# Define your style of Karate



## DaveB (Sep 8, 2015)

This is something I try periodically with varying degrees of success.

One of the biggest misconceptions people have in martial arts is that a art/style/system is defined by the training one gets in said art.

Martial arts are passed down from teacher to student, so it is inevitable that some training methods will be unchanged, but this is incidental to the art, not definitive. We know this because as arts and teachers grow in years the training changes. Change may be slow but it is inevitable and unstoppable.

Training is the vehicle that imparts and ingrains the art, not the art it's self.

My own feeling is that the art is a combination of mechanical (the technique of moving), tactical (the science of the fight situation) and strategic (the overall gameplan) principles. When these interlock seamlessly you have a true fighting system.

So my question is, without reference to training, can.you please define how you move, how that movement fits into a fight and what your overall plan for victory is - as defined by your karate style.


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 9, 2015)

How do you learn a style if training does not define the art? What does training define then? 

How I move: On the bubbeling well.
How it fits into a fight: The basis for fast, strong and dynamic techniques while maintaining structure.
Plan for victory: Screw you guys, I am going home


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 9, 2015)

Two spheres in front of my chest, two spheres in front of my legs. (Beach balls & Hippitty Hops) Punch and kick between those spheres. That's about it.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 9, 2015)

[QUOTE Cirdan, post: 1723814, member: 8132"]How do you learn a style if training does not define the art? What does training define then?[/QUOTE]

It defines how well you achieve your goals.

If my aim in Goju Ryu karate is to have the prettiest kata then I do hours of sparring and no kata and loose in the kata competition, that doesn't mean Goju is rubbish for making kata pretty.

What and how you train in any martial art class is entirely dependent on the teacher.

Imagine trying to say that shooting is ineffective in war because the instructor made you do more press-ups than shooting.



> How I move: On the bubbeling well.
> How it fits into a fight: The basis for fast, strong and dynamic techniques while maintaining structure.
> Plan for victory: Screw you guys, I am going home



I don't know what you mean by "on the bubbeling well"?


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 9, 2015)

> It defines how well you achieve your goals.
> 
> If my aim in Goju Ryu karate is to have the prettiest kata then I do hours of sparring and no kata and loose in the kata competition, that doesn't mean Goju is rubbish for making kata pretty.
> 
> ...



Hmm if you loose in a kata competition, in a style that focuses on kata, after having done NO kata training then it is you who have not followed the style`s training regimen.

Likewise if you never fire your gun you will be a bad shot. And? The army needs soldiers with field endurance, not a bunch of spoiled lazy marksmen.



> I don't know what you mean by "on the bubbeling well"?



Means I take energy from the ground and am able to do so because I am empty to spring / being nosy.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 9, 2015)

So here's an example. I would have started with this but I was time pressed.

Shotokan,- uses the whole body to generate power by making a solid connection with the floor but tends to move in a linear fashion using half steps from light bouncy footwork.

Tactically this leads to attempts to use distancing and timing to make decisive single shots but avoid entanglement in close quarters.

So the strategy going into any conflict situation: the Shotokan man creates space then gets in, smashing as much mass into the target as possible and out as quickly as possible until the opponent drops.

This is a generalisation, but it fits what I learned as traditional Shotokan, though my background is more non traditional.

Each area is maximised or defined by the others. Shotokan started with the ideology of destroying the opponent with one blow. So your mechanics then must be geared towards maximum power. To generate that power needs space and to land that power needs mobility.

The mechanics adapt to the mobility needs, the tactics are created to enable us to land that punch (I.e interception and countering using distance as a weapon). 

Lastly the strategy puts it all together so you can take it into any fight and just adapt the details.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 9, 2015)

Cirdan said:


> Hmm if you loose in a kata competition, in a style that focuses on kata, after having done NO kata training then it is you who have not followed the style`s training regimen.



Except there are plenty of karate schools that focus far more on sparring than kata. 

Your reply shows the main problem that sends people down this erroneous path: a desire to rigidly classify and box what is in fact a completely individual pursuit.

I have never encountered two teacher's who teach exactly the same regimen.

Go on any karate association website and look at the syllabus. You will find a list of goals, but not the means of attaining them. The training is up to the teacher in the class and the student outside of it. If a teacher knows a better way to teach something than the way he was taught there is no law that makes him not use it.

Unless you can produce such a law your position is untenable.


----------



## donald1 (Sep 9, 2015)

DaveB said:


> If my aim in Goju Ryu karate is to have the prettiest kata then I do hours of sparring and no kata and loose in the kata competition, that doesn't mean Goju is rubbish for making kata pretty.



not true! If you dont practice kata it will show! And will not look pretty...

EDIT: accidently quote wrong person


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 9, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Except there are plenty of karate schools that focus far more on sparring than kata.
> 
> Your reply shows the main problem that sends people down this erroneous path: a desire to rigidly classify and box what is in fact a completely individual pursuit.
> 
> ...



I think you just shot the straw man there 
I am probably the last person here to waste my time rigidly classifying terms or argue over favorite words, a popular patime on MT tho it appears 

If you want to train sparring then train sparring. If you want to train kata then train kata. You will be good at what you train. It is what you do that matters, not what you don`t do or what others are doing.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 9, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Two spheres in front of my chest, two spheres in front of my legs. (Beach balls & Hippitty Hops) Punch and kick between those spheres. That's about it.



Sorry but that makes no sense to me.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 9, 2015)

Cirdan said:


> I think you just shot the straw man there
> 
> I am probakataly the last person here to waste my time rigidly classifying terms or argue over favorite words, a popular patime on MT tho it appears



And yet, when offered a scenario involving karate your immediate assumption was that enough kata practice that someone could compete was the norm for the group.

It is your assumptions that I shot, not any straw man.

If everyone may train as they wish, how can training be definitive of any art?


----------



## O Saru (Sep 9, 2015)

Back on topic:

My style is Kempo & Goju Karate. I have substituted some kata with Kobayashi Shorin-Ryu kata and added Kobudo to give a more complete experience of the martial arts. Great emphasis is put on breathing and enbu-line movement. Bone hardening techniques are utilized so that students can take a tremendous amount of punishment and still continue fighting. 

Bunkai is practiced during every class after kata so that students learn why kata is practiced. Students are encouraged to find their own bunkai based on their natural movement so they can use it in an actual fight. 

Tournament fighting is allowed, but kata movement must be used heavily. This is both to learn control and precision.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 9, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Sorry but that makes no sense to me.


That's because it is so advanced, only 1% of the population could possibly understand.


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 10, 2015)

DaveB said:


> And yet, when offered a scenario involving karate your immediate assumption was that enough kata practice that someone could compete was the norm for the group.
> 
> It is your assumptions that I shot, not any straw man.
> 
> If everyone may train as they wish, how can training be definitive of any art?



You "offered" me a scenario where you, for some reason, would take part in a kata competition despite not training kata at all and then you loose said competition. Now why you would do this I sure do not understand but obviously it would be the norm for people who wish to compete in kata to train kata.



> If my aim in Goju Ryu karate is to have the prettiest kata then *I do hours of sparring and no kata and loose in the kata competition*, that doesn't mean Goju is rubbish for making kata pretty.



Training defines the art because training is what you do in the arts. If you want to practice the art of painting then you paint. If you want to do ballet then you train ballet. But you want to do kata but train sparring? Whatever point there is supposed to be to this is lost on me, unless this is yet another self important rant against traditional training methods. Yawn


----------



## DaveB (Sep 10, 2015)

It's not a rant against traditional training, this thread specifically asked to avoid training in the responses.

I have no problem with traditional training or TMA, but the activities you do to train in karate are not exclusive to karate. There is no copyright on the training methods of boxing that makes using a speed ball or a heavy bag or jogging, exclusively boxing. Standing on posts in horse stance does not define your martial arts as Shoalin.

The training is the route to your goal. Usually the goal of specific martial arts is to be able to use the methods encapsulated in the system tofight or defend yourself. Those methods and concepts are what define the martial art.

Look at the example I gave for Shotokan: are you seriously suggesting that whether or not a person did Sanbon or gohon kumite in class is more important, a better definition of the persons martial art than the methods and mechanics he has learned to employ?


----------



## DaveB (Sep 10, 2015)

O'Saru, thanks for the description, but I think you've fallen into the training trap. 

Your training sounds great, but I know nothing about how your karate style fights; what principles you learn and how those principles come together to win against opponent's?

Touch of Death, I'm honoured to be discussing with someone so knowledgeable.  What type of ma do you study?


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 10, 2015)

Obviously you are talking to the wall behind me rather than trying to have a conversation so I`ll leave this thread now and leave you two to continue what seems like an absolutely facinating discussion and exchange of facts and very well though out analysis of the matters at hand. Bye


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 10, 2015)

DaveB said:


> O'Saru, thanks for the description, but I think you've fallen into the training trap.
> 
> Your training sounds great, but I know nothing about how your karate style fights; what principles you learn and how those principles come together to win against opponent's?
> 
> Touch of Death, I'm honoured to be discussing with someone so knowledgeable.  What type of ma do you study?


Kenpo. You will find the spheres in a thing called the Universal Pattern. You put yourself in the middle. The lines represent all the possibilities, but its the circles that make you move well, which then limit your possibilities. I am sure your system uses something similar. There are quite a few patterns out there, which you may or may not find useful.


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 10, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Kenpo. You will find the spheres in a thing called the Universal Pattern. You put yourself in the middle. The lines represent all the possibilities, but its the circles that make you move well, which then limit your possibilities. I am sure your system uses something similar. There are quite a few patterns out there, which you may or may not find useful.



Does the strong geometric shape of spheres (and the lesser circles) also aid in deflection at all angles or is this more representative of other patterns?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 10, 2015)

...so anyways, if you think of the circles as solid objects that you aren't allowed to penetrate, you will be moving alright.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 10, 2015)

Cirdan said:


> Does the strong geometric shape of spheres (and the lesser circles) also aid in deflection at all angles or is this more representative of other patterns?


Well, if you can deflect, as it were, you are better positioned.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 10, 2015)

Cirdan said:


> Does the strong geometric shape of spheres (and the lesser circles) also aid in deflection at all angles or is this more representative of other patterns?


I'm not big on the lesser circles, because, they are like red herrings; they give you power, but the subtract from your speed.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 10, 2015)

Thanks TOD, I'll look it up.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 10, 2015)

Let me give you an example everyone can understand. Shooting a basket is the same as shooting between the circles.


----------



## O Saru (Sep 10, 2015)

DaveB said:


> O'Saru, thanks for the description, but I think you've fallen into the training trap.
> 
> Your training sounds great, but I know nothing about how your karate style fights; what principles you learn and how those principles come together to win against opponent's?



Sorry, I thought it was implied. Our fighting uses enbu lines (North, South, East, West, NW, NE, SW, SE) to defend against an attack. This would depend on where the opponent is, how much bigger or smaller he/she is, and what a student is comfortable with in meeting with an attack.

We have no such thing as a block. Uke translates most commonly as "Reception" or "Someone who receives". I don't allow the word "block." I believe it pigeon-holes students in to thinking that something is only defensive. All offensive techniques can be defensive and visa versa.

Our styles also has grappling techniques (pulled from kata) that we practice often. This is very useful to weaker students that cannot do much damage to a big, strong opponent.

Every student spars differently, using these philosophies. We start with tournament rules, then strip them away in to more MMA-style rules as they progress. Advanced students have no rules except biting, eye gouging, and groin contact. Those techniques are allowed, but without physical contact. We don't like to mame each other. It slows down training.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 11, 2015)

That sounds like a very comprehensive training programme. Are the embu lines a Goju thing or kempo?

I presume you use them by taking angles to avoid the power line of the enemy's attack? 

Are there specific areas of each style that you feel work well together?


----------



## DaveB (Sep 11, 2015)

> Obviously you are talking to the wall behind me rather than trying to have a conversation so I`ll leave this thread now and leave you two to continue what seems like an absolutely facinating discussion and exchange of facts and very well though out analysis of the matters at hand. Bye



Translation: "damn, he's right. But I can't say that after being so dismissive, so let me bail out and pretend I'm too good to debate.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 11, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> I'm not big on the lesser circles, because, they are like red herrings; they give you power, but the subtract from your speed.



Thanks TOD, but I just can't picture it. It really must be too advanced!


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 11, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Translation: "damn, he's right. But I can't say that after being so dismissive, so let me bail out and pretend I'm too good to debate.



Translation: I am a lonely troll now that no one wants to entertain me boohoo!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Say hello to my ignore list.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 11, 2015)

Because starting a thread about the technical and tactical elements of different ma styles is serious trolling.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 11, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Because starting a thread about the technical and tactical elements of different ma styles is serious trolling.



It may or may not, I don't know but we have had a lot of faux serious posters who turned out to be trolling or just wanted to post how good BJJ is over everything else.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 11, 2015)

Surely not here?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 11, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Thanks TOD, but I just can't picture it. It really must be too advanced!






  Here. I am trying to squeeze my moves between two globes, even on the step through. (Center line theory)


----------



## DaveB (Sep 12, 2015)

> It may or may not, I don't know but we have had a lot of faux serious posters who turned out to be trolling or just wanted to post how good BJJ is over everything else.



But.BJJ is the greatest! I once defeated a whole ninja army on my back. No kata could achieve that.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 12, 2015)

DaveB said:


> But.BJJ is the greatest! I once defeated a whole ninja army on my back. No kata could achieve that.


Did you defeat them, or did they just not see you?


----------



## tshadowchaser (Sep 12, 2015)

DaveB said:


> So my question is, without reference to training, can.you please define how you move, how that movement fits into a fight and what your overall plan for victory is - as defined by your karate style.



Not sure if this answer fits but I'll try.
My aim is to survive any physical confrontation by stopping an opponent even if it means maiming, crippling, or killing  ( if my life or the life of my family is immanent)
If talking gets me out of the situation great.
I try to  move in ways as to not get hurt.
My overall plan for victory depends on the situation at hand and I am always learning and evolving


----------



## DaveB (Sep 12, 2015)

TS, thanks for giving the thread topic a go!

I was thinking more along the lines of, what does your ma style do? How does Goju/shito/emei bagua (whatever you study), fight and how do the technical details you are taught fit into that?

One of the things I think has become the norm in ma's is the idea of throwing techniques together to fight. But arts exist to teach specific methods of fighting and have technical details that support those methods. 

I know what they are in the arts I study, but what are they in your arts.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 12, 2015)

Although I train MMA as well my style is Wado Ryu, which says it all, I love it, it's deep, effective and everything I need.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 12, 2015)

I've heard Wado Ryu has a strong focus on evasion, but fights closer to the opponent than Shotokan with more slipping type evasions.

 Is this light footwork done to enable the jujitsu locking aspects of the style or is it just in support traditional karate strikes?


----------



## tshadowchaser (Sep 12, 2015)

I'll try again:
We try to use specific targeting of certain parts of the body when we strike rather than just hitting a larger area of the body surface. We are not able to use the dislocations we instruct but we can immolate them to a degree in practice. Groin strikes are allowed but with some control where as eye strikes are discouraged but emulated within a safe distance or striking about the eyes.
Our foot work is usually to the side and we are constantly moving but a straight north/ south attack is also used.
Our weapons are not padded in practice but we do try to use some control and dulled blades are used with beginners.
We do have forms and at times the students are told to find the openings for attacks that are within a certain form and only use techniques from that form.  This I feel gives the student a better understanding of the form.
What we instruct for self defensive maneuvers we except to see in sparring ( with control of course)


----------



## DaveB (Sep 13, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Here. I am trying to squeeze my moves between two globes, even on the step through. (Center line theory)



So essentially your techniques occupy the centre line?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 13, 2015)

DaveB said:


> So essentially your techniques occupy the centre line?


Yes, and your strikes happen on a circle, while the targets are just points on a circle.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 13, 2015)

Touch of Death said:


> Yes, and your strikes happen on a circle, while the targets are just points on a circle.



So what does this visualisation/philosophy help you with when you are fighting?


----------



## DaveB (Sep 13, 2015)

tshadowchaser said:


> I'll try again:
> We try to use specific targeting of certain parts of the body when we strike rather than just hitting a larger area of the body surface. We are not able to use the dislocations we instruct but we can immolate them to a degree in practice. Groin strikes are allowed but with some control where as eye strikes are discouraged but emulated within a safe distance or striking about the eyes.
> Our foot work is usually to the side and we are constantly moving but a straight north/ south attack is also used.
> Our weapons are not padded in practice but we do try to use some control and dulled blades are used with beginners.
> ...



Thanks TS. Hopefully you and others found/ will find it a useful exercise (as I did) to divorce the exercises (training) that develop our skill, from the understanding of the skill itself. To get to the goal of how our kata/Ryu teach us is the way to win fights.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 13, 2015)

DaveB said:


> So what does this visualisation/philosophy help you with when you are fighting?


I don't so much visualize as try to stay on center. No visualization here.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 13, 2015)

That is to say, once you feel center line, you can let go of any visualization. By the way, I am Audio kinesthetic. Screw visualization.


----------



## MatsumuraKarate (Sep 14, 2015)

I move in angles away from and toward the enemy. Generally moving in a fashion to put the opponent at a disadvantage and limiting the type of attacks and defenses they can use. The overall game plan is to efficiently subdue the enemy, generally speaking by way of nerve and joint attacks.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 15, 2015)

MatsumuraKarate said:


> I move in angles away from and toward the enemy. Generally moving in a fashion to put the opponent at a disadvantage and limiting the type of attacks and defenses they can use. The overall game plan is to efficiently subdue the enemy, generally speaking by way of nerve and joint attacks.



How do you limit the opponent through movement?

When you say "joint and nerve strikes" I presume you are looking to fight in close quarters for such precision. How do you avoid entanglement through grappling or deal with multiple opponent's?


----------



## Buka (Sep 18, 2015)

DaveB said:


> So my question is, without reference to training, can you please define how you move, how that movement fits into a fight and what your overall plan for victory is - as defined by your karate style.



_How I move -_

Quickly, and with much vigor. When you move, I move. When you don't move, or don't move anymore, I leave. Also quickly and with much vigor.
_
How that movement fits into a fight. -_

It doesn't. I don't want anything I do in a fight to fit. I'm not trying to be a smart ash here, I really don't like "fitting into fights". I much prefer taking advantage of chaos.

_What my overall plan for victory is - and how it's defined by my Karate style._

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't plan for much. I'd rather adapt.
My Karate style, American Karate, at least as I know it, isn't defined. It's evolving.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Sep 18, 2015)

DaveB said:


> This is something I try periodically with varying degrees of success.
> 
> One of the biggest misconceptions people have in martial arts is that a art/style/system is defined by the training one gets in said art.
> 
> [edit]


\
Oh my gawd, the MMA mindset....



DaveB said:


> Training is the vehicle that imparts and ingrains the art, not the art it's self.
> 
> My own feeling is that the art is a combination of mechanical (the technique of moving), tactical (the science of the fight situation) and strategic (the overall gameplan) principles. When these interlock seamlessly you have a true fighting system.


\
Dave, you said something intelligent (but you didn't hear that from me!)


----------



## ShotoNoob (Sep 18, 2015)

DaveB said:


> So here's an example. I would have started with this but I was time pressed.
> 
> Shotokan,- uses the whole body to generate power by making a solid connection with the floor but tends to move in a linear fashion using half steps from light bouncy footwork.
> 
> ...


\
This is the 'modern' Shotokan that K-Man complains about.  It is sport kumite convention then, not Shotokan tradition per se.



DaveB said:


> Each area is maximised or defined by the others. Shotokan started with the ideology of destroying the opponent with one blow. So your mechanics then must be geared towards maximum power. To generate that power needs space and to land that power needs mobility.
> 
> The mechanics adapt to the mobility needs, the tactics are created to enable us to land that punch (I.e interception and countering using distance as a weapon).


\
The 1-strike kill, is included & explicitly set forth in the Shotokan karate curriculum.  Same is not the prime tactic in Shotokan or any other traditional karate curriculum.  The 1-strike kill is a training principle; the definition of a competent karate strike is to have disabling effect.  Again, the 1-strike tactic is a training principle that has become an / some exclusive maxim to the populace out of ignorance....and hence an extrapolation to sport kumite competition....



DaveB said:


> Lastly the strategy puts it all together so you can take it into any fight and just adapt the details.


\
Nice sum up how karateka / karate observers have used parts of the training curriculum to define the art.   Traditional karate doesn't rely on, or require 'space' to create power.
\
Jow Ga presented a sport karate vid illustrating massive fail of this theory.


----------



## Star Dragon (Sep 18, 2015)

My style of Karate could be defined as Aiki Taikyoku Kenpo Karate. 

Some of its defining elements:

Emphasis on circular stepping.
Emphasis on 45° angular stepping.
Fluidity of motion.

Stances are comparatively high and mobile.

Application of Dim Mak/Kyusho-jitsu.
Blend of striking and grappling applications, with the former being stressed.
Kicks generally held low.

Ki training exercises.
Emphasis on training with equipment.

Partner training with protective gear.

Openness to new ideas and insights.
Inclusion of spiritual concepts.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 19, 2015)

Buka said:


> _How I move -_
> 
> Quickly, and with much vigor. When you move, I move. When you don't move, or don't move anymore, I leave. Also quickly and with much vigor.
> _
> ...



Hi Buka, thanks for replying.

As a general point, the question about how you move was intended to also cover how you generate power and what you use that movement for. For example,  does your style advocate letting the opponent close and then trying them up, or do you practice more ranged interception. Do you stand side on, square or half way between. 

The point really is why does your style teach you to do things in the specific way that it does.

So when you (Buka) say that you don't like to fit into a fight, that may well be a valid tactic, but how do the teachings of your martial art make that work for you?

How do you guys fight? What does the end result of American kempo, Goju Ryu or whatever style you do, look like to the trained observer?


----------



## DaveB (Sep 19, 2015)

Hello Star Dragon. Thanks for replying. 

If you can explain why and how those elements work together in combat without talking about your training exercises you'll have given the most complete answer yet.


----------



## Star Dragon (Sep 19, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Hello Star Dragon. Thanks for replying.
> 
> If you can explain why and how those elements work together in combat without talking about your training exercises you'll have given the most complete answer yet.



Okay, I will try to demonstrate how these elements tie in with one another.

Studies showed that humans are faster to detect and react to movements happening in front of them than to those occurring at an angle. Even in soccer, shots off an angle are harder to intercept.

So, as one of several ways to make use of this, when the opponent attacks, I might evade by sliding diagonally forward, while blocking/striking his arm (mind you, activating a kyusho), possibly grabbing his wrist (activating further kyusho), and almost simultaneously striking a vital point/target, or a succession thereof. After a few hits, I may implement an arm lock, choke hold and/or take-down.

I employ body mechanics optimized for the utilization of the hips/waist (torque and counter-torque), sudden weight drops, and propelling my body mass in different directions. I avoid using a limb by itself, rather, I emphasize whole body movements, something I learned from the internal arts. Ki/chi ties in with that, although it goes beyond anything physical.

Why did I initially move to a 45° angle? Because this immediately got me to a position from where I can do stuff, in a comparatively safe manner.

I never stay long in one place, I want to constantly keep moving, in order to be difficult to hit and attack from positions that are hard to defend against. For that, my stances must be quite mobile, obviously.

Kicks are generally low because that way I am more protected while executing them, plus being close to the opponent only allows for low kicks anyway.

Of course, there are numerous scenarios in reality, and it is impossible to address them all abstractly, let alone in the space of this thread. The best I can hope to do is to talk of the principles that my style is based on here, and give a few examples of their application. I look forward to your comments and further questions, if you have any.


----------



## Buka (Sep 19, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Hi Buka, thanks for replying.
> 
> As a general point, the question about how you move was intended to also cover how you generate power and what you use that movement for. For example,  does your style advocate letting the opponent close and then trying them up, or do you practice more ranged interception. Do you stand side on, square or half way between.
> 
> ...




Hi Dave,

For power we utilize fast twitch rotation of the core muscles, regardless of direction in which the strike is traveling. Straight punches, hooks, uppercuts or kicks, it all comes down to core twitch for us. If a core happens to be out of shape - well, heck, you shouldn't be fighting in my opinion. 
We punch more like a boxer than anything else. As such, the ball of the back foot in a strike from the back hand, drives the punch - at the exact same time as the core twitch. If we (most of my guys) are throwing a jab, it depends on what kind of jab. For instance - one of those fast head snappers that's meant to measure or interupt his beats, or a good stiff arm jab that's meant to intercept, stop (or slow down) and hurt him. The movements will be different, as will the footwork, and especially what might follow.
The more advanced students like to say that they "punch or kick from their ***" meaning they utilize the drive from the legs, hips and glutes.
We also use various footworks to close or open distance and change angles. That comes from core twitch as well. Like the old fashioned blitz.




And, yes, I know all too well about blitzing against a judo guy. Everytime I've played with a judo guy he's wiped the floor with me. Everytime.

As for "_does your style advocate letting the opponent close and then trying them up, or do you practice more ranged interception. Do you stand side on, square or half way between_. 

It depends on what you like, or more precisely, what kind of fighter you are. Different guys I train with do it different ways. I don't think it's a matter of choice, I feel it's based on your strengths/weaknesses, skill sets....and what you work the hell out of.
I like to fight in the kitchen, as we use to say, real close in, I want to be able to smell your breath. So...I'd rather have the opponent coming in like a train than having him slowly stalk. I love to intercept, especially a larger opponent. It throws them so out of synch.

As for stance, we teach beginners a boxing stance. From there they develop the stances you mentioned. But we don't use side stances much anymore. They're okay if you're karate point fighting - and have a really good front leg side and hook kick, but they're countered easy and used against the side stance fighter by limiting him. Some of our guys point fight, some kickbox, we grapple and we box. So it depends on who's doing what that day.....and what stance they like and against whom.

For this - _So when you (Buka) say that you don't like to fit into a fight, that may well be a valid tactic, but how do the teachings of your martial art make that work for you?_

We teachadaptability over everything else. Position over technique, tactics and strategy over technique, principles over technique, but adaptability over everything. When people train in stand up fighting, they tend to train at the distance that's most comfortable for them to throw their techniques to the best of their ability. When people get into fights repeatedly outside, besides being a thug, they tend to use the same distance/ambush/set up that's always worked for them. We like to take them out of that distance, out of that comfort zone. When you throw a strike at me- I'm moving, always throwing back. I may very well get hit, but I'm not going to get hit in the comfortable spot where you like to throw from, you'll have to adjust, but I'm moving as you do (still striking, you ain't getting no free lunch here) - because I'm trying to gain position. And I'm going to get it, too.

_How do you guys fight? What does the end result of American kempo, Goju Ryu or whatever style you do, look like to the trained observer?_

We box, we punch and kick, we grapple and at times mix it up. But we always start pure grappling from the ground instead of standing. It's easier and safer, at least to me.
To the trained observer - depends. A lot would say we move like kickboxers, but the people saying that haven't actually kickboxed.(which I find amusing) If you have kickboxed you would say, "No, not quite, it's different".
There's a certain cadence/timing to kickboxing. A certain cadence in actual knock out fighting competition, and a different cadence to kickbox training. Having done plenty of both, that's not it. So, again, depends on the actual training of the observer.
When we do our version of what would be considered MMA (but it's not because I'm not letting them kill each other with elbows and knees to the face) the cadence in movement is different because of shooting (or any other way you want to take him down) than it is without shooting. 

I think a trained eye would declare it an eclectic style of movement. But I've always hated that term.

Sorry for the long post, I tend to talk a lot.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 20, 2015)

Buka said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> For power we utilize fast twitch rotation of the core muscles, regardless of direction in which the strike is traveling. Straight punches, hooks, uppercuts or kicks, it all comes down to core twitch for us. If a core happens to be out of shape - well, heck, you shouldn't be fighting in my opinion.
> We punch more like a boxer than anything else. As such, the ball of the back foot in a strike from the back hand, drives the punch - at the exact same time as the core twitch. If we (most of my guys) are throwing a jab, it depends on what kind of jab. For instance - one of those fast head snappers that's meant to measure or interupt his beats, or a good stiff arm jab that's meant to intercept, stop (or slow down) and hurt him. The movements will be different, as will the footwork, and especially what might follow.
> ...


I do almost the same move, but in my opinion, it would be better to actually plant your back foot. That way, it is not just a quick-step, but a good time to punch off the lead hand, because, it is, in a sense, your new back foot. Is it slower? Maybe, but it is worth it. You need stability.


----------



## Star Dragon (Sep 20, 2015)

Some additional remarks.



DaveB said:


> As a general point, the question about how you move was intended to also cover how you generate power and what you use that movement for.



I have integrated fa-jing power generating methods from the Chinese internal martial arts.



> For example,  does your style advocate letting the opponent close and then trying them up, or do you practice more ranged interception.



Generally, the strategy is to step close, but off angle. Or to move them off angle.

Referring to another post if yours, how to avoid entanglement then? First of all, by evasiveness and mobility. Striking at the same time, trying to incapacitate the opposition as quickly as possible.

But if they do get a chance (and are still in a condition!) to grapple, there are techniques to deal with that as well; close range strikes using  the elbows etc, as well as grappling techniques from Aikido/Aiki-jutsu and Ju-jutsu.



> Do you stand side on, square or half way between.



The fighting stance is almost side on, but not quite. Similar to Bruce Lee's basic stance. This kind of narrow stance facilitates sliding in various directions and circular stepping.

Stepping is done with a lot of thrust generated by the legs and hips, therefore it's fast and powerful.



> The point really is why does your style teach you to do things in the specific way that it does.



I hope this is clear now.



> How do you guys fight? What does the end result of American kempo, Goju Ryu or whatever style you do, look like to the trained observer?



Like Kenpo Karate, but with a twist. Or like Aikido with plenty of strikes and kicks. Or like Yoda fighting with Count Dooku. LOL

These are all just approximations. It's not so easy to describe. Hope you get some idea.


----------



## Buka (Sep 20, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> I do almost the same move, but in my opinion, it would be better to actually plant your back foot. That way, it is not just a quick-step, but a good time to punch off the lead hand, because, it is, in a sense, your new back foot. Is it slower? Maybe, but it is worth it. You need stability.



I do it that way, too, depending on the timing. But, sometimes I just keep going, breaking into a run away. 9with the Monty Python cry, of course.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 21, 2015)

Star Dragon said:


> Of course, there are numerous scenarios in reality, and it is impossible to address them all abstractly, let alone in the space of this thread. The best I can hope to do is to talk of the principles that my style is based on here, and give a few examples of their application. I look forward to your comments and further questions, if you have any.



Exactly, principles are the whole point. Martial arts are a collection of principles that we try to ingrain through training. But as you can see very few people can clearly express what the principles of their chosen art are. That is not a dig at anyone; we "do" martial arts so training is what we associate with the activity, but training in anything is only ever a means to an end.

Your integration of the side stance to facilitate the tactics of evasive footwork and angular entry is precisely the kind of detail I was trying to illicit.


----------



## Star Dragon (Sep 21, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Exactly, principles are the whole point. Martial arts are a collection of principles that we try to ingrain through training. But as you can see very few people can clearly express what the principles of their chosen art are. That is not a dig at anyone; we "do" martial arts so training is what we associate with the activity, but training in anything is only ever a means to an end.
> 
> Your integration of the side stance to facilitate the tactics of evasive footwork and angular entry is precisely the kind of detail I was trying to illicit.



Many simply start training what is presented to them by others uncritically and never give too much thought to it. That's fine, we don't all need to be researchers and scientists. However, I always try to understand the principles that are underlying a style. It's just the way my mind works. 

For one thing, I think it greatly accelerates the learning process. Plus, that way, I was able to devise my own style from first principles. Perhaps you are trying to do the same, to one degree or another?

Talking about my fighting stance, yes, it's essentially a side stance or horse stance, but at a slight angle to the opponent (not that I would stay there long ). While the legs remain bent, the back foot may be positioned with the heel lifted off the ground and oriented forward. However, this isn't always the case.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 21, 2015)

[QUOTE ="Buka, post: 1725521, member: 26001"]Hi Dave,

For power we utilice fast twitch rotation of the core muscles, regardless of direction in which the strike is traveling. Straight punches, hooks, uppercuts or kicks, it all comes down to core twitch for us. If a core happens to be out of shape - well, heck, you shouldn't be fighting in my opinion. 
We punch more like a boxer than anything else. As such, the ball of the back foot in a strike from the back hand, drives the punch - at the exact same time as the core twitch. If we (most of my guys) are throwing a jab, it depends on what kind of jab. For instance - one of those fast head snappers that's meant to measure or interupt his beats, or a good stiff arm jab that's meant to intercept, stop (or slow down) and hurt him. The movements will be different, as will the footwork, and especially what might follow.
The more advanced students like to say that they "punch or kick from their ***" meaning they utilize the drive from the legs, hips and glutes.
We also use various footworks to close or open distance and change angles. That comes from core twitch as well. Like the old fashioned blitz.




And, yes, I know all too well about blitzing against a judo guy. Everytime I've played with a judo guy he's wiped the floor with me. Everytime.

As for "_does your style advocate letting the opponent close and then trying them up, or do you practice more ranged interception. Do you stand side on, square or half way between_.

It depends on what you like, or more precisely, what kind of fighter you are. Different guys I train with do it different ways. I don't think it's a matter of choice, I feel it's based on your strengths/weaknesses, skill sets....and what you work the hell out of.
I like to fight in the kitchen, as we use to say, real close in, I want to be able to smell your breath. So...I'd rather have the opponent coming in like a train than having him slowly stalk. I love to intercept, especially a larger opponent. It throws them so out of synch.

As for stance, we teach beginners a boxing stance. From there they develop the stances you mentioned. But we don't use side stances much anymore. They're okay if you're karate point fighting - and have a really good front leg side and hook kick, but they're countered easy and used against the side stance fighter by limiting him. Some of our guys point fight, some kickbox, we grapple and we box. So it depends on who's doing what that day.....and what stance they like and against whom.

For this - _So when you (Buka) say that you don't like to fit into a fight, that may well be a valid tactic, but how do the teachings of your martial art make that work for you?_

We teachadaptability over everything else. Position over technique, tactics and strategy over technique, principles over technique, but adaptability over everything. When people train in stand up fighting, they tend to train at the distance that's most comfortable for them to throw their techniques to the best of their ability. When people get into fights repeatedly outside, besides being a thug, they tend to use the same distance/ambush/set up that's always worked for them. We like to take them out of that distance, out of that comfort zone. When you throw a strike at me- I'm moving, always throwing back. I may very well get hit, but I'm not going to get hit in the comfortable spot where you like to throw from, you'll have to adjust, but I'm moving as you do (still striking, you ain't getting no free lunch here) - because I'm trying to gain position. And I'm going to get it, too.

_How do you guys fight? What does the end result of American kempo, Goju Ryu or whatever style you do, look like to the trained observer?_

We box, we punch and kick, we grapple and at times mix it up. But we always start pure grappling from the ground instead of standing. It's easier and safer, at least to me.
To the trained observer - depends. A lot would say we move like kickboxers, but the people saying that haven't actually kickboxed.(which I find amusing) If you have kickboxed you would say, "No, not quite, it's different".
There's a certain cadence/timing to kickboxing. A certain cadence in actual knock out fighting competition, and a different cadence to kickbox training. Having done plenty of both, that's not it. So, again, depends on the actual training of the observer.
When we do our version of what would be considered MMA (but it's not because I'm not letting them kill each other with elbows and knees to the face) the cadence in movement is different because of shooting (or any other way you want to take him down) than it is without shooting.

I think a trained eye would declare it an eclectic style of movement. But I've always hated that term.

Sorry for the long post, I tend to talk a lot.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I presume your adaptation approach is a personal development as opposed to a specific method?

What style do you practice?


----------



## Oldbear343 (Oct 4, 2015)

I teach very simplified, barebones style, with an emphasis on rooted stances, block/counter, low kicks,, and sweeps/throws, but there is also transitional movement and some stop - hit stuff. Some elements of tkd, some of goju, some of boxing, some of internal stuff.  With regards to tactics or strategy, the tactics must depend on the situation, your state of readiness, and the aggression/ability of the attacker.  The strategy is consisyent:  use whatever it takes to survive and go home.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 5, 2015)

Ho does one define perfection? I guess, without Flaw.


----------



## DaveB (Oct 5, 2015)

Oldbear343 said:


> The strategy is consisyent:  use whatever it takes to survive and go home.



That's not a strategy, it's a platitude. It tells you nothing about how you should approach an opponent, how you should overcome him or how to get out of a bad position.

By offering a simple guide of what to do to win a fight, you give all these details to the fighter. Even though they aren't spelled out, you know that to win you must put yourself where you can employ the strategy; which in its self takes you out of bad positions and stops you needing to work out how to adapt to the current situation.

"Use whatever works" has become the battle cry of the martial artist, but it means that all his/her time is now spent figuring out what it is that works rather than ingraining and refining precise methods.

At one end of the scale we have awesome generalists who can box with a pro and choke him out on the ground when they get bored. At the other end of the spectrum we have martial artists who know lots of techniques but with no clue how to put them together. They are never actually taught "how" to fight except through trial and error.

I should point out I wasn't taught a strategic way of viewing martial arts or self defense, I developed it myself after I took up kungfu. I saw how each piece of the art fed into the other: how you stand, how you step,  how you hold your guard.  I started looking for the same connectivity in my karate and it changed a lot for me.

I don't expect others to view their art in the same way but I'm fascinated to learn the different ideas that are designed into the various arts. However it seems to take a pretty big paradigm shift for most folks to be able to see and discuss it.

That being said, professional fighters often talk about having a game plan for their fights. The Greatest of all time, Muhammed Ali, used to predict what round his opponents would go down in. With such provenance behind the concept of strategy It has been a bit surprising how alien martial artists seem to find the idea.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 5, 2015)

DaveB said:


> That's not a strategy, it's a platitude. It tells you nothing about how you should approach an opponent, how you should overcome him or how to get out of a bad position.
> 
> By offering a simple guide of what to do to win a fight, you give all these details to the fighter. Even though they aren't spelled out, you know that to win you must put yourself where you can employ the strategy; which in its self takes you out of bad positions and stops you needing to work out how to adapt to the current situation.
> 
> ...


\
Dave .. .sensible.

_


DaveB said:



*I should point out I wasn't taught a strategic way of viewing martial arts or self defense, I developed it myself after I took up kungfu. I saw how each piece of the art fed into the other: how you stand, how you step,  how you hold your guard.  I started looking for the same connectivity in my karate and it changed a lot for me.*

Click to expand...

\_
I think this is very true.  Yet, if one steps back from the conventional presentation of say, Shotokan karate, one can readily see the same dynamic - on a less sophisticated level.  Nonetheless, the dynamic of continuous motion is presented from day 1 in all traditional karate styles...



DaveB said:


> That being said, professional fighters often talk about having a game plan for their fights. The Greatest of all time, Muhammed Ali, used to predict what round his opponents would go down in. With such provenance behind the concept of strategy It has been a bit surprising how alien martial artists seem to find the idea.


\
Well, Ali worship aside, his opponents were not ranked particularly high on the Fight IQ scale.  Anyhow, traditional karate teaches the targeted time for the end of the fight.
\
From a single, disabling strike; to say three to five strikes.  Again, split second to seconds.


----------



## Oldbear343 (Oct 6, 2015)

Fighting consists of variations on basics:  punches, strikes, kicks, blocks,  throws, sweeps, locks, strangles, evasions.  The strategy must be to adapt to the threat in front of you.  As that can differ, then it is fruitless to try to adopt a one-size-fits-all strategy.. I prefer the approach of great fighters in history, such as Ali, who would have a different trategy for each opponent.  George Foreman had a variation on that:  "I have a plan, but if that doesn't work I resort to brutality!".  Please do not label my view as a platitude simply because you do not agree with it.


----------



## Buka (Oct 6, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> \
> I think this is very true.  Yet, if one steps back from the conventional presentation of say, Shotokan karate, one can readily see the same dynamic - on a less sophisticated level.  Nonetheless, the dynamic of continuous motion is presented from day 1 in all traditional karate styles...
> 
> Well, Ali worship aside, his opponents were not ranked particularly high on the Fight IQ scale.  Anyhow, traditional karate teaches the targeted time for the end of the fight.



I disagree that the dynamic of continuous motion is presented from day 1 in all traditional Karate styles.

And what "fight IQ scale is that? Joe Frazier and Ken Norton certainly have what you would call pretty damn good fighting IQs.


----------



## DaveB (Oct 6, 2015)

Sorry to have offended you but it literally is a platitude when inserted into a discussion on strategy. It tells you nothing about anything.

Having a core strategy doesn't preclude adaptation. Rather, it gives you something to adapt. 

In the shotokan example I gave on pg 1 we see that this style requires space to work. Not much use in a crowded pub. So in said pub I must adapt: using back stance to maximise space as shown in the kata; I can drag stools between the aggressor and myself so I can attack as he tries to get through the obstacles etc. Once I have grasped the use of the core strategy in ideal conditions all my training should be geared to learning how to do adaptation of that ideal to the real world.

Those ring fighters who do change strategy based on who they are fighting can only do that because they know what they are up against ahead of time. By the time I find out the guy I took to the floor of the pub is a bjj black belt, I'm already losing consciousness.

Conversely, look at Lyoto Machida, or early Mike Tyson. One strategy mastered was all they needed.

You are right in saying that fighting makes use of variations on basic techniques, but we don't have to throw them into a hat and see what falls out. We can get an understanding of how and why those techniques work and how they fit together with each other and with the mechanics and movement of fighter and fight.

Dare I say it: we can go beyond technique! I am sure you and most others here do that in some form or another. You may even have a core strategy you just never articulated. But if not, I urge you to consider the idea. It really is just about picking your favorite route to victory and knowing why it works.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 8, 2015)

Buka said:


> I disagree that the dynamic of continuous motion is presented from day 1 in all traditional Karate styles.


\
Well you're wrong.  But certainly traditional karate styles are not as flowing as the kung fu styles as a group.  Traditional karate is much more focused on instilling certain principles & emphasizes those, even over-emphasizes those @ the expense of the greater sophistication inherent in kung fu as a group.
\
So there's a trade-off of "simplicity" in principles for traditional karate vs. "complexity" in principles for kung fu.  This has been commented on extensively in past threads by MT members....
\
As to disagreeing, people inside & outside of traditional karate do so all the time.  Especially with me; "til I demonstrate what I am talking about.  It's the kung fu practitioners in my area who agree with my position, generally....


Buka said:


> And what "fight IQ scale is that? Joe Frazier and Ken Norton certainly have what you would call pretty damn good fighting IQs.


\
Well yes my point was over-stated when speaking of experts in the field of boxing.  Yet the general premise holds that even a highly skilled Shotokan karate stylist true to traditional principles could present a very high risk to either of these guys in a striking contest, even hands only....  Karate's mental skills are simply on a higher plane than either of these boxing legends train or probably could attain.
\
Of course of the group you train with... skilled boxers could probably win 50-50, for argument sake....  Good luck with that.....


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 8, 2015)

Buka said:


> STATEMENT #1: I disagree that the dynamic of continuous motion is presented from day 1 in all traditional Karate styles.


\
Here's an example of "FIGHT IQ," which you allude to in what I labeled Statement #2.  All TMA's teach continuous motion; it's a universal principle across all TMA styles....  Yet observers look @ karate vs. kung fu.... see some marked difference or degree - then jump to a _"black or white,"_ _"on" or "off"_ conclusion.

STATEMENT #2: And what "fight IQ scale is that? Joe Frazier and Ken Norton certainly have what you would call pretty damn good fighting IQs.[/QUOTE]
\
Here's a quote from DaveB again illustrating "FIGHT IQ."



DaveB said:


> In the shotokan example I gave on pg 1 we see that this style requires space to work. Not much use in a crowded pub. So in said pub I must adapt: using back stance to maximise space as shown in the kata; I can drag stools between the aggressor and myself so I can attack as he tries to get through the obstacles etc. Once I have grasped the use of the core strategy in ideal conditions all my training should be geared to learning how to do adaptation of that ideal to the real world.


\
Dave is stuck looking @ the conventional training form for beginners in Shotokan kumite sport competition. Machida, our Shotokan karate UFC ambassdor to MMA himself is very guilty of this.   Shotokan's traditional curriculum teaches something much broader & deeper.  but then again, one has to move away from sport mentality of "money see - monkey do."  Serous study of the entire karate curriculum is absolutely required...



DaveB said:


> Those ring fighters who do change strategy based on who they are fighting can only do that because they know what they are up against ahead of time. By the time I find out the guy I took to the floor of the pub is a bjj black belt, I'm already losing consciousness.


\
TMA is in sync with that... completely .



DaveB said:


> Conversely, look at Lyoto Machida, or early Mike Tyson. One strategy mastered was all they needed.


\
Well Mike Tyson is a natural born killer in the body of a gorilla....  hard to extrapolate from such a rare example of homo sapiens
\
Machida's early success stemmed from some good Shotokan kumite skills versus really medicare @ best MMA striking talent....  More that point out really good karate, Machida pointed out how fundamental Shotokan point fighting could frustrate & out move hesitant, plodding, indecisive & reactive MMA competitors, completely descriptive of same @ the time....



DaveB said:


> Dare I say it: we can go beyond technique! I am sure you and most others here do that in some form or another. You may even have a core strategy you just never articulated. But if not, I urge you to consider the idea. It really is just about picking your favorite route to victory and knowing why it works.


\
Traditional karate has a more sophisticated set of human skills and more sophisticated tactic & strategy than boxers by far.  That's why karate beats boxing when karate is done well.  Karate done poorly or even middling, like Mr. Miyagi say. "...squashed like grape."
\
Dave B's students, good luck with that....


----------



## Buka (Oct 9, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> \
> Well you're wrong.
> \
> As to disagreeing, people inside & outside of traditional karate do so all the time.  Especially with me; "til I demonstrate what I am talking about.  It's the kung fu practitioners in my area who agree with my position, generally....



/ Thank goodness we straightened that out. /


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 9, 2015)

Buka said:


> / Thank goodness we straightened that out. /


/
Well, only so much can be done over the internet...
/
The self defense public coming to you for classes isn't most likely going to be a disciple of traditional karate.  Either by will or by other constraints.  So it's best for the broad public audience that you stick to your guns any how.
\
A prime example is the Straight Blast Gym franchise.  As far as TMA goes, the founder's wagon has fallen off It's wheels.  Yet he reportedly has a very successful franchise going, teaching sport based & reality based fighting / self defense....


----------



## DaveB (Nov 1, 2015)

Here are some examples of style descriptions that don't rely on descriptions of the training. 

Boxing styles and technique - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also I thought of a way to explain why training is not definitive that might finally clarify my thoughts :

Someone earlier mentioned that if you want to practice the art of ballet or painting then you train in those arts hence training makes the art. This is correct, except that we don't train painting to "practice painting", we train painting to paint a picture. We train ballet to perform a ballet or other dance show.

It is the finished product that defines the art, not the road to the product. 

In the case of the martial arts, the finished product is the fight; be it a tournament or a self defense situation. We train to fight and how we fight is what our ma is.

Hence the question of the thread. How does your style fight?


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 3, 2015)

Honestly, I can't speak as to what "my style" of karate is in terms of the people I train with, but I can explain what I personally have taken from it. For the record, I am frequently accused of being "circular," "flowy" or my favorite, "kung-fu-ey." Most other practitioners in my system have, I think, a somewhat more direct route. This is largely as a result of my own devoted love of sticky hands....

Anyway, my personal style, is close upright fighting, with just enough ranged striking to close the gap against someone who doesn't specialize at keeping grapples at bay, and just enough groundwork to get back on my feet assuming my opponent isn't trained at keeping people in a ground fight. I rely heavily on soft arm contact as a default, as in sticky hands. My general tactics tend to be in the line of grabbing something and pulling while striking in the opposite direction.

A simplistic view of the overall strategy I employ is to maintain contact, and to, as I put it, "climb into" the opponent, each motion being, ideally a potential fight ender, but also bettering my position so that if I muck it all up, as I usually do, I'm not out of luck. I think the best way I can illustrate this is to outline some hollywood-style, picture perfect yet drawn out fight choreography for you. Here's a hypothetical.

1. With the left arm contact and grab the opponents right arm from the inside and smash the right forearm into the side of the jaw. If this ends the fight, great, if not...
2. With the left, hook under the opponent's already grabbed arm and pull the shoulder in close, trappng and torquing the shoulder. At the same time, deliver an inverted punch/uppercut to the celiac plexus which you are forcing down onto the strike. If that drops them, yay, but if not...
3. Step behind their stance with the left leg, control them with the right arm, and strike the head with the left fist, continuing past to drop them backwards over your left leg. Hopefully that ends the fight, but if not, they are hypothetically on the ground with you standing over them, so either get running or tidy up your lose ends.

(For anyone wondering, that's the opening sequence of our Pion/Pinan Nidan)

Obviously, that's a fight that went fantastically smoothly, but that's the overall idealized version of how I personally am most comfortable utilizing my style. In actual sparring I think I'm probably more like a kangaroo turning it's head and kicking scrabbling with everything it's got...


----------



## DaveB (Nov 4, 2015)

Zack Cart said:


> Honestly, I can't speak as to what "my style" of karate is in terms of the people I train with, but I can explain what I personally have taken from it. For the record, I am frequently accused of being "circular," "flowy" or my favorite, "kung-fu-ey." Most other practitioners in my system have, I think, a somewhat more direct route. This is largely as a result of my own devoted love of sticky hands....
> 
> Anyway, my personal style, is close upright fighting, with just enough ranged striking to close the gap against someone who doesn't specialize at keeping grapples at bay, and just enough groundwork to get back on my feet assuming my opponent isn't trained at keeping people in a ground fight. I rely heavily on soft arm contact as a default, as in sticky hands. My general tactics tend to be in the line of grabbing something and pulling while striking in the opposite direction.
> 
> ...



Thanks,  that is a very good description and very close to how I see much of karate.

I don't quite see the Pinan Nidan link, but certainly tekki/naihanchi makes use of similar ideas and techniques.


----------



## Koshiki (Nov 4, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Thanks,  that is a very good description and very close to how I see much of karate.
> 
> I don't quite see the Pinan Nidan link, but certainly tekki/naihanchi makes use of similar ideas and techniques.



Yeaaaaah, we do this weird Korean version of Pinan Nidan. In retrospect, adding the kata reference was probably more confusing than helpful, given the differences between the less mangled versions and our version...

But yeah, Naihanchi is in many respects similar, which is why I absolutely adore it.


----------

