So much of these discussions are arguments about semantics. And any time it gets to "this is better than that", well I think we'd all best run for the hills. Not much light is being shed.
What's important in my book is to get intent and context to match. I don't want to be doing street fighting in a college wrestling match, and I don't want to be doing college wrestling in a boxing ring, and I don't want to be doing boxing head shots sans equipment on the street, and I don't want to be doing grueling BJJ ground work in a 3-on-1 gang attack.
What I personally do is my thing. But since you asked...Stryke wrote:
so which do you do ? , or do you do both ?
and if so is the difference confusing and known to your students ?
First, I tell my students that each of the many aspects of their training are like blind men touching the elephant. Any one tool (sport sparring, kata, conditioning, scenario training, slo-mo free-for-alls, studying martial literature, etc.) is like a single blind man touching the elephant, and trying to draw a conclusion. Without a supporting cast of other tools (other blind men) touching other aspects of "the elephant", we'll never be able to make out what "it" is.
But if we do enough different things, the collection of activities can begin to help us construct something useful.
And... There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone dwelling on a few things in the whole martial universe (sport sparring, kata, breaking things, scenario training, weight lifting) and enjoying just that. It's worth mentioning that doing kata and a little bit of bunkai may not get you far, but you can pass that on for generations. If someone several generations down figures out the Rosetta Stone and does all the supplemental training, then the ideas embodied in them will come to life.
And I don't believe people were any less mean hundreds of years ago, or empty-hand fighters were any less deadly. The only thing that's changed is an ability to share information faster and the ability to kill people efficiently from a distance with tools.
When I teach people sparring for a black belt test, I call that a sport (or close to it) with well-defined rules. It's a dual. Not many self defense situations look like it. Very few threatening situations in my experience involved just a single person. But... It's a start. And it's fun. And it gives us something to judge a person's ability to go from the fixed to the freeform.
I don't knock boxing. I did some in my day. One of my fellow Uechika when I was a younger lad was a champion intramural boxer. Muhammed Ali is a man I admire beyond words.
But it's boxing - no more and no less.
When I'm teaching kata, there are times (not always) when I show applications that my students absolutely understand they'll never use in a dojo sparring match. the Uechi kata are full of such things. These are the kinds of things that Rich and his Quantico buddies teach the young Marine recruits before they go off to wherever and get their lives put on the line. That ain't black belt test sparring. My students understand that difference. They know they'll never get to "play" in that world unless they want to sign up and wear some kind of uniform.
Call "it" what you want. Call what you hate (for whatever reason) something else, and have fun shooting it down. But whatever you do, I think the most important thing is to understand the intent, the context, and the limits. And by all means enjoy yourself on the path.
- Bill