Talk:Contact sport/Archive 1

Untitled
this article should be expanded

and at least one reference to to the meaning of the term 'contact sport'. Currently someone could legitimately delete the whole damn thing and put a dictionary definition up, but this is more informative. Assuming it can be verified.

Removed the section regarding the diminished contact with Australian Rules Football, statement in the reference was made by someone with limited knowledge of Aussie Rules and had no idea about the rules changes, as said in the article. The AFL hasn't reduced the level of contact and fully endorses the contact as it is one of the things that makes the sport unique, it just has introduced rules to limit potentially serious injury causing contact such as head-high hits, off-the-ball, shepherds (blocks) and rough conduct that had no legitimate place in situation around the ball, or in other words unnecessary rough conduct - as a majority of the rule interpretations are left to the umpires, rather than have definate rules, and if the rough conduct was within the spirit of the game and below the head then it is legal.

Just a quick clarification of my edit and removing the reference - Taekwondo is a semi-contact sport, even if powerful strikes can be delivered. The ultimate objective in TKD competition is to score points, so the emphasis is on speed rather than knockout power, and techniques used in competition are performed with that in mind.

Compare with Kyokushin Karate, the archetypal full-contact Karate where matches may be won on points, punching to the head is not allowed, but the main objective is to physically dominate the opponent and strikes aim to incapacitate rather than simply register a clear hit for points. Knockouts are also much more common and actively sought after.

Point-sparring styles, where the action stops once a point is scored, like TKD and Full-contact Karate (as opposed to knockdown karate) are considered semi-contact styles in the martial arts community. This takes into account not only the actual level of contact but the intensity and the "feel" of the fight (need to describe that better), so even while someone may very well get KO'd or injured in a point-sparring match, the term "full contact" is not used in this context. This is why i replaced the previous image with one more typical of a full-contact match.

I will further research the term "full-contact karate" and its use, and update as needed.

A very important part of full-contact striking arts such as Boxing and Muay Thai which is completely absent from all point-sparring styles is recieving a strike; Since there is no stopping for points, the fighters often need to deal with continuous blows, off-balancing, and damage prevention. A fighter may risk recieving a clean strike on purpose, in order to deliver a more powerful one - since the fight does not stop. A fighter on the offensive may continue striking even though the strikes are being succesfully blocked, in order to tire and damage the defending fighter. Several styles - most notably Muay Thai - often use repeated strikes on the same limb in order to disable it and render the opponent unable to attack or defend effectively.

After writing this last paragraph i feel that this information can add to the article. Feel free to use it or add similar info, i will likely do so myself when i feel that i can create a new, more in-depth form of the article appropriate for Wikipedia. 62.1.247.119 00:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You removed a reference without providing any of your own. Please try to find some references for the changes, since ultimately, without references, it's just unverifiable text. Apparently one practitioner of WTF taekwondo considers it a full contact sport, and any disagreement by the general martial arts community needs to be confirmed. And in my opinion, WTF Taekwondo hardy classifies as semi-contact: knockouts are allowed, and full-power strikes are allowed as well, even though this isn't a primary objective. In the same way as above you could argue that judo or most grappling isn't full-contact, since the aim is often to score points. -- M a r c u s      06:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As i pointed out, it is not just the level of contact that makes a full-contact sport; the extremely popular "semi-contact" ruleset used by many styles is very similar to Taekwondo, and they are both point-sparring fighting styles. Full-power strikes are mostly allowed, but they are inferior in a setting where only the first strike matters, so faster and les powerful techniques are used, resulting in a radically different style of fighting. Actually trying to injure the opponent, even if technically allowed sometimes, it is considered very bad form and ineffective in competition.


 * Grappling is a bit more complicated because resistance and other factors come into it. This is the reason that i specifically mention "...full strength against a resisting opponent..." and "...within the Martial Arts community." Most non-martial artists would not think of Judo when the term "full contact style" is mentioned, they will think of a striking style such as kickboxing.


 * The terms "full contact" and "full contact style" are not the same. "Full contact" (full power strikes) can be found in semi-contact styles, but the term "full contact style" is used to describe an altogether different mode of fighting. I hope that clears it up.


 * It is not easy to find proper references for all this, as the world of Martial Arts is fragmented and there is, to my knowledge, no standard, universally accepted source of information. 62.1.247.72 03:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know it's difficult finding sources, especially in martial arts related articles; there might be some books about the subject matter though. The full contact / full contact style separation sounds resonable, so perhaps it could be mentioned in the article? (even though unsourced; perhaps sources can be found later).-- M a r c u s      07:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed "Football" reference to "American football", since THIS IS NOT AMERICA. And because every single other country in the world calls football football.
 * So Canada, Australia, Ireland, and parts of England aren't countries? I wasn't aware.  But your change was appropriate, even if your knowledge of English dialects is weak.49giantsharks (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What is this "philjendo or AFC" and why is it here? A quick Google showed me that it seems to be someone's Filipinio martial art school or system, and may be trying to advertise? I'm going to remove it, but if anyone thinks there's a good reason to keep it, you can revert I guess. Chaos0mega 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm... are the hits in rugby league really delivered "with the aim of causing a knockout or otherwise rendering the opponent unable to continue the match"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.232.92 (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

suhail
Having hockey listed as a limited contact sport is not correct. Hockey legally allows hitting of most forms, at least at the pro level, with penalties issued for infractions likely to cause injury. This is very similar to rules in American football and other similar sports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffmann808 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur, Ice Hockey at the professional level has always been regarded as a full-contact sport. It is also listed as a full-contact sport in the Ice Hockey wikipedia page, as Collision-type.  Therefore I am going to switch it around- if someone wishes to make a footnote about it in a semi-pro/amature match, feel free to do so.  But I feel it is incorrect to mislabel a contact sport along the lines of a sport where contact is usually  uncommon. KyprosNighthawk (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

soccer/football contact
I always understood soccer as full contact, given that one can break a players leg with a tackle as long as contact with the ball occured first and the tackle was not from behind (FIFA rules). I suppose you can say this contact is incident to play on the ball, but that same (at leat similar) is true for American football. That is a hard tackle can be delivered to a ball carrier with certain limitaions. I would think "full contact" would be defined as allowing direct full force contact, even for limited circumstances, and that such contact is not atypical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.107.150.106 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree: the rules of soccer/football are absolutely commensurate with the definition of full contact at almost all competitive levels of the sport. Legal contact between players allows for sufficient force to incidentally knock a player from her or his feet to the ground. This is common at most competitive levels of the game. Such contact exceeds both the moderate and rare standards for limited-contact sports. Homicidalcow (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that lacrosse, water polo and team handball are very far from full-contact. There's no more contact than in basketball or field hockey. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I just deleted the mention of soccer as a "collision sport" in the quoted definitions (where it was also listed as a "contact" sport). While I agree that it's debatable whether contact in soccer is on par with American football or with basketball, the quoted source lists it only as the latter, and we should not be misquoting sources. 209.165.166.193 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

fencing / kendo etc.?
Where should we put sports like fencing in these categories? Contact is certainly the intention of the sport, but it's with a weapon, and generally not possible with the body. Markjeff (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)