't One interesting thing there. The guy I beat in the continuous finals, was someone I'd trained with before. As well as other forms of training, I used to do something called 'Agonistics' (great name innit), which was a very rough early MMA/JKD spinoff group. The guy had come along to a few sessions, and due to the limited sparring format, managed to throw a few guys with some of the flashier ITF timing on the kicks. I've still got a VHS tape somewhere of him popping me on the head with an axe kick, and jamming my timing up. It was about a year later that I met him on that mat, and boy did he pay for it. ;D Always learning, always looking for the positives. Let's leave the negatives behind, as they do nobody any good. |
|
|
|
Post by pasmith on Mar 23, 2006 14:53:18 GMT
"Someone training in the typical MMA gym for say two years would get KTFO by a top points fighter in a heartbeat." Heh...maybe.  Not saying it wouldn't happen but not as easily as you make out. I thought it was about Robin and not the archery contest? Surely that sceanrio would depend on who the two Robins in question are? "Sadly, I think BB is pretty meaningless these days, except perhaps as the true sign of a beginner." Sadly I agree. I also think that a BB *can* and *should* mean something. These days I judge myself on my own criteria of what I consider a competant fighter and what I consider would make a good BB. "If you spend enough time training, you won't have time to get into trouble on the street." That's a cliche that is untrue. Life just ain't as black and white as all that. I lead a very un-eventful life. Last Bonfire night I ended up facing down a group of teenage lads that had decided it would be fun to run through people's gardens smashing windows. Didn't turn too nasty but it quite easily could have. Didn't go looking for trouble, just went to the sound of my elderly neighbours window getting broken. "That is what I think training and competing should be like. The limitations of one format can be outweighed by the freedoms available in another. Not sure I follow that." What I mean by that is that if you can't hit doing BJJ (and you'd like to be able to hit)...go do some boxing...can't kick in boxing go do some TKD...can't grapple in TKD go back to doing some BJJ style sparring. A door that is closed in one format is usually open in another. Therefore training and/or competing in multiple formats can be a way of testing your whole arsenal. "Andy mentions moving from semi-contact freestyle and competing in semi-conatct TKD comps. That's moving from one competition format into a very similar format. No I didn't and no it wasn't" So what was the difference between the sparring format you were doing at the time you entered the ITF TKD comp and the sparring that you did in that comp? So I can better understand what that transition was like for you. I hazard that it wasn't as big a jump as going from semi-contact into BJJ...or BJJ into boxing for example. "Let's leave the negatives behind, as they do nobody any good." You see I'm of the opinion that you can't have positives without some negatives. Yin and Yang and all that.  In some ways the negatives serve to shed light on where the poistives really are. |
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Mar 23, 2006 23:07:58 GMT
Is your cup half empty, or half full Paul?
|
|
|
|
Post by pasmith on Mar 24, 2006 10:16:53 GMT
Well that depends if you are filling it up or emptying it. Filling it up? Half full. Emptying it? Half empty. Pretty simple really. It all depends on the point from which you start. Ahem... "So what was the difference between the sparring format you were doing at the time you entered the ITF TKD comp and the sparring that you did in that comp? So I can better understand what that transition was like for you. I hazard that it wasn't as big a jump as going from semi-contact into BJJ...or BJJ into boxing for example." Any progress on this? |
|
|
|
Post by AngelaG on Mar 24, 2006 12:08:14 GMT
Is your cup half empty, or half full Paul? My cup runneth over...  |
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Mar 24, 2006 13:22:04 GMT
Well that depends if you are filling it up or emptying it. Filling it up? Half full. Emptying it? Half empty. Pretty simple really. It all depends on the point from which you start. Interesting. So you look externally? Firstly, you need to distinguish between TKD sparring, which is often used to refer to competition, and the learning environment that is sparring to everyone else. No simple answer though I'm afraid, as for your purposes, I was doing many different formats at the time. None of them involved hopping around on one leg firing chambered kicks at the head though. Going back to the event, one memorable bout saw me exploiting those rules we mentioned earlier. Sweeps weren't allowed, so I swept, took a warning, swept, took another warning by which point my opponent didn't want to hop any more.  You're still hankering to prove something, and not really taking anything on board. These are ALL sporting formats (archery contests). On what? |
|
|
|
Post by pasmith on Mar 24, 2006 14:31:53 GMT
"So you look externally?" I look everywhere. A cup does not exist in isolation nor in a black/white on/off state. It has a context, a past and a future. It can be both half full AND half empty until the exact conditions that lead to its current state are known. Pick the bones out that! "You're still hankering to prove something, and not really taking anything on board." No not really. As you said earlier this is a discussion. If I agreed with you, we'd have nothing to discuss. You decided for the sake of discussion to take one view...perhaps I'm not taking anything on board for the same reason? The real reason I'm not taking stuff on board is because I don't have enough information to adequately process what you're saying. You offer the example of entering a TKD comp as a way of illustrating your ability to adapt without being constrained by your training at the time. I'm merely trying to get a handle on how much adaptation took place. We were talking about semi-contact...ITF TKD is semi-contact. That to me doesn't involve much adaptation (until you explain otherwise). You mention sweeping a guy. That to me is not adaptation but merely cheating to manipulate the system to your favour. Surely adaptating would have taken the form of winning WITHOUT having to sweep people that didn't expect it? Entering an unfamiliar format, playing by the rules, dropping techniques you were not allowed to do and still winning? That would have been really adapting. Your example is like enetering a boxing competiton, headbutting the guy and then saying that you'd adapted to the boxing format. To me there isn't a point for me to take on board here. I also find it very odd that you haven't taken anything on board either and yet I'm the one in the wrong? You're as fixed in your views as I am. And if you truly believe them, have thought them through and can defend them in open debate then that is fine by me. If someone makes a point, backs it up logically with a cohesive arguement I *might* take it on board. As it stands you seem to expect me to take on board what you say for no other reason than the fact that it is YOU saying it and YOU think that you're right. Well that's not how the world works. |
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Mar 24, 2006 15:54:01 GMT
So you look externally? I look everywhere. A cup does not exist in isolation nor in a black/white on/off state. It has a context, a past and a future. It can be both half full AND half empty until the exact conditions that lead to its current state are known. Pick the bones out that! No need. I was only interested in how you answered the question. You can still have a discussion even if you agree with someone? I mentioned that earlier. That's an oversimplification of the context, but pursue it as that if it suits you. OK. I have two arms and two legs. So did the other guy. He was familiar with the rules system employed, while I was not. Adaptation from what? Of course. It's a sport. Was Ali cheating when he verbally wound up Floyd Paterson or George Foreman before those famous matches? You exploit the rules, because everyone else is doing the same to a greater or lesser degree. Wake up sunshine, that's real life too. You're implying that I won in this instance, because I cheated. Not so. I was smarter. Goodness sake man, have you never seen an "accidental" clash of heads in a boxing match. Too many of those, and someone will bite your ear off (see Tyson vs Holyfield for details). I got that vague impression a few pages back. What have you to offer? You haven't got any experience of note in Semi Contact, and you don't flesh out your opinions. I have the former, and have been willing to do the latter. My views change all the time. Nothing you have said has done that for me to date. Not even a twitch. Whatever.  |
|
|
|
Post by pasmith on Mar 24, 2006 16:39:30 GMT
I think I'll give up.
Not because you have made me see the light with your superior reasoning abilities but you are just nigh on impossible to debate with.
Cagey, illusive and cryptic where all I'm asking for is clarification and information.
This isn't freakin' rocket science.
You don't offer any information, laugh behind your hand when someone doesn't precisely get what you're alluding to and the claim some kind of intellectual higher ground with an off hand comment. Bollocks to that.
"Adaptation from what?"
Christ on a bike this is hard work. Most of my post is an attempt to clarify what you had done before that made adapting to take part in a TKD such an admirable feat.
And then you ask ME what you adapted from?
Can you not see how dumb that is?
How frustrating for me?
"You're implying that I won in this instance, because I cheated.
Not so.
I was smarter."
I'm not implying that. I'm saying it outright because that's what it amounts to.
Of course you see it as being smarter. How could it be any other way?
That bloke must have been a real dumbass. Fighting in a competition within the rules. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
"Goodness sake man, have you never seen an "accidental" clash of heads in a boxing match.
Too many of those, and someone will bite your ear off (see Tyson vs Holyfield for details)."
I'm almost speechless at this...I don't actually give a feck about cheating, clashing heads, sweeping or whatever. What does annoy me is when someone (ie YOU) might use such a thing to validate what they do or illustrate how fantasticaly adaptable they are.
Anyone that resorts to cheating is doing so to cover up weaknesses in themselves or in their "skills".
If you can't compete within the rules then go and freakin train some more until you can.
If you have to cheat to win you are defeating your own point of illustrating being adaptable as ultimately you ain't adapting to shit. Just doing what you always do.
Here's a theoretical example...
"I entered a BJJ comp...kicked the bloke in the bollocks right off the bat...he never really recovered after that and I went on to win...I adapted and he didn't....never done a days BJJ in my life....I adapted and he didn't...I won...I was smart...he was dumb...I won...I can adapt"
Q: How is that different to what you did?
Ans: It isn't. Same deal.
See how dumb that sounds? Even more so if used to prove some sort of point?
"...you don't flesh out your opinions.
I have the former, and have been willing to do the latter."
You have got to be kidding me. This from a man than won't straight up tell me what type of sparring he adapted from at the time he entered this TKD comp?
Pot...meet Mr kettle..I believe you might like to refer to his current hue?...haha
"Whatever."
Nice. Quality point you made there. Very incisive.
Sadly that's exactly the attitude you managed to engender in me. Well done you've achieved something at least.
Seriously. I'm done with this thread. I fear frustration may make me type something that will get me banned.
Chalk that up as another intellectual victory over a "conversational vandal" if it makes you feel better.
Cheerio.
|
|
|
|
Post by AngelaG on Mar 24, 2006 17:00:40 GMT
Damn! I'd just got my popcorn out too!
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by pasmith on Mar 24, 2006 17:18:23 GMT
Who can fathom the mind of a woman...you were complaining earlier! Damn, posted again...oh well. |
|
|
|
Post by shinz on Mar 24, 2006 17:33:46 GMT
Well I've been reading this debate for a while and just had to comment. I'm not sure what this Andy guy does or has experience in. Is he a Karate guy I assume?
To be honest though, pasmith has been very logical and patient in my oppinion. Andy has a knack of sidestepping questions by just imaturely saying stuff like "right back atcha" etc. I mean what's all that about? I would just like to know why he's so cagey and elusive? Maybe he could back his points up without being sarcastic, pedantic and patronizing. Or maybe he's just trtying to hide the fact that he doesn't know what he's on about?
Anyway, I think we all can see that smith has won this debate. Andy, be a man and admit you have lost. There's a good chap.
Just my 2 cents there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Mar 24, 2006 17:55:23 GMT
Well I've been reading this debate for a while and just had to comment. I'm not sure what this Andy guy does or has experience in. Is he a Karate guy I assume? To be honest though, pasmith has been very logical and patient in my oppinion. Andy has a knack of sidestepping questions by just imaturely saying stuff like "right back atcha" etc. I mean what's all that about? I would just like to know why he's so cagey and elusive? Maybe he could back his points up without being sarcastic, pedantic and patronizing. Or maybe he's just trtying to hide the fact that he doesn't know what he's on about? Anyway, I think we all can see that smith has won this debate. Andy, be a man and admit you have lost. There's a good chap. Just my 2 cents there. Ok I'm not going to waste my time with the Tung Fu homeless. PAsmisth, I'll resond later tonight. I'm off to my daughters birthday party. Hope someone finds your toys and puts them back in the pram for you in the meantime. |
|
