Competitions

[AngelaG]

pasmith said:

Who can fathom the mind of a woman...you were complaining earlier!

Damn, posted again...oh well.

When did I complain?

[Andy]

pasmith said:

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.

OK, near as I can tell, the only person offering direct, relevant experience on point/Kumite is myself.
I'm not under any obligation to do that, but have done so, citing actual experience.

You don't offer any information,

See above.

laugh behind your hand when someone doesn't precisely get what you're alluding to

Nope, I'm not laughing, though being lighthearted lubes a discussion at times.

and the claim some kind of intellectual higher ground with an off hand comment. Bollocks to that.

What claim was that then?

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?

Not really, no.
When a sentence ends with a question mark, as the cited example above did, it might mean that you haven't been clear yourself.
The logical thing to do, is to ask for clarification, as I did.

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.

Ignoring the fact that you've lost the plot and once again resorted to kindergarten mudslinging, let me explain some facts about point tournaments to you.
A first misdemeanour merits a warning.
A second misdemeanour usually warns that, on recurrence of a foul, a point will be deducted.
So you can, and people do, exploit the rules system to their advantage.
Misdemenaours might be, turning your back on your opponent, leaving the area, excessive contact, or other infringement of the rules.
Often, a fighter who is up on points, with the clock ticking down, may find an increasingly desperate opponent, and if they have a clean card, they'll retreat from an assault by leaving the area, just to waste time.

Now you can say that's 'cheating' but it's in the rules, and that's one of the reasons I was pointing out earlier, that SPORT MA bears little or no relation to """Reality"""

So for me to sweep someone (who'd probably never been swept) and take warnings was frankly legit.
Like I was saying earlier as well, there's no one to call "Not Fair" or "Cheat" in real life, cos you do what you have to to come out on top.

Now if you're personally confused about the above, that's something you need to think about.

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.

You're building a straw man arguement there.
I've never said I was fantastically adaptable, just that I believe being adaptable is important, and given examples of why.

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.

Define cheating?
You seem to think everything has rules, like there's some Samurai Code of combat or something.
THAT's Bollocks.
Anyway, cheating would be BREAKING rules.
I was talking about EXPLOITING them, which is a different beastie entirely.
Moreover, I've had people exploit rules better than me, and come of the worse for it.

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?

Actually, no.
I'd given you more credit than to post something like that.
See above, about working within the rules.
Yet, you're still on about the sporting context.
Surely if you were in a fight with a BJJ guy on the street, and you dropped him with a kick in the nads, you'd be bragging about it for years to you mates?

Like I keep saying SPORT does not = REALITY.

...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?

Err, what you trying to pull here?
I tried to clarify the difference between TKD sparring (which they use as a term to describe competition) and what others use as a learning tool.
I also mentioned;

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.

Sparring in Agonistics was gum sheild and bag gloves anything goes, everyone fights everyone, with the participants being from Diverse MA backgrounds.

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.

Why not be a man, and stick with it?

I'm quite capable of being reasonable, but if you throw your crap at me, you'll get it back with interest.

I always thought you were better than the kiddies on TF, and Angela speaks highly of you, so why not lose the agenda, the pettiness, and just be civil and productive?

[pasmith]

Right...new week, new stock of patience. Let's see how long it lasts.

"You don't offer any information,

See above."

You offer patchy information at best. When directly asked you generally don't offer anything but dead-end replies that force the other person to ask again. That's frustrating.

"Nope, I'm not laughing, though being lighthearted lubes a discussion at times."

Yes I agree. But take it from me that is not how it comes across. What may be lighthearted to you sounds snidey and arrogant to the recipient. And let's be fair at the beginning you had me down as some sort of ex-Tung-fu internet terrorist. Damn at one point I even think you thought I WAS Kickcatcher. Therefore I think that a large portion of that arrogance and laughing behind your hand was meant.

"What claim was that then?"

Blimey. On one hand you type in a very cryptic manner and expect people to infer much from little but then can't take a simple saying on face value. It doesn't take a genius to work out that you don't actually have to type "I now claim the intellectual high ground" to actually do it. Typing things like "Innacurate and grasping." is claiming the intellectual high ground on a subject. You're basically saying "You are wrong but I'm not going to lower myself to tell you why I think that is...work it out for yourself if you're clever enough". It comes across like you're trying to make some sort of divine proclamation.
If you make a point back it up with why. It makes discussions go along much better.

"So you can, and people do, exploit the rules system to their advantage."

Yes I understand that. YET AGAIN I will also point out that it is not the cheating in and off itself that I don't like it is the fact that you chose to use it to illustrate a point (a point I can barely remember we've beaten about the bush so much).
Excessive contact in semi conatct is one thing...that's a grey area as we have agreed....actually using a prohibited technique? that is quite another thing. I don't see the difference between a sweep in a non sweeping comp or a headbutt in boxing or a palm strike in BJJ. All illegal. And all not something that should be used to make a point or put up as some sort of positive attribute. A conversely all not something I really give a toss about in the grand scheme of things or whether they ultimately won you a meaningless competition 10 years ago.

"Like I was saying earlier as well, there's no one to call "Not Fair" or "Cheat" in real life, cos you do what you have to to come out on top.

Now if you're personally confused about the above, that's something you need to think about."

You are making great pains to point out that competition is not reality. I agree...always have. BUT I find it odd that you apply the "rules" of reality (or rather the lack of them) to something that has rules (whether you want to abide by them or not). The fact that reality has no rules is precisely WHY I think that there are better competition formats and better competition formats for you than you beloved freakin' semi-contact. Ones with less rules, less restrictions...rules were sweeping is actually allowed this time.

You seem to be saying that nothing will ever match the street (for lack of rules) therefore ALL competition formats are equally INVALID for testing attributes that might help you on the street. And therefore it doesn't matter what comps you fight in.

You also negatively comment on MMA while simultaneously telling me not to be negative and not to comment on something I'm unfamiliar with. Pot...kettle...matching outfits again?
Please tell me your years of MMA training and fight record, amateur and proffesional, that allows you to comment with such authority on MMA.
To comment on MMA without such a record would be hypocrictical by your definition.

"I'd given you more credit than to post something like that."

Well that's news to me. I thought I was like some sort of Chilu clone, demi-kickcatcher or "conversational vandal"?

"Sparring in Agonistics was gum sheild and bag gloves anything goes, everyone fights everyone, with the participants being from Diverse MA backgrounds."

Jesus Christ we have an answer...praise the lord. That is exactly what I was after 10 frustrating posts earlier but didn't get. Fair enough. That puts entering the TKD comp in a better light. See how furnishing me with info effects my view point? Discussions are like that (that's me being patronising there..see how I add a smiley to keep things sweet? ).

"Why not be a man, and stick with it?"

Again..patronising without any humour or tongue in cheek-ness. Highly annoying. Would you exhort me to be a man if I was Angela? If not how would you choose to patronise a woman?
Me sticking with it has got nothing to to with my manliness or lack thereoff and entirely to do with how I view internet discussions. Am I enjoying this process?
Not really. Therefore it becomes annoying to keep doing and ultimately futile.
Come to think of it how do you know I'm not a woman?

[thingy]

andy said:

....let me explain some facts about point tournaments to you.
A first misdemeanour merits a warning.
A second misdemeanour usually warns that, on recurrence of a foul, a point will be deducted.
So you can, and people do, exploit the rules system to their advantage.

Misdemenaours might be, turning your back on your opponent, leaving the area, excessive contact, or other infringement of the rules.

Not sure if I should really dare say something on this thread...

The rules our semi contact competitions work used to work in this practice - a misdemeanour would incur a 1st warning, once the warning was issued then further naughtiness could result in disqualification, or points deduction as is deemed appropriate. In fact they generally do work like this, but what I mean is that this used to be the way misdemeanours had to be dealt with. An illegal incident would firstly result in warning. A repeat occurance could get a disqualification if it was a bad enough thing to be doing.

Stories go of one chap who would get into the finals in competitions (a good feat in itself), then wait for his opponent to do a kick, and once their leg was raised he'd kick them as hard as he could to the groin. Well he'd get a warning, since this was all the ref was allowed to do, the other chap would from then on not really be fighting to his absolutely best abilities, and Mr Low-Kicker would win himself the gold medal.

Now refs have the ability to disqualify competitors even after one offence, foregoing the 1st warning system if they feel the situation is relevant (as the above example may well be deemed to be).

I think it's a good move to empower the refs like this.

[Andy]

pasmith said:

Right...new week, new stock of patience. Let's see how long it lasts.

You don't offer any information,

See above.

You offer patchy information at best. When directly asked you generally don't offer anything but dead-end replies that force the other person to ask again. That's frustrating.

I dare say, but you can thank your ex TF buddies for that.
Anything I post about myself is invariably utilised out of context on websites I don't even post on.
That said, I've provided you with experience relevant to experience in point fighting, which is what this thread is about.

Nope, I'm not laughing, though being lighthearted lubes a discussion at times.

Yes I agree. But take it from me that is not how it comes across. What may be lighthearted to you sounds snidey and arrogant to the recipient.

That's tough really.
If we keep things at that level, with me thinking you are narrow minded, childish, pedantic and misguided, the discussion will go nowhere, so let's both grow up a bit eh?

And let's be fair at the beginning you had me down as some sort of ex-Tung-fu internet terrorist. Damn at one point I even think you thought I WAS Kickcatcher. Therefore I think that a large portion of that arrogance and laughing behind your hand was meant.

Actually, no, not at the start, but as the thread went on, you reminded me of these people so much it was indeed amusing.
Hang about with shit for long enough, and some of it's bound to stick.

What claim was that then?

Blimey. On one hand you type in a very cryptic manner and expect people to infer much from little but then can't take a simple saying on face value. It doesn't take a genius to work out that you don't actually have to type "I now claim the intellectual high ground" to actually do it. Typing things like "Innacurate and grasping." is claiming the intellectual high ground on a subject. You're basically saying "You are wrong but I'm not going to lower myself to tell you why I think that is...work it out for yourself if you're clever enough". It comes across like you're trying to make some sort of divine proclamation.
If you make a point back it up with why. It makes discussions go along much better.

Actually, I was pointing out that your post was innacurate, and seemingly sought to derive facts from scant information.
Now forgive me, I've had most of these conversations several times over, and sometimes think I've written something I've covered elsewhere.
As you know, repeating yourself is tiresome.

So you can, and people do, exploit the rules system to their advantage.

Yes I understand that. YET AGAIN I will also point out that it is not the cheating in and off itself that I don't like it is the fact that you chose to use it to illustrate a point (a point I can barely remember we've beaten about the bush so much).

See, you push a square peg in a round hole again there.
I've already covered the difference between exploiting and breaking rules.

Excessive contact in semi conatct is one thing...that's a grey area as we have agreed....actually using a prohibited technique? that is quite another thing. I don't see the difference between a sweep in a non sweeping comp or a headbutt in boxing or a palm strike in BJJ.

Welcome to the real world.

All illegal. And all not something that should be used to make a point or put up as some sort of positive attribute.

NOT illegal.

A conversely all not something I really give a toss about in the grand scheme of things or whether they ultimately won you a meaningless competition 10 years ago.

Neither of which are anything to do with the thread topic, but much to with what irritates me about your posting style.

Like I was saying earlier as well, there's no one to call "Not Fair" or "Cheat" in real life, cos you do what you have to to come out on top.

Now if you're personally confused about the above, that's something you need to think about.

You are making great pains to point out that competition is not reality. I agree...always have. BUT I find it odd that you apply the rules of reality (or rather the lack of them) to something that has rules (whether you want to abide by them or not).

I was merely drawing a parallel.

The fact that reality has no rules is precisely WHY I think that there are better competition formats and better competition formats for you than you beloved freakin' semi-contact. Ones with less rules, less restrictions...rules were sweeping is actually allowed this time.

Rules systems vary even within Semi Contact, some allow sweeps off the bat.
Now here's a thought;
If you invite a bunch of fighters to your tournament, who you know train in a different way, expecting to humiliate them, don't you deserve to have your fighters wiped out?

You seem to be saying that nothing will ever match the street (for lack of rules) therefore ALL competition formats are equally INVALID for testing attributes that might help you on the street. And therefore it doesn't matter what comps you fight in.

Not what I've said,and you're leading again there.
Allow me to summarise.
ALL competition/sporting formats are limited in their relevance to reality by their rule systems.

You also negatively comment on MMA while simultaneously telling me not to be negative and not to comment on something I'm unfamiliar with. Pot...kettle...matching outfits again?
Please tell me your years of MMA training and fight record, amateur and proffesional, that allows you to comment with such authority on MMA.
To comment on MMA without such a record would be hypocrictical by your definition.

That would depend if we have the same definition of MMA.
These days most people think of the sport.
My own training took an MMA approach from about 1988.
Never competed MMA.

I'd given you more credit than to post something like that.

Well that's news to me. I thought I was like some sort of Chilu clone, demi-kickcatcher or conversational vandal?

I see, so are you saying you find the comparison offensive or embarassing in some way?
If so, I can understand why, and apologise.

Sparring in Agonistics was gum sheild and bag gloves anything goes, everyone fights everyone, with the participants being from Diverse MA backgrounds.

Jesus Christ we have an answer...praise the lord. That is exactly what I was after 10 frustrating posts earlier but didn't get. Fair enough. That puts entering the TKD comp in a better light. See how furnishing me with info effects my view point? Discussions are like that (that's me being patronising there..see how I add a smiley to keep things sweet? ).

Exxagerate much?

Why not be a man, and stick with it?

Again..patronising without any humour or tongue in cheek-ness. Highly annoying. Would you exhort me to be a man if I was Angela? If not how would you choose to patronise a woman?
Me sticking with it has got nothing to to with my manliness or lack thereoff and entirely to do with how I view internet discussions. Am I enjoying this process?
Not really. Therefore it becomes annoying to keep doing and ultimately futile.
Come to think of it how do you know I'm not a woman?

Not at all, I figured you wouldn't be able to resist returning to the thread after that comment.
Apologies for manipulating you.

[Andy]

I think there's a myth to be buried here!

Point fighting/Kumite/blah blah MA practice, promotes bad habits.

As someone who did a fair bit of points competition (amongst other things) it's glaringly obvious to me, but it seems not so obvious to others that it doesn't.

While the only comments relating to points fighters getting their rear ends posted to them in street encounters seem to be hearsay, I've seen not one shred of evidence supporting the idea that the aforesaid are getting bad habits ingrained.

Moreover, they learn to adapt, analyze and overcome, utilising the awareness, tactics and speed that their format requires to succeed.

The idea that they will pull a punch or kick, in defence of their person or other persons is clearly ludicrous.

Now just because you entered the odd TKD tournament, and got beat doesn't mean TKD is crap.
It means YOU are crap!

Work on it.

[pasmith]

I assume that this is directed at me.

"The idea that they will pull a punch or kick, in defence of their person or other persons is clearly ludicrous."

No it isn't. If it was clearly ludicrous to ALL then we would not hold differing opinions. The only thing that is clear is that we view training and MA differently and as you are so fond of welcoming me to the real world may I take this oportunity to welcome you to it too. People view stuff differently. You may think you are right and all your evidence obviously tells you that you are. Still doesn't actually make it right.

I'll explain more.

I was a member of the TAGB for about 6-7 years. The largest TKD org in Britain blah blah blah...the usual TAGB blurb. I entered comps right from white belt to black belt doing point stop and continuous. I dare say that some of these comps had more people entered in them than your average freestyle comp.
Some I lost certainly. Some I placed in. And what do you know some I even won! My mum still has some of the trophies to prove it bless her. Some of those comps were a big deal in the TAGB. I even won my category at the British champs one year.
As it stands now I don't actually put much stock in any off that anymore. My TKD black belt currently keeps a gi top on my grappling dummy in the garage such is the high regard I hold for it. I now have the experience to put that stuff into perspective and I've met enough people with real rounded fighting skills to appreciate what a minor achievement winning a closed and very restricted rules comp really is.

Edited by KR admin

[AngelaG]

OK people, chill. Some of you really need to work on your debating skills. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and people with opposing viewpoints are not there as some kind of verbal sparring dummy.

Let's leave the vagueness, the patronising tones, and the cussing elsewhere please.

Thank you please.

[Andy]

I don't think I've been vague.
In fact I've been more direct than usual.

If someone wants to believe they know all about a subject, based on limited experience, that's up to them.
The danger is, that someone will take them seriously.

Now.
Back to those "Bad Habits" that point fighting DEFINITELY encourage;

What are they?

[pasmith]

Chill?...I'm feeling distinctly frosty at this point.

"The danger is, that someone will take them seriously."

So me advocating that competing in a higher contact and fewer rules format than semi-contact will test more attributes needed in a street fight than just doing semi-contact alone is dangerous to people?
Hahahahahaha.
More dangerous than you saying that semi-contact is fine for helping to prepare for the street?
If you think that is dangerous then the real world must feel positively deadly to you.

OK...once more unto the breach....

Bad Habits photo No. 1...

www.wako-maribor.com/slike/attpic/99world_cup_semi-contact_21.jpg

Bad, bad guard. Doesn't protect the head at all (the main target of the street attacker). Does however defend against sneaky side kicks that can come under a more conventional guard. Like happens in semi-contact.

Side on stance. Leaves half off your weapons too far away to be useful or land with any power. Does however turn the targets available in semi-contact away from the attacker. Also leaves the front leg very vulnerable to leg kicks. If they were allowed of course.

Bad Habits photo No. 2...

www.wako-maribor.com/slike/attpic/99world_cup_semi-contact_23.jpg

Attacks happening from an unrealistic range. True Punching range is actually about another 2 feet closer than in that picture. Of course as long as the fist reaches the target it doesn't matter how far back it starts nor how littel power is left when it gets there.

Lifting of the back foot. Back foot is totally lifted off the floor meaning it is not contributing to power generation. But hey power is not an issue therefore it doesn't matter what the back foot does. As long as the fist reaches the body all is well.

Bad Habits photo No. 3...

www.wako-maribor.com/slike/attpic/99world_cup_semi-contact_22.jpg

Kicking to the head. Kicking to the head is a risky thing to do on the street. It has a huge pay off if it works but a potentially huge negative effect if it doesn't. Therefore proabably best not encouraged if your goal is to be effective in a real go.

Sorry if the photos don't up load but my browser is acting up at the mo'.

[Andy]

pasmith said:

Chill?...I'm feeling distinctly frosty at this point.

The danger is, that someone will take them seriously.

So me advocating that competing in a higher contact and fewer rules format than semi-contact will test more attributes needed in a street fight than just doing semi-contact alone is dangerous to people?
Hahahahahaha.

Could you perhaps illustrate where you feel this has been said.
By anyone?

More dangerous than you saying that semi-contact is fine for helping to prepare for the street?

Where did I say that.
Must you continue with this 'Straw man' debating?

If you think that is dangerous then the real world must feel positively deadly to you.

More to you than to me.

OK...once more unto the breach....

Bad Habits photo No. 1...

www.wako-maribor.com/slike/attpic/99world_cup_semi-contact_21.jpg

Bad, bad guard. Doesn't protect the head at all (the main target of the street attacker). Does however defend against sneaky side kicks that can come under a more conventional guard. Like happens in semi-contact.

Side on stance. Leaves half off your weapons too far away to be useful or land with any power. Does however turn the targets available in semi-contact away from the attacker. Also leaves the front leg very vulnerable to leg kicks. If they were allowed of course.

Bad Habits photo No. 2...

www.wako-maribor.com/slike/attpic/99world_cup_semi-contact_23.jpg

Attacks happening from an unrealistic range. True Punching range is actually about another 2 feet closer than in that picture. Of course as long as the fist reaches the target it doesn't matter how far back it starts nor how littel power is left when it gets there.

Lifting of the back foot. Back foot is totally lifted off the floor meaning it is not contributing to power generation. But hey power is not an issue therefore it doesn't matter what the back foot does. As long as the fist reaches the body all is well.

Bad Habits photo No. 3...

www.wako-maribor.com/slike/attpic/99world_cup_semi-contact_22.jpg

Kicking to the head. Kicking to the head is a risky thing to do on the street. It has a huge pay off if it works but a potentially huge negative effect if it doesn't. Therefore proabably best not encouraged if your goal is to be effective in a real go.

Sorry if the photos don't up load but my browser is acting up at the mo'.

Knock, knock, hello.
Isolated pictures of a sporting competition?
Can you explain the relevance in some meaningful way?
Exhibit how "Bad Habits" are being propogated perhaps?

You might as well post pictures of a Badminton match, as that's equally relevant in isolation.

[pasmith]

Christ...on...a...moped.

*Deep breath...counts to ten*

I chose to illustrate my points with relevent pictures because if I hadn't you would just say that I wasn't offering any evidence but merely spouting unfounded personal opinion. "Innacurate and grasping" would no doubt have followed.
Stupidly perhaps, I thought that pictures would help get my points across.
Instead (but not entirely a surprise now I think about it) you chose NOT to comment on the points I raise BUT rather on the fact that I chose to accompany them with pictures.
Thus if I want to get any closure on what you think of the points I raise I have to post them again. Just like happened before.

The pictures are included to illustrate some of the bad habits that I think semi-contact *can* encourage. Not 100% *does* encourage but *can*. I won't post them again as you can read them from my last post.

Notice how I didn't find a picture of a someone doing semi-contact falling over and then say that "Semi contact encourages you to fall over"?
I thought of specific issues and then just happened to illustrate those *general* points with *specific* examples.
I could equally find a picture of two guys fighting at a BJJ competition and say that "BJJ competition encourages you to go to the floor...this is a bad habit to encourage for the street".
And I'd be bloody right too.

Read the points and respond with relevant comments please or this debate goes no where. Ignore the pictures if they annoy you.

[Andy]

pasmith said:

Christ...on...a...moped.

*Deep breath...counts to ten*

I chose to illustrate my points with relevent pictures

That's the whole point though.
They're NOT relevant.

Stupidly perhaps, I thought that pictures would help get my points across.

They do.
They highlight that you don't have a point to make.

The pictures are included to illustrate some of the bad habits that I think semi-contact *can* encourage. Not 100% *does* encourage but *can*. I won't post them again as you can read them from my last post.

Maybe the links are coming up bad for me.
I don't see zippo of any relevance on those pics.

I could equally find a picture of two guys fighting at a BJJ competition and say that BJJ competition encourages you to go to the floor...this is a bad habit to encourage for the street.
And I'd be bloody right too.

Take a look at what you just wrote there, and tell me you don't see how you contradict yourself.

Edited by KR admin

[AngelaG]

Final warning, please keep the debate martial arts related, rather than making it personal or discussing debating styles.

[AngelaG]

Right, my £0.02.

I do think that some of the non-contact/semi-contact stuff teaches bad habits, if taken in isolation. If you don't ever make contact how do you know that you are hitting properly? As you know, if you hit a heavy bag wrong it really hurts, and can in fact lead to broken bones. Teaching to punch at over extention, to use a hikite hand when not required, to bounce techniques, disregarding the point of stances etc. can lead on to bad habits if not corrected elsewhere.

Take Olympic TKD as an example. The fighters often bounce around with their arms hanging around them and no guard to be seen. The reason being that hand techniques don't tend to score so all the concentration is put into the legs. However a good guard does require some training, so if they haven't trained it then they are no better than your average guy on the street, except that maybe they have inflated sense of security?!

However, as with anything though, these things aren't often trained in isolation. People that dismiss kata dismiss it because they have only ever taken the performance into account, whereas a good dojo will take the performace as one small part of the whole.