13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dod
Dod's picture
Kumite

I wondered how many of the people here who have an overall training goal of self-defense still include some sports-style kumite in their training:

It has benefits because it gets the adrenalin going,  is good for fitness,   lets you learn first-hand the differences between the two approaches,   has some cross-over in technique,  and at least it is facing an opponent rather than just punching the air.

Or do people avoid it altogether because it confuses objectives and creates habits like lack of power generation,  and constantly reverting to long distance instead of instilling the mindset of  closing and dominating until the conclusion using any technique?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Dod,

I wrote an article called “In defence of combat sports” a little while ago that is relevant to this discussion: http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/defence-combat-sports

Dod wrote:
I wondered how many of the people here who have an overall training goal of self-defence still include some sports-style kumite in their training

I don’t do any kind of sparring that would be close to competitive WKF style kumite. And the reason for that is simply that we are a non-competitive club so why practise something you’ll never use or test. We do however include “fighting skills” in practise. That includes closing gaps, back and forth footwork, guards, seeking a clinch, taking a fight to the floor, etc.; none of which is directly relevant to self-protection. I want a holistic martial education so we do both, but both “fighting” and “self-protection” skills and drills are clearly defined, labelled and kept separate.

Dod wrote:
It has benefits because it gets the adrenalin going,  is good for fitness,   lets you learn first-hand the differences between the two approaches,   has some cross-over in technique,  and at least it is facing an opponent rather than just punching the air.

You should do all that is self-protection training too. Any viable system must include live practise against non-compliant opponents. It would be false choice to say “Live competition style sparring or no live practise?” when we there exists live self-protection drills, scenario training, etc.

I wrote a three part piece on live drills for self-protection a few years ago:

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/how-spar-street-part-1-iain-abernethy

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/how-spar-street-part-2-iain-abernethy

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/how-spar-street-part-3-iain-abernethy

Dod wrote:
Or do people avoid it altogether because it confuses objectives and creates habits like lack of power generation,  and constantly reverting to long distance instead of instilling the mindset of  closing and dominating until the conclusion using any technique?

I know plenty of people who do both combat sports and self-protection and are very competent at both. Confusion in training is what leads to confusion in practise. If sport methods are all you have, then obviously that is what you will resort to and they are unlikely to fare well. However, you can practise both so long as you keep the demarcations clear.

Just as people could easily play both table tennis and regular tennis without confusing the two; we can train for differing types of conflict. It’s only when people are told there is no difference and hence people are inadvertently encouraged to “play Ping-Pong with a tennis racket” that we have problems.

All the best,

Iain

Dod
Dod's picture

Hi Iain

Thanks for the detailed response.  I take your point about the sparring for the street and protection drills also providing the benefits I mentioned (I also have your kata based sparring download which I thought was great).

Specifically,  when advised to pull back and exit quicker after punching in sports kumite sparring instead of staying close, it felt wrong to me and as if it could form a “wrong” habit.   However,  I take your point about being able to play both table tennis and regular tennis. 

It seems clearer to me now that the club I train at club would benefit greatly not just from more bunkai based training (I continue to chip away at my training partners on this!),  but more live practice of self protection skills against non-compliant opponents as a key sparring method,  which you pointed out as being essential for a viable system.  Clear demarcation and emphasis on the differences with sports kumite being essential if that is also to be continued without confusing the skill sets.

Thanks

Dod

Dod
Dod's picture

To put it another way,  the above is useful in that I can continue to persuade my training partners into more reality-based training without needing to persuade them away from sports style sparring as long as the demarcation is sufficiently emphasised!

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

Everyone trains for different reasons. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of people here on Iain's forum like to focus their training on practical karate for self defense, but we may train/teach at dojo where other people have other goals. Quite a few of the kids and teens in my dojo, and even some of the adults, really enjoy competing. My Sensei also enjoys competing. They recently started participating in WKF competitions, since the old "open" circuit in the region shut down, and they are enjoying the challenge. In support of that, some of the sparring at the dojo--particularly when a tournament is coming up--will be done using the tournament format. Those of us who aren't interested in competition tend to spar more like MMA, but also including standing joint locks, groin strikes, and simulated eye and throat strikes, so we can bring in more of the kata. We also do "self defense sparring," which is more like scenario drills for pressure testing, and gets even more kata material involved.

As Iain said, it's also possible to do both. My Sensei has no problem switching between his tournament-style sparring and his more practical material. I will say that some of our students, and even my Sensei, have had times where they revert to our more practical approach in certain situations in tournaments. We get penalties for that, but I figure that having that approach be your default fallback mindset is probably a good thing :P.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dod wrote:
To put it another way,  the above is useful in that I can continue to persuade my training partners into more reality-based training without needing to persuade them away from sports style sparring as long as the demarcation is sufficiently emphasised!

I’m pleased my response was of some use and I totally agree with the above. You don’t need to abandon sport (which can be a very positive pursuit when viewed on its own terms) in order to also do self-protection. A friend of mine teaches both side by side and I’ve seen his students easily move between the differing types of kumite with no “inadvertent crossover”.

It’s only when people train for the “by-product” – i.e. train sport in the mistaken belief that is will somehow also prepare the student for self-protection – or blend the two through a lack of clear instruction and demarcation that we get problems.

Basically, define the goal clearly and learn the strategies, tactics and techniques that enable that goal to be achieved.

All the best,

Iain

css1971
css1971's picture

Not "free" sparring as you'd see in a competition ring.

Guided sparring I guess I'd call it, or someone said Yin/Yang sparring is the closest we get, where one side is actively attacking and the other defending. One person trying to use a specific technique or set of techniques while the other tries to stop him. So one might only be allowed to punch while the other is only allowed to defend against punches without retaliating. Or both sides are only allowed to punch and defend against punches with uke or one side may be trying to maintain an arm grip while the other attempts to remove it...  etc etc continuing with all types of techniques or classes of techniques you think can be done safely. It's also "light" contact, we don't have the kit for full contact at the moment. The more gritty stuff has to be done separately in a more controlled way.

The problem I see with completely free sparring in the dojo environment is the dojo is lack of a specific objective, you might say it helps with the unexpected or dealing with chaotic attacks, but the dojo is too divorced from reality, range as you say is a big problem and you end up dropping to the same sets of techniques you're comfortable with at a range you're comfortable with and avoiding things you're not comfortable with.

Range you can enforce with belts, (or loops of rope) looped through your belt BTW.

css1971
css1971's picture

"Specifically,  when advised to pull back and exit quicker after punching in sports kumite sparring instead of staying close, it felt wrong to me"

It's the correct tactic for sports.  Same as fencing, lunge and recover. You will lose almost all sparring matches if you don't "touch and get out". Try it against a non karateka on the street and they'll close to 18" (50cm) and you'll have no way to respond. Been there, done that and got the t-shirt; black and blue it was, edges of purple, green and yellow... some red mixed in.

Converting a club to more practical methods might be a bit of a challenge. Though most karateka like to believe what they are learning is useful outside, there's often no understanding of what outside looks like. Range closes off and opens up whole classes of fighting techniques, they do or don't work as advertised based on range. You could start with enforcing shorter ranges, almost all of the sports stuff will immediately stop working.

Dillon
Dillon's picture

I think the key for having sport and self protection training side by side is, as Iain said, making sure that the context you're training for at any given point is crystal clear. If you train for personal protection and also play basekball, you probably don't have to worry that you'll accidentally go for a layup in the middle of an assault, because the context for the skillsets is so radically different. It's only when you don't make that clear distinction in training, or when you train for one context and assume it's also training for another, that you wind up crossing wires. Point style competition is a different enough skillset to personal protection that it shouldn't be hard to keep them distinct. 

Ian H
Ian H's picture

I suppose a lot depends if self-protection is your only goal, or if you have others as well.  There's the additional question of whether you get to "set the agenda" of your training, or whether you have training partners, dojomates, whomever, with whom you train and who might be wanting to practice kumite.

I would think that training both would be fine.  The main issue you have to address for self-protection training, I suggest, is mental: understanding the nature of the situations and violence types that you would face in a self protection situation; hopefully whatever training you do (whether kumite or not) you always are thinking about what, if anything of it, you could use in a self-protection situation. You may get a great cardio & flexibility workout with your buddies when you all spend an afternoon on WKF-kumite-style jodan reverse hook kicks as they prepare for their next tournament ... 

... but you know not to try that when a bunch of thugs decide you are wearing the wrong team's colours in a dark alley late at night.  

Dod wrote:

Or do people avoid it altogether because it confuses objectives and creates habits like lack of power generation,  and constantly reverting to long distance instead of instilling the mindset of  closing and dominating until the conclusion using any technique?

My personal approach to a self defence situation would be one of "how quickly can I get away safely?" rather than "how can I close and dominate?".  So perhaps the "tournament kumite" idea of "one strike and out" may be more usefull than we often think.  

Dod
Dod's picture

Ian H wrote:
My personal approach to a self defence situation would be one of "how quickly can I get away safely?" rather than "how can I close and dominate?".  So perhaps the "tournament kumite" idea of "one strike and out" may be more usefull than we often think.

Ian,  You have a point,  and being able to extricate yourself and avoid being grabbed in order to escape is obviously important.  But I think you usually need to do some damage before you can escape and my original concern with “tournament kumite” was the quick point scoring attempt often at full stretch and not necessarily much power then reverting to distance and a prolonged to-and-fro fight.  Linked to that,  most of the options for finishing when in-close are not allowed in “tournament kumite” so  there is no choice but to back up.

Having said  that,  there have been some good points made and I think kumite is fine when you bear in mind the different approach.

Ian H
Ian H's picture

Dod wrote:

Ian,  You have a point,  and being able to extricate yourself and avoid being grabbed in order to escape is obviously important.  But I think you usually need to do some damage before you can escape and my original concern with “tournament kumite” was the quick point scoring attempt often at full stretch and not necessarily much power then reverting to distance and a prolonged to-and-fro fight.  Linked to that,  most of the options for finishing when in-close are not allowed in “tournament kumite” so  there is no choice but to back up.

Having said  that,  there have been some good points made and I think kumite is fine when you bear in mind the different approach.

How timely things are sometimes!

Just today I happened to be listening to one of Sensei Abernethy's podcasts while driving from town to town ... it was the 12th December, 2014 one about a "moral, healthy and effective approach to violence" ... and at about 9:30 or so he reviewed comments from Past Masters about the "no first attack" concept ... the quote from Funakoshi starting at the 12-minute mark really struck home with me, and reminded me of our discussion here so much.

Allow me to paraphrase the quote:

"When escape is impossible, consider self-defence techniques.  Do not display an intent to attack, but let your attacker become careless and then attack, concentrating all your force into one strike to a vulnerable spot, so you can escape and seek help during the surprise."

Of course that doesn't sound like an entire kumite match ... but it does sound far more like a single point-scoring opportunity in a kumite match than I was expecting it would.  I think that good kumite training can help with that sort of self defence: the emphasis on being able to launch an attack without any tell-tale signs or warnings, the emphasis on striking first, the emphasis on "getting out" and pulling away ... these aspects of kumite training can help.  That said, I totally agree with you about other aspects of kumite not being well-suited to a self-defence situation, and one would of course need to address those weaknesses with other training.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

My personal take on this is that we should always train in specific ways for specific goals, and not train in an unspecific way for any inadvertent “cross over” that that may be provided.

If you want to be good and self-protection, we should specifically practise for self-protection; rather than training for sport because of any overlap. The overlap is small and there are innumerable points where the two disciplines are diametrically opposed.

Training in sport style kumite is not a good way to train for self-defence. There are two very different activities. However, sport style kumite has value in and of itself: it does not need to make an external appeal to self-protection in order to have validity.

This article covers my thinking on this:

In defence of combat sports: http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/defence-combat-sports

In my view, we can train for both self-defence and sport, but they require different training if we are too achieve competence in them both.

All the best,

Iain