The philosophy of sparring has been questionable with the various systems of Karate. For example many Shorin Ryu schools discourage sparring and believes that such breaks away the tradition on the purpose of Karate which is self defense. That is also the same case with Shotokan founder, Gichin Funakoshi who believe that sparring isn't necessary for realistic training. On the other hand, Kyokushin founder, Mas Oyama strongly encourage sparring and this is where Kyokushin practitioners test their skills and experience real combat situations but with certain limitations. Anyway, what are you opinions on this?
Hi 'Manila-X', Sparring is fun. (if you enjoy it). Sparring is good training if you are into competitions. Sparring is (almost always) complete rubbish if you are interested in self defence. That's my basic thoughts. Some others will differ - they are wrong. Some others will agree - they are knowledgeable (indeed they are goods amongst men).
I personally do not see why it needs to be an either or situation (not that you were suggesting that it is) There are many forms of 'Sparring', from Competition style points sparring (something my Club avoids) to Kata based Sparring, allowing Live, Pressure testing of Bunkai, all the way up to 'Realistic' scenario Drills (the latter 2 of which are at the Heart of what my Club would consider 'Sparring') In the end it all boils down to the aims of the Club and the aims of the individual - If the level of sparring, or lack there of, is in line with the Clubs Training methods, then it will serve its purpose. Regards, Travess
It might be useful for the OP to define what he means by sparring. I don't regard my bunkai pressure testing or bunkai flow drills as sparring, nor do I regard my scenario training simulation drills as sparring. The core reason being that I regard sparring as both people on an equal weighting of what they can use, whereas in the above one person is using their training and the other is role playing and using HAOV.
Which I think Highlights my point nicely. There is no hard and fast Doctrine to any one Group/Individuals perimeters. In my opinion, you should structure your 'Sparring' (a term I continue to use in inverted comas, as it is merely a title, whose contents can be extensively changed) to support your Training, not so that it fits nicely in to a pre-defined or pre-assumed idea. Regards, Travess
tht's mabuni though, not funakosh, so his point still stands. a more relevant point would be whether fubakoshi approved of kakidameshi independently of shiai kumite, which his younger students ran of whicj and which eventually resulted in sport krotty kumite
Look closer. The second quotation is Funakoshi. That picture has Mabuni, Funakoshi and Miyagi all endorsing sparring with armour.
My view is that any form of sparring is acceptable as long as it is done honestly. However, regardless of the type of sparring your dojo applies (or even none at all), you have to have some pressure testing to make sure your techniques are functional and your presence of mind is sufficient enough to use them. Whether this is with partner drills, sim days, knockdown tournaments (etc) is up to personal choice but there needs to be some there. I have always wondered about Sosai Oyama, what drove him to be the person he became, etc.
Sparring is what it is and cant be compared to real fighting. Pressure testing with realistic scenarios are more effective for combat IMO. I still spar regularly, however, it's not an essential practice to become an effective Martial Artist.
Lots of good points in this thread. I'd only add that if the goal of your kumite sparring is realism or preparation for some sort of MMA, it's not useful to you. (just my experience. I've found that the kumite stuff is basically just high-contact tag in my practice.)
I think it does depend on what type of kumite you practice. The love tap stuff you mentioned is pretty weak all round, but at least I can say the one thing my old club did well was that we had randori each week (full freestyle - kicks, punches, throws, locks, biting, etc) and that worked quite nicely.
I was brought up through the ranks with learning to do point sparring. Usually 3 points or 2 minutes, whichever came first. Or at black belt level, 5 points or 3 minutes. I don't view sparring and self-defense as the same thing though one could argue that sparring is a form of self-defense. You cannot sacrifice one for the other. I truly believe you should have them both. Self-defense teaches pressure points, street wise combative situations, how to control your attacker, etc. While sparring is good cardio, teaches movement, how to control your anger and emotions, and fighting strategies. Philosophies for both go hand in hand. They can be used interchangeably even if they aren't approached in the same manner. There are things I can do in self-defense that are not allowed in sparring, but there are things I do in sparring which wouldn't seem prudent or even necessary in self-defense. Teach them both; learn them both. There's no harm in that.
Well this is a bit interesting because I'm really thinking about sparring and the philosophies that the Japanese use while doing it, I just read a good book that I would recommend to anyone it's called when Buddhists attack. Is sparring a good practice habit, yes I think so, I don't really have a philosophy to speak of that supports this but I do have the belief that being exposed to a live attacker helps to condition your responses and techniques.
I think people should practice for what they desire to be able to do. Meaning, if you want to be able to defend yourself and react properly in day-to-day life situations then practice reacting to many different variations of scenarios built around your day-to-day conditions and potential conflicts. If you do it right, sparring is great for overall reflex development and fighting ability development, but not all sparring can easily be applied to day-to-day scenarios, and it's better to just prepare specifically for what you need in my opinion.
Just to add a point of discussion, I finished reading a book by Michael Clarke called "Shin Gi Tai: Karate training for mind, body and spirit". Very interesting read actually, well worth it for anyone who is interested in a differing viewpoint. Anyway, surprisingly enough he advocates against sparring because in his eyes, it can lead to developing a "boxing mentality", that rather than training to finish the job on the spot as soon as it arises if you have to. In his eyes, with too much sparring you can become relatively comfortable with not attacking areas of the body to finish it on the spot and become accustomed to more drawn out encounters and a "sporting mentality". It's one of the few times in the book where I am in utter disagreement with him, but I still find his view fascinating.
There needs to be a distinction made between Self-Protection/Defence vs Duelling. Self-Protection is a non-consensual fight scenario, where only one party wants to physically assault the other. A duel is a consensual fight, both parties have agreed to fight it out. Although there is some skills cross-over - there are significant differences in terms of the context of each - and your training regime needs to be adapted in each case. A consensual duel can be a street fight, sparring practice in a dojo, an MMA competition bout etc - the point being that at some stage in the process both parties have decided to fight. There is nothing wrong with training for this situation, as long as you recognise the context in which your training applies. If all you do is sparring in the dojo and that is the only time you experience physical confrontation - it can lead to the misapprehension that real "non-consensual" fights are like sparring. So really the only question is "what am I training for?"
