waht contact level would you call this?

[Mr Punch]

Oh, man,

where to start...

I have no time, but I'll come back and address your post in detail later...

I just wanted to say that you are entitled to your own opinion and I wasn't trying to belittle you or say that I was right and you were wrong at all.

So for my part I am really sorry if it came across that way and for your part... maybe you could be a little less sensitive and not see my post as a personal attack. The 'who are you' bit was just a joke - thart's all... you could be a super badass james bond bruce lee mofo for all i know - I've read a lot of your posts and agree on many things (and your previous post on this was interesting)

In this case you have a valid PoV, but I think you have a couple of things a bit off...

Everytime I say 'I think', it's the same as saying IMHO or whatever: it's not stating a fact - of course it's just stating my opinion...

Sorry

and back laterin the spirit of discussion.

[mantis108]

Fair enough, I am sorry if I got jumpy. If that "who are you" was meant as a joke, it could have been easily fixed by indicating it with (j/k) quotation.

Anyway, I am here to make friends not foe. So I apologize for my over reacting.

Please share your view. Thanks

Sincerely,

Mantis108

[rogue]

That was full contact. Hard to tell, but it might have been open hand shots to the head & face.

That's what we do when gear isn't on hand and we go about as hard as the guys in the vid. Funny though that even with someone getting knocked down or staggered that I still wouldn't call it full contact. Not patty paws but still not full contact, but that may because we pull our strikes when the other guy is unable to fight back.

[Yum Cha]

I'd call it full contact. Not "no holds barred" or anything goes, but the issue is, trying to hit as hard as they can. I'm sure there were some informal rules to protect the fighters, but it was pretty competitive.

I can't tell, open hand or closed to the face, but there looked to be some closed hand to the face stuff. Open hands have to sweep, lots of those shots looked like straight in shots.

It was the face shots and head shots that determined the outcomes, there must have been some significant contact there.

Somebody said it couldn't be full contact because there are no pads, well, this goes back to so many threads in the past. Full contact takes on another dimension without the protection. The cost of entry goes up. You don't see guys wading in covering up behind the pads and than opening up blindly.

It looked like takedowns were allowed, just no follow through. These guys weren't grapplers, and to assume its not full contact because they don't grapple is irrelevent noise.

The same as saying, because there are no nut shots or eye gouges, its not full contact....

As for being aesthetically pleasing, I though it looked good. You could see training and stylistic skills being used, heart and technique.

I did see a lot of raised elbow, square facing right-left-right-left straight punches, which are pretty common, probably due to their effectiveness.

Nice vid

[bakxierboxer]

.......

I can't tell, open hand or closed to the face, but there looked to be some closed hand to the face stuff. Open hands have to sweep....

No, they do not.

As for being aesthetically pleasing, I though it looked good. You could see training and stylistic skills being used>....

It seems that you're "easily pleased".

I did see a lot of raised elbow, square facing right-left-right-left straight punches, which are pretty common, probably due to their effectiveness.

With pretty much ZERO directed to the midsection.

Pete

[Mr Punch]

Thanks Mantis... Group hug!

I don't know what your point is. Those fights you just referenced were really crap, right? So you're saying these are really crap?

Your partiality or rather double standard towards the Kyokushin karate doesn't change that fact and it certain doesn't make Kyokushin Holier than Kung Fu. I don't understand why people have to belittle the Taiji Vs Tibetant White Crane fight.

My 'right?' was asking you for confirmation... because the opinion of most people on most of these boards is that that fight sucked. I wasn't actually saying so, but I really didn't know what your point was so I was asking what you thought of the Chinese fight, and from then what your comparison point was about this one.

As for kyokushin, I’m not particularly partial to it: but I’ve had a little experience sparring and training with some kyokushin people.

It was a bout for charity and it was a older gentleman who would put his own well being on the line using the same darn format as those kyiokushin guys for charity. Have you fought for charity lately?

I didn't know it was a fight for charity... that's cool. However, I'm not sure about the age point: at least with the taiji these are supposed to be arts that take years to develop into useful and devastating fighting skills: so from that perspective older guys should be in their prime, no? Then again, I don't know how old those guys were...!

And no, though I don't really think it's relevant, I've never fought for charity, though I have done vast numbers of throws and breakfalls and sword cuts etc, for charity. And FWIW, I think fighting hard contact, limited rules, no protection, is a pretty daft thing to do for charity!

All I am saying is that these fights and the other "Chinese Kung Fu" ones are of similar if not the same format. All of them are allow to punch and kick but not clinching or ground fighting (bare knuckles also).

Thank you, the above cleared up what I was asking you about where you stood on both of the fights.

So you have the ability to discern the differences between all different fighting format presumeably with their strength and weakness and you don't think it's possible to break down the bouts and form distinctions between someone who's bulldozing and someone who's really using strategy and tactics. How is a war of attrition slug fest not a "p!ssing contest"? Now I didn't say it wasn't the case with the Chinese fights. I think you really wanted to said "you" (meaning me) having a different view than you which makes me stupid and you oh so smart.

I don't know if you've ever seen many kyokushin on kyokushin fights, but IMO, they look more like untrained, unlovely slugfests than this one. You said that you thought this wasn't a great example of the potentially beautiful moves of kyokushin, but I think it actually showed more variety and style than kyo vs kyo. They didn't know what was coming against yiquan so they had to be a bit cagey and couldn't just bulldoze. I think these bouts show a lot more inventive use of footwork and evasion from the kyo guys than their usual slugfests.

But anyway, since we are talking about fighting skills (and Oso started this thread because he wanted people’s opinions on the level of contact, not technical merit or aesthetics) bulldozing/muscling through is a relevant strategy, and as relevant as feinting for example.

And I really did mean that I didn’t distinction was possible generally, not as a direct reference to you.

LOL, one of those guys was Matsui who is the Kancho the Kyokushin HQ, which regularly turns out some of the hardest Kyokushin fighters in Japan! Who are you, again!?

EXCUSE ME, indeed I am a nobody. That doesn't mean that I have no opinion or I am not entitle to one. With your logic, every one trains at Gracies HQ would be bad ass mo-fo? No one from there every get their ass kicked. What kind of logic is that? You wanted to subject to pedigree worship? By all means, be my guest.

I pointed out that one of them was Matsui in response to your statement that you didn’t think it was a good show of kyokushin: i.e. because it’s Matsui (who is the HQ kancho) it should be a reasonable level. Then, in case you said anything along the lines of, “Ah, but Matsui isn’t that great, and the HQ trains a lot of bad fighters too, compared to [wherever]”, I pointed out that he does turn out a lot of good fighters. I wasn’t trying to say that all his fighters would be bad-ass, just that although some of the kyokushin have been criticized for weakness by some of their more hardcore offshoots, some kyokushin is still good.

The ‘Who are you?’ was completely just a gag… just by saying that I wouldn’t judge the head of kyokushin’s kyokushin because I don’t know enough about it… wasn’t very funny I guess Sorry.

[Mr Punch]

That's part of my point. You don't think the so called Yiquan could have been "cross trained" other stuff before they have those bouts? There are rumours that Chinese Yiquan guy "cross trained" other than what they claimed "pure" Yiquan training.

From what I understand, Yiquan is by its nature more of a way of moving and maintaining body structure while attacking and being attacked rather than sets of techniques, so yes, all the Yiquan guys I’ve met have cross-trained… with respect, I don’t see how this is relevant to the contact debate.

I don't think they are crapy and I never have said that but I think they could have allowed clinch, takedowns, and ground (10 seconds rule). They are capable. Why not up the ante? That's just my opinion.

Well, I don’t know. It seems to me that they are fighting as hard contact as they can within their rule-set. If you are saying because they are not clinching, takedowns and ground that they are no fighting hard contact, I don’t think that is accurate. As to why they didn’t I don’t know, but since this was for Japanese cable TV (you can also find the edited version on youtube – it’s horrible, and cuts out all of the bits where it looks like Yiquan is winning!) presumably they had certain safety or insurance issues.

LOL again... and you can say it's it was horrible and childish based on what? And is faking supposed to be some indicator of a higher level of skill? Do you have any experience of Yiquan - or is it just bias based on a couple of things you've seen or read? These Japanese Yiquan guys punch like mules... they cause a lot of hurt, and some of them train as hard contact as Kyokushin...

So a boxer who does bobbing, waving, etc or Ali's footwork and faking is not an indicator of sophisticate skills?

No, of course, Ali and many other boxers were excellent fakers and very very highly skilled. But conversely, that doesn’t mean arts or individuals who don’t fake so much are of low skill level… You seemed to be saying that because there was no faking in these bouts they somehow didn’t show a high level of skill. And getting back to the contact point: ‘just bulldozing through’ is a higher contact level than faking!

Anyone can punch like a mule (within their own weight class) with descent training, that's doesn't make Yiquan anything special. I don't seem to recall the clip showed any knock out by the Yiquan guys or anything technically superior other than your observation of punch like a mule do you (technical knock down may be and just may be)?

I wasn’t saying that because Yiquan punch hard it makes them better than kyokushin. I was saying that because both sides punch hard (and furthermore, because some of the kyokushin guys were forced to be hesitant) it’s an indication of how heavy the contact was in these bouts. A lot of kyokushin bouts look like pretty light contact to the casual observer because bodies are not really rocked about, but then they practice hitting each other full-contact, no protection all the time so appearances are deceptive, and what often looks like schoolboy gut punch would have many of us rolling on the floor gasping for breath!

Hope that clears up some of my opinion!

[Mr Punch]

Somebody said it couldn't be full contact because there are no pads, well, this goes back to so many threads in the past. Full contact takes on another dimension without the protection. The cost of entry goes up. You don't see guys wading in covering up behind the pads and than opening up blindly.

You're probably referring to me.

I said that full contact without pads by its nature leaves people injured. So, I'm thinking they're pulling even if only a little. Again, this wasn't some underground stuff, this is some amateur footage from a TV shoot.

I agree completely with the fact that (and how) it changes the dynamics of a fight to be wearing pads of course.

[Mr Punch]

No, they do not.

I thought I saw some too. I'll check again.

It seems that you're "easily pleased".

Me too! Could it be (SHOCK!) that people have a different idea of what is aesthetically pleasing???

With pretty much ZERO directed to the midsection.

Not necessarily accurate anyway, but what's your point? That it can't be hard contact because nobody's hitting the gut/chest?

When entry becomes more difficult because there's no padding, big shots and head-hunting relying on good timing become more important. Did you see Chuck Liddell get KOed by Rampage because he went for a body shot and left himself open to a big head shot? Happens all the time. In my experience of bare-knuckle, body shots are more often a dangerous waste of time than in say, boxing.

[bakxierboxer]

I thought I saw some too. I'll check again.

The "No, they don't." was specifically in response to "Open hands have to sweep.."

Not necessarily accurate anyway, but what's your point? That it can't be hard contact because nobody's hitting the gut/chest?

I don't "follow" any form of "full-contact".
In the few matches I have watched, I've seldom seen anything like a front kick to the midsection.... perhaps it's "outlawed" too?
OTOH, even Muay Thai is not big on allowing the Uechi-style pointed-toe front kicks.

When entry becomes more difficult because there's no padding, big shots and head-hunting relying on good timing become more important. Did you see Chuck Liddell get KOed by Rampage because he went for a body shot and left himself open to a big head shot? Happens all the time. In my experience of bare-knuckle, body shots are more often a dangerous waste of time than in say, boxing.

Given the "guard" positions used in those matches, there simply wasn't anything "there" to deter the use of front kicks which don't necessarily leave you open to "a big head shot".

[Samurai Jack]

I voted full-contact. Those guys didn't appear to be holding back to me. Several times I saw some good head shots. There were also knock downs and a couple of throws. If there had been no referee, it seems obvious to me that someone would have been hurt.

I didn't read the replies here, but the youtube comments were just another sad example of people who have little training expecting to see something like what they see demonstrated in class (read rehearsed) as opposed to an art used for real.

Real fighting isn't pretty. You are likely to throw as many "bad" punches as "good" ones. That's if you are "good".

[David Jamieson]

To me that's Hard contact w/courtesy.

Full contact is closed fist, gear or no.
Pretty dangerous and yeah they were trying to use the styles they have learned as opposed to looking like boxers, or wrestlers, or taekwondo guys or mma-ers.

In my opinion, schools that go at this level of intensity should allow for more realistic technique usage by simply allowing gear to be worn. mouth guards, cups at least!

Not the worst approach to martial arts I've seen if you get my inference. lol

[Oso]

I like the phrasing 'with courtesy'. Any level of sparring that isn't for money, honor or revenge should include the courtesy of not breaking something of your opponents.

[Becca]

Good poll idea Oso. In my book, if you are getting hard enough to fall to the ground, then its hard contact. Maybe not in others though?

Agree with this. Not trying to cause harm, so it's not full contact. But not pulling any strikes and using full power, so it's definantly hard.

[sanjuro_ronin]

To me that's Hard contact w/courtesy.

Bingo.
Though I would probably say more like Hard Contact with no intent to mutilaite and dumb body in dumpster.
Yours sounds better.

Kyokushin guys had a tendency to drill hard on most shots and drill full force when they pother guy is really open, bare knuckle fighting in which your unprotected fists smash into elbows tends to do that to you.
The head shots weren't all out either, but they were done to make a statement.