# Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense



## Ceicei

It is a little long...  Here is an interesting article that was posted in another martial arts discussion website. It generated quite a bit of discussion and I think it will do the same here. There are some points mentioned I agree and some I disagree. Let's share our thoughts on this:

  - Ceicei

  ********************************************************

Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective For Self-Defense 


_By WR Mann_
 The underlining motivation in studying any type of martial activity is to protect ourselves (or others) in a real fighting situation. At first glance karate seems to provide a solution, until you look more closely at its underpinnings; then you realize it's not equipped to handle violence in the 21st Century. I often refer to karate (and other traditional Asian martial arts) as the Potemkim Village of the martial arts -- a grand facade offering significantly less in the way of substantive tactics and defensive measures than any of the reality-based defense systems. 

 Recently, while speaking to friends visiting from Australia, the topic of self-defense came up for their daughters (age 9 and 11). They mentioned there was a karate school in their neighborhood and were considering enrolling them there. That sent chills up my spine, and with the same fervor as a surgeon desperately trying to save the life of a stroke victim; I informed them that karate would produce the least beneficial results. 

 The reason I dissuade people from getting into karate (and other traditional martial arts) is because I don't want them misinformed like I was, studying retrograde theories and techniques that no longer have any relevance to the way we live and need to respond to. Let's be honest, all things being equal, some fighting styles are vastly superior to others. I'm not saying karate is completely ineffective (Bruce Lee did). Karate, like many other fighting styles, has the potential of stopping an attacker, however, the degree of efficiency is far less than muaythai, Brazilian jujitsu, boxing, and especially reality-based systems. Using a metaphor, the flintlock is certainly capable of stopping someone, but the M16 has a far greater degree of efficiency. 

_"If you're up against someone who doesn't know how to fight -- yes, old-style karate can work, but if you fight an experienced streetfighter or a trained fighter, no way!" - Jon Bluming_ 

 To properly put this question into perspective (why karate is not effective as a modern self-defense system) we must first discuss four topics:
  1) Conditions of violence in the world today
  2) Constituents of effective self-defense in the 21St-Century? 
  3) What are people looking for [in their self-defense training]? 
  4) A differentiation and clarification of fighting categories in 2003 

  Conditions of violence in the world today
 Although terrorism has been around for years, its most dramatic impact was felt on September 11, 2001, after the destruction of the World Trade Center. From this point on, the world realized that there were no safe havens left. For the first time in history, Americans were scrambling for gas masks, anthrax remedies, survival and first-aid kits. Suddenly, self-defense was no longer only someone trying to rob or punch you, it now extended to potentially surviving large-scale violence, such as nuclear attacks, bombings, poison gas and snipers. Levels of common violence have also grown and laws against defending yourself have been initiated by several governments in the past few years. 

  Constituents of effective self-defense in the 21St-Century?
 Nowadays, physical violence can happen to anyone, anytime, anywhere and under any conditions. Therefore it's paramount that modern self-defense must encompass the whole gamut of possible situational and environmental scenarios. That includes surviving a bomb attack, gas and chemical attacks, a mob, snipers, muggings, and more. In general, no fighting style will totally prepare us for these scenarios; some reality-based schools at least provide awareness, avoidance and escape options. 

 Karate (as well as other traditional styles) have been slow to add realistic elements to their training. They just go on about their business, ignoring the way today's criminals conduct themselves, or if they have, they are stuck in a time warp, as if they've never heard of home invasions, car jackings, firearms attacks and terrorists. 

 Not only is it necessary to practice under a wide variety of conditions and circumstances but you need to be intimately familiar with all three phases of the attack cycle (pre-conflict, the conflict, and post conflict), adrenaline-dump, the use-of-force, self-triage and more. Unless this holistic approach is practiced in simulated environments, expect you or your loved ones to become potential victims. 

  What are people looking for [in their self-defense training]?
 With the exception of individuals interested in martial endeavors, most people are busy with full time careers, school, family or other interests. They are disinclined to spend many years studying martial arts; the only time they seek out a protective-measures course is when something happens close to home. 

 I can tell you for a fact, most people are not looking for "a way of life," a new religion, or grueling years of pushups and sit-ups interspersed with kata (a pattern of techniques). They "are" however looking for a set of effective and efficient techniques and tactics they can employ to escape a violent attack -- NOW! (not years from now). 

 Not only do you need to train in the conflict stage of an attack but you need to add pre-and post-conflict training as well. Karate (as well as most traditional martial arts) ignores the pre and post conflict stages, and their methodology of teaching is of the "spoon-fed" variety. They don't even attempt to approach defensive tactics against firearms, hostage taking, store/bank robberies and multiple armed opponents; but these are very real potential situations today. 

  A clarification and differentiation of fighting categories
 When you mention the term "martial arts," today, everyone immediately knows what you mean. The term has become the generic moniker for all fighting styles. What most people don't realize is there are three distinct categories. 1) Traditional-based, 2) Sports-based, and 3) Reality-based defense. 

  Traditional-Based
 Traditional "arts" are historical styles originating in Asia. They include karate, jujitsu, aikido, taekwondo, numerous schools of kung fu, and much more. These styles are what the general public refers to when the term "martial art" is used; this is what we see in the movies. They incorporate the use of traditional-based costumes and employ some form of philosophical or pseudo-religious component. Although many of these systems claim to be a thousand years or older, truth be told, most of them have been around for only a hundred years or so, (with the exception of a few Chinese styles and Okinawan karate, which is about 250 years old). Generally traditional "martial arts" are the least street effective styles and take the longest time to learn. 

  Sports-Based
 The second group, "sports-based fighting," originate from older styles but have been modified and updated to be effective in the ring and conform strictly to specific rules. They can be adapted for the street (in a weaponless environment). Wrestling and boxing are updated versions of their ancient Greek and Roman counterparts, Brazilian jujitsu is a western version of Japanese jujitsu and muaythai is the modernized style of Thailand's fighting systems from the 14th Century. It takes several years to become proficient in "sports-based fighting." In most cases, practitioners easily prevail over their traditional martial art cousins. This is due to "live-training" and realistic techniques. 

  Reality-Based Defense
 Reality-based defense (an offshoot of police and military defensive tactics) are the most street realistic of the three groups, and emphasize simple but effective techniques for both weapons and unarmed attacks. This is also the only group that trains you in all three stages of an attack: the pre-conflict stage (threat assessment, conflict conditioning), the conflict stage (first strike, weapon awareness) and the post-conflict stage (do you run or wait for police, what do you say to the authorities, self medical triage and legal issues). 

 Much of the reality-based "conflict stage" comes to us from combatives. Combatives originally came to us from 1930's Shanghai, and WWII; British commandos and US Marines developed it over the years to be a simple but effective method of fighting. Reality-based defense concepts such as fighting under stress, situational and environmental awareness and living an avoidance lifestyle, are more recent developments and came about as many individuals realized they couldn't solely depend on traditional arts. 

 A good reality-defense program today incorporates not only defensive tactics against physical violence by individuals or groups but also incorporates defense for all types of modern attacks from conventional to unconventional weapons conducted in situational scenario form. 

  Summary
 Karate (and similar traditional martial arts) look great in the movies; they take a very long time to learn but don't provide efficient solutions for violent confrontations in any form. They're centered on the conflict phase and ignore (if by fiat) situational and environmental circumstances. Sports-based fighting provides great skills, i.e., development of speed, power, timing etc., it takes several years to develop these skills; and -- they still may not work in real street circumstances, this is due to their sportive nature. Many reality-based systems train you in situational / environmental conditions and address all three stages of the attack stages (with and without weapons). Most important of all, reality systems provide practitioners with the proper aggressive mind-set. Basic defensive skills can be readily implemented after a short period of training (the same way police officers and combat military personnel are trained). 

  A Brief look at Karate's Origins and Development
 Karate as we know it today originated in Okinawa circa 1750 AD, 141 years after Tokugawa Ieyasu ordered the Shimizu clan to invade and occupy it. Contrary to popular myth, karate had no effect whatsoever on Japan's occupation -- Okinawa still belongs to Japan after 394 years. There are two major but disparate approaches to karate, i.e., Okinawan and Japanese styles. 

  Pre-WWII
 Karate was introduced into Japan in the 1920's and has evolved into additional sub-styles. Major contributors to Japanese karate were Gichen Funakoshi (Shotokan), considered to be the father of modern karate, and was the first to systematize karate with the purpose and intent of mass instruction. Gogen Yamaguchi (Goju Ryu) devised modern day free-style sparring in 1936 and recognized a link between ancient Yoga and karate. He was also responsible for the founding the All Japan Karate-do Federation. 

  Post-WWII
 Modern breakthroughs in karate came with Mas Oyama (Kyokushinkai), and Kazuyoshi Ishii (Seidokan). Influenced by observing muaythai, Mas Oyama started incorporating hard contact during sparing sessions. I remember meeting him years ago Japan [as a teen], and he asked me where I was studying, I replied "with Gogen" (Yamaguchi), he laughed and said Goju practitioners were all ballerinas, and invited me to train at his school. 

 Kazuyoshi Ishii is known as the creator of K-1, it's the extreme style of karate and one of the most popular fighting sports today. The "K" comes from the first letter of the various styles of martial arts that make up K-1. Karate, Kickboxing, kung fu, kakutogi, and taekwondo. 

  The 12 Immutable Reasons Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective For Self-Defense 

  1. The One-Strike Kill
 The biggest cliché of karate is the one-strike kill. This of course does not exist, but has fooled so many for years. Shigeru Egami (one of Funakoshi's top students) freely admitted there was no such thing. At one point in his career, Egami admits going into a deep depression after concluding a personal study about which martial style had the most powerful tsuki (punches). He found that karate had the least powerful tsuki, and boxing the strongest. Betting everything on one punch can get you killed. 

  2. Waiting for The Attack
 Karate philosophy states, "wait for the attack." Remember Funakoshi's maxim, "Never attack first?" This is suicidal. In real situations, the first person to strike usually walks away. The untrained public, (influenced by Hollywood and martial arts mythology) erroneously thinks you have to eat the first punch, but you give up your lawful right to self-protection by letting anyone strike you first. Criminals take advantage of this civilized mindset. If you feel that violence is about to break out, strike first. 

  3. On Stances
 Karate, (along with several hard Chinese styles) employs some of the most ineffective stances in martial arts. Deep, low karate stances make you completely immobile; they plant you in one spot, making quick movements extremely difficult. You may as well hang a sign around your neck saying "strike me at will, I can't move." If you recall early kickboxing, the first thing they got rid of were those limiting stances. 

  4. Karate as a Way Of Life
 Years ago while in Japan, Gogen (Yamaguchi) once came up to me and asked, "I never see you practice kata, why?" I replied that I thought it was an exercise in futility, having no functional value. He grew upset and chastised me by saying, without kata, we're just animals, like boxers or wrestlers, I replied, "that's OK, I just want the skills." More than anything else, karate people have a fear about being labeled "killers." Their reply is always, "I follow the path, karate is a way of life." I guess they feel absolved from their inner conflicts or sociological guilt when they say that, sort of like what confession does for a Catholic. 

  5. Spirituality and Meditation
 For many Japanese karateka, religion and martial arts are inseparably linked. Japanese spirituality and meditation are not a function of karate; they're emblematic of the culture that developed it. Westerners really buy into this big time. It's actually a direct affront to your personal beliefs. What if a Japanese boxer wanted to train in the U.S. with a Baptist coach, would he have to join the church, sing out loud, clap his hands, dance and get down? Changing your spiritual identity in order to learn self-defense is ludicrous! Mas Oyama once asked me how much time I meditate per day. I told him -- I don't, I have my own religion; I don't need to replace it with another. 

 Meditation does not necessarily benefit any martial activity. For example, I recall, in the 1983 Olympics in Korea, the Koreans had the strongest archery team in the world. They attributed their secret of success to their late night meditation practices in cemeteries. Did it help the men's team win - no, an American walked away with the gold. Did he meditate? No, before each match he was listening to Van Halen! 

  6. Breaking Objects can Break You! 
 Karate, more than any other martial art is renowned for its breaking demonstrations; but anyone can break inanimate objects, it's easy and you don't have to study karate to do so. Do breaking boards and bricks translate into fighting ability? Again Egami comments that breaking objects is very different than striking a human body, humans are resilient. He goes farther, saying that even "makiwara" training is harmful to the body, and stopped doing it already in the late '50's. Robert Smith, in his book "Martial Musings" notes that Mas Oyama damaged his hands so much he couldn't even place a blanket on top of them when he went to sleep. Continued breaking over a period of years brings with it such delights as arthritis and other degenerative diseases. 

  7. The Kata Crutch
 A major part of karate practice focuses on kata. I've never understood why so many people defend it so vehemently. There's almost a cult-like obsession with doing it. Perhaps karateka feel it grants them a special kind of spiritual dispensation, allowing them to indulge in the study of fighting. Kata however is nothing more than several techniques strung together; a tool to help beginners understand how techniques flow. For advanced practitioners, it constrains your progress and adds no functional value to your fighting skills. Jon Bluming said it best, something to the effect of, "it takes up time, and the money rolls in." 

  8. Karate Doesn't Prepare You for the Street
 Unlike a sparring match, there are no rules on the street, no time-outs, no referees to separate you; there's no sanctity of life. Street fights don't start at sparring distance; many times they suddenly erupt chest-to-chest, many times from behind without warning. Your attacker won't necessarily stop if you scream in pain. Unlike the smooth floor of the dojo, the street and pavement can be uneven, broken and contain dangerous objects you can fall over. 

 In all the years I spent in karate, there was never a word about fighting under adrenaline stress conditions, the use-of-force, gross motor skills, and absolutely no legal considerations. Karate is only concerned with the attack stage of the encounter; no mention is made about the pre and post-conflict stages. Environmental and situational awareness, preemptive strike, what to do if you're hurt, do you run away, or make a citizen's arrest? 

 Many karate techniques employ fine motor skills; under stress these are the first skills that abandon you. To work under excited conditions, techniques must be simple and based on gross motor skills. If you've been in fights, you know that after a few seconds of wild striking, many people start grabbing each other and quite often fall to the ground. How is your ground game? Do you know how to fight in a parking lot at midnight, on sand, gravel, on ice on a winter's day? Training barefoot in a dojo doesn't prepare you for any of these scenarios. 

  9. Karate Makes you Stiff and Rigid
 For years people have avoided weight training for fear that they would become stiff. If they only knew the truth -- weight training actually makes you flexible and supple; it's karate that makes you stiff! I've spoken at length to many boxing, kali, Brazilian Jujitsu and muaythai instructors and they all agree, karate produces a tenseness and rigidity that seems almost irreversible. I believe it's all those hard air punches and kicks, tense kata and deep immovable stances contributing to this condition. You see this state most pronounced when karate students take up reality-based defense. 

  10. Karate is Ineffective Against Modern Weapons
 The term Empty-Hand says it all; the main focus of karate is on unarmed combat. They do practice traditional weapons however, but what use is sai, tonfa, sickle, and bo practice when you can't carry them. This is unrealistic in 2003, where attacks are mainly carried out with guns, knives and impact weapons. When you typically hear of karateka being hurt in an attack, it usually involves a knife or gun. Whenever we do seminars employing weapons scenarios, it's usually the most advanced karateka that get killed the quickest. 

  11. Karate Takes Too Long to Learn, and You Still Can't Fight!
 In terms of effort spent, to proportion of effectiveness gained, traditional karate is one of the least efficient systems of any fighting style. Too much time is spent on the inanities of rituals and form. Most karate schools spend countless hours on kata or mindless sparring, as if this will prepare students for a real fight, but it doesn't. Free sparring in karate only teaches you to fight other (barefoot) karateka's in a dojo (school) environment. Kata practice is a primitive form of shadow boxing, nothing more. There usually is no counter-knife, counter-firearms training, if it is taught all, it's usually presented in a rigid step-by-step process, having no relation to what a real attack looks like. 

  12. The Apotheosis of the Master
 I've always felt uncomfortable with the semi-deification of the so-called martial arts master. It just goes against the grain of my western upbringing. My goal in learning fighting was not to become a supplicant of an old man with a tough reputation. I believe that's another reason why mixed martial arts (i.e., BJJ, muaythai, boxing, and Filipino martial arts) have become so popular. There's no groveling involved just mutual respect. In the west, a coach doesn't demand a special status, over and beyond his normal duties. A coach guides athletes in their respective sports. His goal is to encourage, goad and train his charges to success. He is the father, the friend and the teacher; athletes trust him and his judgment. 

  Bringing karate into the 21st-Century
 To modernize karate I suggest the following: 1) Take away the uniform, belts and add shoes (use the same clothes you normally wear to work or play) 2) remove the useless stances, 3) remove katas 4) instead of rigid air punching/kicking do drills with mitts 5) add some realistic gross motor based techniques, and take away more complicated moves 6) allow attacks on fallen opponents, and include some groundwork 7) Employ realistic tactics against knives and guns and most importantly start training in all three phases of the attack. 

  Why study karate at all?
 I have no problem with people practicing traditional karate for the sake of art or culture. If that's the case, supplement it with a realistic modern fighting method. The problem I have with karate is that all too often it's represented to the public as an effective and efficient fighting system for the street -- which it is definitely NOT.​


----------



## Dr. Kenpo

For me, it's all about the Instructor, and the ability to think "outside the box. I also believe the individual has the responsibility to make it fit them the best way possible to make it work.

 Many in our society are soft, don't like to work hard, sacrifice, and forge their minds, and bodies to be the best they can be. One does what they can, but they must do something. There is no substittute for hard work, and preparation, but yet, the systems, and their concepts are still valueable.


----------



## Cruentus

Well...besides some of what I think are innacurate details, I'd say the premise is basically wrong.

First of all, self-defense is up to YOU, not the art. Most of what you need for self-defense you need to get outside of any martial art or sports or reality-based program. Having said that, almost any martial art teaches you attributes that will help you defend yourself...particularly movement, or what I call "the language of movement". All any martial system is, is the study of movement in a CQC situation... and learning that language can be done through Karate, or any viable system with a good instructor. 

So, if you know what it is FOR, karate can be a great system to be in, just like any other...

PJMOD


----------



## Hwoarang_tkd26

I have to say that I agree with it, and also dissagree with it.
I feel that it depends on the person, the instructor, and how you train.
If you mindlessly train in your Karate,and if you know the techniques and just assume that it will be affective in the street confrontation, then your wrong.

But, if you take those techniques that you have been taught and train yourself to be quick and effeciant with them and use them correctly and always choose the correct one at the proper time, then I am sure they can be very efective.

Think about it, some of these systems are centeries old. (Hmmm...Dont you think that if Karate was ineffective in a fight we would have figured this out long before now? and Karate would have never grown, It just would have died out and be no longer practiced?)
My point is how you practice your Karate. (Be smart with what techniques you use at certain times, you have a brain so use it) Dont just throw a technique because you like it or are good at it, because it may be the wrong move to make.

regards-
Hwoarang_tkd26


----------



## MJS

That was certainly an interesting article, and depending on who is reading it, of course, we'll get mixed views.  

I'll admit, RBSD, MMA/NHB, etc. have definately been put more in the spotlight today, than in years past.  Grappling arts have been around for a while, but I really don't think that it was until 1993, when the UFC made its debut, that the crazy really started.  

Like some others here, I agree and disagree with some of the points made.  Again, I'll say that depending whos reading this, that will determine the viewpoints given.  Is there a right or wrong answer??  Who knows.  As I've said many times before, we all train for different reasons, so therefore, the individual goals will be different.  

I started and still continue to train in arts that contain kata.  Both the Kenpo and Arnis that I study have them.  Unfortunately, when it comes to kata, there are many inst. out there, that can't provide the student with an explanation of whats being done.  I'll give my example:

Student:  "Sir, why do we do this move in the kata?  What is it used for?"

Inst: "Well.....because thats the way its done!"

Very poor explanation of the move huh!!!  Someone like Dillman, as controversal as he is, can give many breakdowns of moves in kata.  

It pretty much all comes down to how the individual person does his/her training.  I do feel though, that to not add that element of 'aliveness' in the training, is a mistake.  To have your attacker throw a punch, and then stand there like a statue, while you execute your tech. without giving you any resistance, is a very bad way of training.  In my BJJ class, we'll cover a move, say an armlock.  We first, cover the fine points of the move.  This of course, can only be done slowly.  Doing the move over and over and over, until you feel more comfortable.  We then start to add some movement and resistance on the 'attackers' part, while trying to apply the same move.  Needless to say, it gets harder the more the person resists.  However, it forces you to really understand the moves.  

Now as for the moves in kata.  Self defense techs. contained in the kata, can be extracted and applied.  Of course, nobody, at least I would hope, is going to fight someone in the same pattern of a kata.  But like I said...moves can be isolated and applied.  With a little imagination, you can come up with a wide variety of things.  I never thought that there was much grappling in Kenpo, but after taking the time to talk to people out there that could provide a better explanation, I realized that there are a ton of Kenpo techs. that can be applied while laying on the ground.  Again, it all comes back to the inst. and if you're inst. doesnt have it..well, you're pretty much out of luck.

As for the RBSD arts out there...again, do they take away from the "art"? Not IMO.  Again, its what the person is looking for in an art.  If they are not looking for kata, but an art that does not take 25yrs worth of study before things can be applied, then something like Krav Maga would suit them best.  

Just my .02!!

Mike


----------



## The Kai

I guess I would also have a issue with BJJ being agreat art for the street.  In a world of weapons and improvised weapon, mulitple attackers wrestling isn't a great idea.

RBSD is a quick fix solution to appeal to the "want it now crowd".  Popular?  Sure till the magazines push the next trend!
Todd


----------



## GAB

I have to agree with Tulisan.

That being said I think one of the best martial arts in todays World is FMA.

Good article though, thanks Ceicei...

Regards, Gary


----------



## still learning

Hello, Real fighting is fast, no rules, anything goes. Karate does not teach you to bite,scratch,spit in to the eyes, and karate is not set-up to fight a real street fight, who fights like the Katas? 

  But it does teach you to beware, and not fight, this is the best self-defence!

 Did you ever see anyone punch like they train in Karate fist to side and straight long punch? Watch all the fighters of the world and see how they punch? Notice the best guys are the same! (like boxing)

 The top karate guys will hold there own,but the average karate black-belt students will most likly lose to the street fighter. They are not train to fight like the streets fights. Just my thoughts (from books and videos on street fights)...Aloha


----------



## MJS

still learning said:
			
		

> Hello, Real fighting is fast, no rules, anything goes. Karate does not teach you to bite,scratch,spit in to the eyes, and karate is not set-up to fight a real street fight, who fights like the Katas?
> 
> But it does teach you to beware, and not fight, this is the best self-defence!
> 
> Did you ever see anyone punch like they train in Karate fist to side and straight long punch? Watch all the fighters of the world and see how they punch? Notice the best guys are the same! (like boxing)
> 
> The top karate guys will hold there own,but the average karate black-belt students will most likly lose to the street fighter. They are not train to fight like the streets fights. Just my thoughts (from books and videos on street fights)...Aloha



Good post!  I think that this is where the 'Martial Artist" is separated from the RBSD guys.  They have taken it a step further and have done the research on street fights.  A good example of this, and someone who always seems to take a beating for doing it, is Jim Wagner.  He has a spot in BB magazine, where he writes monthly columns regarding RBSD for LEO.  However, his messages can also be applied to the average "Joe" as well.  He dismisses kata, and seems to always take a beating for it.  However, the people that are making these comments are most likely not LEOs and not into RBSD.  Therefore they bash it.  The thing that they are not doing though, is keeping an open mind and remembering that we all train for different reasons.

Keeping an open mind is half the battle IMO. There is always someone out there that is better or has a different take on things.  I'm not saying that you have to reinvent the wheel, but take a look at the wheel.  You can't say that there have been no improvements on it since day 1!!!

Mike


----------



## Wikket

What a load of rot, what I could read of it.
 Firstly the history is all wrong. The original art of te (of you want to get very traditional) was dying out, so was modified to make it 'safer' and introduced into the okinawan school system as a form of physical education. The katas were the repository of these techniques and were modified to mask their true intent in order to be safe for school students to be taught.  However masters were taught the keys and techniques for discovering the true purpose and application, and passed these on to those they deemed able to learn. Trouble was that so many didnt learn, and went off to form their own schools teaching kata without any idea of application. What is being criticized here is not traditional karate, but sport karate.
 Traditional karate should contain aspects the grappling art of Tuite, and Kyusho Jitsu, the study of vital strike points. Sadly, these are all but passed from the art.

 Traditional karate - real traditional karate, is a most thorough self defence system. Alas, you would be hard pressed to find it.


----------



## The Kai

A "Traditional" Reverse punch is both a technique and a training tool.  I was taught that it is easier to teach and practice big motions, also trains the full range of motion.  Eventually, you should be able to throw a punch from the shoulder, or from your pocket for that matter with correct body mechanics.

Todd


----------



## loki09789

Karate/Martial arts training is something you do - each school/system will have a philosophy/mission/goal to the training.

Self defense is one of many 'goals' that Karate can be used to prepare you for throught training.

I wouldn't expect a range master shooter to be a good 'soldier' anymore than I would expect a karate only trained martial artist/self defense artist to be able to fill out a police statement or know penal law 'just because he studied Karate.'

You carry the tool box, Karate is only one of many tools that you might have in it.


----------



## TimoS

loki09789 said:
			
		

> You carry the tool box, Karate is only one of many tools that you might have in it.



Well said  I think that if taught the right way, traditional karate is as effective as any other in self defence.


----------



## arnisandyz

What gets me is the "9 and 11 year old daughters"???? So is he going to teach military combatives to gradeschool kids?  I see nothing wrong with children starting up in a traditional system...it plants the seed, gives them confidence, and perhaps can give them an edge against the playground bully. A balance needs to be drawn and I don't think our society is ready for 9 year olds to be trained in knife fighting (other cultures may be).


----------



## Patrick Skerry

I have seen and used traditional karate successfully defeat a street attacker, it is still an effective method of self-defense.  Traditional karate (not sport karate) has a very effective reverse punch, front kick, and spear hand to the throat, not to mention eye strikes.  Plus traditional karate incorporates weapons training into its curriculum, which allows you to defend yourself effective with a weapon and against a weapon, and traditional karate teaches defenses against multiple attacks.

It is things like Brazilian Jiu Jitsu which make me doubt the efficiency of that style in a street fight.  I don't like what I see in BJJ.


----------



## RRouuselot

First off I will say is these Karate is worthless in a real fight & kata isnt of any use threads get old real fast. 


 In our assoc. we have more than a few law enforcement people. They seem to find it effective. In fact if memory serves one of them was an instructor for the pressure point control classes that are required for LEO..seems he didnt think the stuff in PPC was as effective as what he was learning in the dojo. However, thanks to our messed up legal system he is required to use the PPC system.evidently some of the more effective techniques he learns in the dojo are not legal. God forbid an officer of the law ever try and save his own life and use something that might actually work.  
     I guess we can thank some bleeding heart that thinks criminals have more rights than the Police. 


 Also, my instructor was chosen over many other people to teach the US Air Marshals hand to hand combat. Seems they were about to chose someone else but saw a video of what my teacher did, invited him to demonstrate it, and decided what he was teaching was more effective.
 For the same reason I was chosen to teach hand to hand classes by the Garrison Commander and Command SgtMajor of the military base I work on over several other martial arts teachers..........because it WORKS.


----------



## Kunoichi

> Although terrorism has been around for years, its most dramatic impact was felt on September 11, 2001, after the destruction of the WorldTradeCenter. From this point on, the world realized that there were no safe havens left. For the first time in history, Americans were scrambling for gas masks, anthrax remedies, survival and first-aid kits. Suddenly, self-defense was no longer only someone trying to rob or punch you, it now extended to potentially surviving large-scale violence, such as nuclear attacks, bombings, poison gas and snipers. Levels of common violence have also grown and laws against defending yourself have been initiated by several governments in the past few years.


 
Karate cant save you but Muay Thai, BJJ or RBSD will? Hmm seems a little odd to me.




> Unless this holistic approach is practiced in simulated environments, expect you or your loved ones to become potential victims.


 
If I dont sign up to a RBSD class then I can expect to become a potential victim?!? If I do sign up does that mean I am no longer a potential victim? Whoop-dee-doo! I guess if we all sign up we can now rest easy at night! Hurrah!  



The article has a few points I do agree with but overall, the article feels like its main purpose is to convince us that RBSD is the only way to be safe. This I strongly disagree with. 

I also couldnt help noticing how he refered to "Traditional arts" (i.e it looks good but thats all its worth), "sport-based fighting" (i.e its more combat orientated than an art but its only about 1-on-1 fights) and "reality-based defence" (i.e the only effective way to defend yourself).

As is often said Its the artist, not the art. Every individual has their way they feel secure and able to defend themselves (well maybe not all). However, you can not say that karate is ineffective because it will not protect you from nuclear attacks or anything like it . No matter what some people like to believe, there will always be someone/something bigger and badder that could easily get the better of us.


----------



## punisher73

Here is my big problem with the article, as has been stated by others.  It is an article giving all the great benefits of RBSD over sport and traditional.  I can give a link to a sport oriented site and they will show the benefits of their approach over traditional and RBSD.

RBSD is based on "traditional" karate and other traditional arts,  Fairbairn, Applegate and others took their MA training and took out a few techniques that were very easy to learn and quick to teach and used those to give crash course lessons to the WW2 military guys.  RBSD seems to forget that karate has all the same tools and more, it all comes down to how you are training those tools.


----------



## Hammer Head

Well, it all depends on what you mean by the term "traditional karate". There are different types of karate practices to be considered. At this time, I will mention two:

 We have contemporary Japanese karate, which is sometimes called "traditional". Many of these karate schools train for "traditional" tournament karate. Others put much less emphasis on thet endeavor.

 We also have "old style" okinawan karate schools which are mainly concerned with effective combat applications in life or death situations. None of the techniques practiced by these schools are suitable for any today's karate tournaments. Not for the traditional tournaments, not for the kyokushin style "kenka" tournaments, nor for any type of competitive situation for that matter. I would say that this type of karate is very effective indeed for real combat.


----------



## kroh

In your post Ceicei, you mentioned that this spawned a mamoth thread of heated discussion...

I am sure that many of the reactions to the article were similar to the ones above.  If so, how did Mr. Mann defend his theories and what finally became of the thread....

Regards,
Walt


----------



## OC Kid

I think this guy is just "another flavor of the week". When Bruce Lee was famous JKD was the bomb, then Seagal and akido was the bomb, and on and on and on.. Its all good. Its up to the individual. As a instructor I tell my students I can teach you but I cant make you learn.

It some guy just tryng to sell his system.


----------



## Ceicei

kroh said:
			
		

> In your post Ceicei, you mentioned that this spawned a mamoth thread of heated discussion...
> 
> I am sure that many of the reactions to the article were similar to the ones above. If so, how did Mr. Mann defend his theories and what finally became of the thread....
> 
> Regards,
> Walt


 Mr. Mann didn't post the thread. It was a user from that other website who obtained the article. I would have liked to know how Mr. Mann would make his rebuttals. I have found his article on several other websites too.

 Basically, the reactions were similar (as far as martial artists go), but there was a different flavor. Since many of the people on that other website were primarily from United Kingdom, they had a different view of self defense. I don't know if it just a cultural difference between the Americans and the Europeans. :idunno:

   - Ceicei


----------



## Pacificshore

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Basically, the reactions were similar (as far as martial artists go), but there was a different flavor. Since many of the people on that other website were primarily from United Kingdom, they had a different view of self defense. I don't know if it just a cultural difference between the Americans and the Europeans. :idunno    - Ceicei


You probably hit the nail on the head w/a cultural difference regarding SD in the UK Ceicei.  I mean after all practically any sort of weapon is outlawed back there, and many seem to talk about wanting to be "street" effective :idunno:


----------



## Hwoarang_tkd26

Wikket said:
			
		

> What a load of rot, what I could read of it.
> Firstly the history is all wrong. The original art of te (of you want to get very traditional) was dying out, so was modified to make it 'safer' and introduced into the okinawan school system as a form of physical education. The katas were the repository of these techniques and were modified to mask their true intent in order to be safe for school students to be taught. However masters were taught the keys and techniques for discovering the true purpose and application, and passed these on to those they deemed able to learn. Trouble was that so many didnt learn, and went off to form their own schools teaching kata without any idea of application. What is being criticized here is not traditional karate, but sport karate.
> Traditional karate should contain aspects the grappling art of Tuite, and Kyusho Jitsu, the study of vital strike points. Sadly, these are all but passed from the art.
> 
> Traditional karate - real traditional karate, is a most thorough self defence system. Alas, you would be hard pressed to find it.


Interesting post, I have never known or ever herd of something such as this, but it makes sense.


----------



## RRouuselot

Hwoarang_tkd26 said:
			
		

> Interesting post, I have never known or ever herd of something such as this, but it makes sense.


    Probably because the information is totally inaccurate.



  Actually that time period saw more people openly practice Karate than any other time before it, even before it was introduced into the school system. Introducing karate into the Okinawan school system was meant as a preparation for future military service and a form of physical conditioning.
 It sure beats the hell out of "radio taiso" which was fairly common form of exercise at the time.


----------



## Kizaru

still learning said:
			
		

> Hello, Real fighting is fast, no rules, anything goes. Karate does not teach you to bite,scratch,spit in to the eyes, and karate is not set-up to....


Hello? You _need_ someone to _teach_ you to "bite, scratch and spit into the eyes"? 

You need practice biting? Try beef jerky.

Scratching? Roll around in poison ivy, or hang out with some mosquitoes.

Spitting? Eat a big watermelon or take up the fine art of chewing tobacco.


----------



## RRouuselot

Kizaru said:
			
		

> Hello? You _need_ someone to _teach_ you to "bite, scratch and spit into the eyes"?
> 
> You need practice biting? Try beef jerky.
> 
> Scratching? Roll around in poison ivy, or hang out with some mosquitoes.
> 
> Spitting? Eat a big watermelon or take up the fine art of chewing tobacco.


 Spitting, biting, scratching???

 Sounds like a "girlyman" way to fight......if you have good karate technique you won't have to resort to such fighting methods.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

sounds to me like the guy writing the article missed the whole point of MA training........jeez i guess he sure showed gogen yamaguchi and mas oyama a thing or two.
he's the guy at the back of the class that takes a months worth of lesson's and then starts the greatest self defense style in the world.......what a load

shawn


----------



## rox

I don't practice Karate(yet), but I can say that the writer of the article has misunderstood many concepts of traditional martial arts.

First of all, a blow might not kill one, but FOR SURE it can knock him out... Any atack to vital areas will put one into serious trouble for life... An atack to the throat, for instance,  is common in non-sport karate isn't it?

I really like the counter-gun stuff in styles like Krav Maga, but the article author has showed great disrespect AND lack of knowledge... Most traditional arts schools that I've seen have counter-knife and counter-staff techniques.

And the part where he puts other martial arts over karate really shows that he's only trying to discredit TMAs. I guess he owns a "reality-based" school and gets lots of money talking karate is ineffective.


----------



## Simon Curran

Pacificshore said:
			
		

> You probably hit the nail on the head w/a cultural difference regarding SD in the UK Ceicei. I mean after all practically any sort of weapon is outlawed back there, and many seem to talk about wanting to be "street" effective :idunno:


Nothing personal, but to assume that in a country where weapons are illegal, than weapons don't exist is quite naiive.
Trust me when I say to you that criminals are criminals where ever you are in the world, there are still people in the UK who get stabbed/shot/bludgeoned to death...
But anyway back on topic, it has been said by many others already, but in my opinion it is not the style, but the practitioner who makes the difference, to give an example;
In 1984 during the miners strike in Yorkshire UK, where I was raised, a local Shotokan black belt was sent to prison for having killed a man with his bare hands (kara-te anybody...) in a riot situation, although it is not a terrorist attack etc. I defy most people to not think of themselves as being in a fight for their lives if they are stuck in the middle of a riot, again as an example, my dad is a police officer (getting on a bit now...) who was awarded a commendation for bravery, when him and his partner were the first 2 officers in attendance at a riot involving 500 people, like I said, try telling me that you aren't going to be thinking you may not get home alive in that situation.
Right climbing down from my soapbox now...


----------



## TonyM.

OK. I'm old enough not to care. That article was blatant nonsense written by someone with something to sell.


----------



## Autocrat

Erm...... did anyone catch what style the author did, where they did it, who tutored them, how long they practised, how serious they took it etc?

I ask because it read as if it was written by a disgruntled 20 something who never got above orange belt/7th Kyu because they were useless...... shame really.



As for the Sporting martial arts being better than traditional... and defence courses being best of all.... I've never known a self defence course longer than 8 hours in total... well... as I'm no t permitted to swear... I'll say 1111122233344533 to it!

 Most sporting styles miss out on the defensive systems and highlight the flashier moves which tend to leave you open... though if the hit you - you know it!  and as for self defence course... most seldomly run for morethan 5 seessions, and the majority have less than 10 hours training... how does that count for training?



Do you think it would be possible to invite the authour to come and talk to us?  OR VISIT US?  I do traditional karate, as well as kung fu (is there a better term yet for that style?), kickboxing as well... and I've never had a problem being attacked and surviving.....



So, shame on the author... nice effort, but the basis sounded bias.... aw, poor person probably did karate, gobbed off and got their head kicked in.. (*evil grin*) shame!


----------



## Tremble

> .
> 
> *Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective For Self-Defense* -By WR Mann
> 
> The underlining motivation in studying any type of martial activity is to protect ourselves (or others) in a real fighting situation. At first glance karate seems to provide a solution, until you look more closely at its underpinnings; then you realize it's not equipped to handle violence in the 21st Century. I often refer to karate (and other traditional Asian martial arts) as the Potemkim Village of the martial arts -- a grand facade offering significantly less in the way of substantive tactics and defensive measures than any of the reality-based defense systems.


 No explanation of the author's experience in Karate.



> Recently, while speaking to friends visiting from Australia, the topic of self-defense came up for their daughters (age 9 and 11). They mentioned there was a karate school in their neighborhood and were considering enrolling them there. That sent chills up my spine, and with the same fervor as a surgeon desperately trying to save the life of a stroke victim; I informed them that karate would produce the least beneficial results.


I guess he reccomended Pottery classes instead. 



> The reason I dissuade people from getting into karate (and other traditional martial arts) is because I don't want them misinformed like I was, studying retrograde theories and techniques that no longer have any relevance to the way we live and need to respond to. Let's be honest, all things being equal, some fighting styles are vastly superior to others. I'm not saying karate is completely ineffective (Bruce Lee did). Karate, like many other fighting styles, has the potential of stopping an attacker, however, the degree of efficiency is far less than muaythai, Brazilian jujitsu, boxing, and especially reality-based systems. Using a metaphor, the flintlock is certainly capable of stopping someone, but the M16 has a far greater degree of efficiency.


From this we gather he's had some experience of Karate, but no indication of *how* much, while he lumps other arts into his waste paper basket in the same sentence. We have the statement that styles are more important than people, Bruce Lee inevitably get's name dropped. I've already got the idea this is someone less than 20 years old, who has never been in a fight in his life.



> "If you're up against someone who doesn't know how to fight -- yes, old-style karate can work, but if you fight an experienced streetfighter or a trained fighter, no way!" - Jon Bluming


 My pet peeve; quote someone else. In this case, a complete moron.



> Traditional-Based
> Traditional "arts" are historical styles originating in Asia. They include karate, jujitsu, aikido, taekwondo, numerous schools of kung fu, and much more. These styles are what the general public refers to when the term "martial art" is used; this is what we see in the movies. They incorporate the use of traditional-based costumes and employ some form of philosophical or pseudo-religious component. Although many of these systems claim to be a thousand years or older, truth be told, most of them have been around for only a hundred years or so, (with the exception of a few Chinese styles and Okinawan karate, which is about 250 years old). Generally traditional "martial arts" are the least street effective styles and take the longest time to learn.
> 
> Sports-Based
> The second group, "sports-based fighting," originate from older styles but have been modified and updated to be effective in the ring and conform strictly to specific rules. They can be adapted for the street (in a weaponless environment). Wrestling and boxing are updated versions of their ancient Greek and Roman counterparts, Brazilian jujitsu is a western version of Japanese jujitsu and muaythai is the modernized style of Thailand's fighting systems from the 14th Century. It takes several years to become proficient in "sports-based fighting." In most cases, practitioners easily prevail over their traditional martial art cousins. This is due to "live-training" and realistic techniques.


We have a nice sweeping generalisation and a contradictory statement there. I don't even care for the way it is phrased;                                                        _ "Although many of these systems claim to be a thousand years or older, truth be told, most of them have been around for only a hundred years or so, (with the exception of a few Chinese styles and Okinawan karate, which is about 250 years old). "_

Note the use of 'weasel words', followed by the contradiction;                                                  _"muaythai is the modernized style of Thailand's fighting systems from the 14th Century."_

Sensationalist claptrap!


----------



## JAMJTX

This is just too lenghty to respond to it all.  This appears to be written by someone who either never studied traditional karate, or just does not understand it.

If you study a traditonal system, such as Goju Ryu, Shito Ryu or Shindo Jinen Ryu, you will learn quite highly effective self defense.  These styles include training in various ranges: kicking, punching, grappling and even ground fighting.

To say that traditional karate styles have not addressed modern weapons is also wrong.  Perhaps not all teachers get into modern weapons, but an awful lot do.  One of the best seminars I ever attended for police oriented self defense, which included pistol disarms, was taught by a Kyokushin teacher.

Brazilian Jujitsu as an alternative?  Please! BJJ is a great sport.  But sports will get you killed in the street. BJJ is great in a one-on-one situation but is useless against muliple attackers.  Training in karate my not guarantee you will defeat multiple attackers, but atleast there is training in strategy and techniques.

I'm going to have to end here.  Like I said, the original article is just too long and ill-informed to answer in full.  It's best that it just be ignored.


----------



## Hand Sword

Wow! This author is definitely not worth responding to, but, I'm at work, on the 3rd shift, and bored, so, here goes.

I think everyone here, or worth any kind of martial art salt knows that it isn't the style, or system, but, the individual. So, attacking traditional Karate is wrong. Along these lines, think of old masters that had great reputations as fighters. They proved themselves then,and had nothing but training in a TKS as a foundation. Also, they are many accounts of average people successfully defending themselves using "Karate", myself one being one of them. Does the author think if some one kicked him in his groin, elbowed his jaw, or palmed his nose, it would be ineffective? He should remember that Reality based arts, and MMA use "traditional" techniques.


----------



## pstarr

This fellow needs to get himself into a full tilt boogie smackdown in a biker bar....


----------



## twendkata71

*the person that wrote this article really does not know what they are talking about and has not trained in serious formal training. *
*It is a free country and a person has a right to say whatever they want. Just shows ignorance.*


----------



## Hand Sword

In full agreement.


----------



## eyebeams

> 1. The One-Strike Kill



Not traditional, except in Japanese styles changed to ape Japanese Gendai Budo.



> 2. Waiting for The Attack



Not traditional. "No first attack" refers to forming the intention to attack, not actually executing the attack.



> 3. On Stances
> Karate, (along with several hard Chinese styles) employs some of the most ineffective stances in martial arts. Deep, low karate stances make you completely immobile; they plant you in one spot, making quick movements extremely difficult.



Not traditional for Okinawan karate.



> 4. Karate as a Way Of Life
> Years ago while in Japan, Gogen (Yamaguchi) once came up to me and asked, "I never see you practice kata, why?" I replied that I thought it was an exercise in futility, having no functional value. He grew upset and chastised me by saying, without kata, we're just animals, like boxers or wrestlers, I replied, "that's OK, I just want the skills." More than anything else, karate people have a fear about being labeled "killers." Their reply is always, "I follow the path, karate is a way of life." I guess they feel absolved from their inner conflicts or sociological guilt when they say that, sort of like what confession does for a Catholic.



I don't see what this has to do with self-protection.



> 5. Spirituality and Meditation
> For many Japanese karateka, religion and martial arts are inseparably linked. Japanese spirituality and meditation are not a function of karate; they're emblematic of the culture that developed it. Westerners really buy into this big time. It's actually a direct affront to your personal beliefs. What if a Japanese boxer wanted to train in the U.S. with a Baptist coach, would he have to join the church, sing out loud, clap his hands, dance and get down? Changing your spiritual identity in order to learn self-defense is ludicrous! Mas Oyama once asked me how much time I meditate per day. I told him -- I don't, I have my own religion; I don't need to replace it with another.



Meditation has a physiological and psychological function. Zen or Taoist methods aren't necessary.



> Meditation does not necessarily benefit any martial activity. For example, I recall, in the 1983 Olympics in Korea, the Koreans had the strongest archery team in the world. They attributed their secret of success to their late night meditation practices in cemeteries. Did it help the men's team win - no, an American walked away with the gold. Did he meditate? No, before each match he was listening to Van Halen!



No, he was performing the three key elements of meditation:
1) Breath control.
2) Visualization.
3) Control of conscious thought.

Specific cultural and religious baggae isn't necessary to "meditate."



> 6. Breaking Objects can Break You!



Heavy breaking isn't really "traditional."



> 7. The Kata Crutch



There's some truth to this. Kata really should come last, not first. Functional basics trained with resistance comes first.



> 8. Karate Doesn't Prepare You for the Street



Some agreement, but karate wasn't regularly practiced indoors until the 20th century. The "adrenaline dump" thing is covered by many people, and jurisdictional law can't really be taught in an international martial tradition.

Most basics do not really use "fine motor skills," either.



> 9. Karate Makes you Stiff and Rigid



Sometimes true.



> 10. Karate is Ineffective Against Modern Weapons



Karate's not designed for modern weapons. Neither is BJJ or Muay Thai.

  11. Karate Takes Too Long to Learn, and You Still Can't Fight!
 In terms of effort spent, to proportion of effectiveness gained, traditional karate is one of the least efficient systems of any fighting style. Too much time is spent on the inanities of rituals and form. Most karate schools spend countless hours on kata or mindless sparring, as if this will prepare students for a real fight, but it doesn't. Free sparring in karate only teaches you to fight other (barefoot) karateka's in a dojo (school) environment. Kata practice is a primitive form of shadow boxing, nothing more. There usually is no counter-knife, counter-firearms training, if it is taught all, it's usually presented in a rigid step-by-step process, having no relation to what a real attack looks like. 



> 12. The Apotheosis of the Master



Some truth to this.



> Bringing karate into the 21st-Century
> To modernize karate I suggest the following: 1) Take away the uniform, belts and add shoes (use the same clothes you normally wear to work or play) 2) remove the useless stances, 3) remove katas 4) instead of rigid air punching/kicking do drills with mitts 5) add some realistic gross motor based techniques, and take away more complicated moves 6) allow attacks on fallen opponents, and include some groundwork 7) Employ realistic tactics against knives and guns and most importantly start training in all three phases of the attack.



1) Can't do sleeve techniques without a gi top unless you want to rip your shirt. The gi bottom provides pands that don't rip. The belt keeps the top in. Shoes sound fine.

2) Or you could just make them as narrow as they are supposed to be.

3) Kata are useful after learning spontaneous, functional skills as a way to continue to develop those skills without direct instruction. They keep you from being stuck in a rut while shadowboxing or sparring.

4) Already done in many cases.

5) Already done if you don't focus on kata too soon. Punches and kicks are not that complicated.

6) Already present in many cases. Karate doesn't have full-on groundwork, so people should cross-train.

7) Again, cross-train instead of criticising karate for not having something it has rarely ever been claimed to have.​


----------



## twendkata71

*I have trained in both Traditional and ecclectic styles of karate and other martial arts. I still like the traditional arts. As far as fighting skill goes that really is dependant on how much you put into your art. How well you develop your skills.*
*People who criticize and downplay the martial arts weither traditional or ecclectic are generally too lazy to put the time in to actually train long enough to develop any real skill.  So to them it doesn't work or seems too hard, or whatever.:mst: *


----------



## exile

My take (using Eyebeams' listing):

_1. The One-Strike Kill_

All this means is, each move is intended to either end the fight right there (usually via a strike to a vital area, like the throat, or inflicting an incapacitating injury, like a low thrusting side kick to the side of the knee), or to set up such a strike. What's wrong with that strategy?

_2. Waiting for The Attack_

Eyebeam's comment is exactly right. There's a ton of stuff out there looking over the whole body of Funikoshi's and Egami's writings and the writings of other masters of the early days. You were _not_ expected to wait to take the first strike from someone who was giving every sign of launching an imminent attack.

_3. On Stances
Karate, (along with several hard Chinese styles) employs some of the most ineffective stances in martial arts. Deep, low karate stances make you completely immobile; they plant you in one spot, making quick movements extremely difficult._

First of a series of misunderstandings about kata. A low stance isn't something to use in a fight. In a kata, a low stance is a kind of physical highlighting of a weight shift that's part of a fighting move. A deep back stance associated in a kata with a knifehand `block' is likely telling you, move your weight back as you pull the attacker's locked wrist with your or arm with your `chambering' fist to anchor him there while you deliver the disabling strike (posing as a block) to the neck or other exposed areas that your lock has set up. A deep front stance is telling you, project your weight strongly forward as part of the throw that the kata encodes as a block or a punch. If you read stances as markers of weight projection, as vs. static poses, it's a whole different story.

_4. Karate as a Way Of Life_ Again, Eyebeams is right---this is just a red herring.

_5. Spirituality and Meditation_ Right again. In _A Book of Five Rings_, Musashi Miyamoto is always reminding you to clear your mind of distractions and be conscious only of your enemy's movements, anticipating his actions. This sounds an awful lot like the meditative state that fencers, ski racers and tennis players attempt to reach during competition. Why is Mann quibbling about such an obviously useful practice?

_6. Breaking Objects can Break You!_ So can doing MA, lifting weights, or walking out your door for that matter. But plenty of karateka and TKDist do breaks on a regular basis without suffering injury. There was a really good thread on the TKD forum a couple of years ago---wish I could find it---about the value of breaking as a way of quantifying your ability to generate and apply power. Thought it made a very good case for the practice, if trained under correct supervision...

_7. The Kata Crutch_ I differ from Eyebeam here. If you teach students early on what some of the combat-effective bunkai of the kata or hyungs are, it gives them a much better reason to take them seriously as part of their training than just telling them `you have to do these because that's what we do and you won't pass your next belt test if you don't learn them'.  There's a lot of contemporary experimentation with the ura waza of Okinawan, Japanese and Korean karate (aka TKD). Kata are encoded guides to very brutal, hard fighting techniques; they only fail to make sense if you disregard the advice of the very people who gave us the modern kata interpretations, like Itosu, who told us not to follow the children's kick-block-punch bunkai he worked out literally, but to recover the effective violence of the techniques he was deliberately, and explicitly, disguising.

Whatever Mann's point in writing this thing, his views reflect a number of what I think are common misconceptions about karate that lead people to give it far less credit than it deserves as a family of multi-range fighting systems.


----------



## JasonASmith

That' s funny, I have seen some bunkai for a few of the kata that we have been learning, and what I have seen is certainly brutal enough for me...
In regards to stances, I have seen my Sensei(and any of the Yudansha for that matter)
move into, out of, and through those deep stances with ease and grace...I guess that I am blessed with a set of superhumans for teachers...
As for me, I'll stick with my outdated, archaic, and ineffective form of Martial Arts, thanks...


----------



## searcher

This guys erks me to no end.  I have seen some "traditionalists" pull of some things that are stiil mind-numbing to this day.  He must have overlooked the fact that guys like Oyama, Gracie, and many other leaders in sport-based martial arts all studied traditional systems.   They must not have thought them in-effective.   Or am I wrong?   And just how old does a system have to be to make it "traditional"?   Two of the styles he mentioned are almost as old, if not older, then some of the traditional styles.

My suggestion for everyone is to not read this garbage in that it may make you an idiot like this guy.   Thanks to all for letting me rant.


----------



## exile

searcher said:


> Thanks to all for letting me rant.



Hey Jon---listen, ranting is good, if it's well done!  



searcher said:


> My suggestion for everyone is to not read this garbage in that it may make you an idiot like this guy.



You've got a point.

I liked especially your comment about Oyama. I know nothing about Mann, other than this essay, but if I had to bet, I wouldn't bet on _him_ in a Mann vs. Oyama matchup under `reality-based'  conditions (i.e., no rules whatsoever).


----------



## Rook

exile said:


> My take (using Eyebeams' listing):
> 
> _1. The One-Strike Kill_
> 
> All this means is, each move is intended to either end the fight right there (usually via a strike to a vital area, like the throat, or inflicting an incapacitating injury, like a low thrusting side kick to the side of the knee), or to set up such a strike. What's wrong with that strategy?


 
Some people take one-strike kill as an ideal, like you used here.  That makes sense.  

I think the authors mean one-strike as opposed to combos or chained sets.  There is an spectrum between the one-strike kill theory attributed to karate and the chain-punch overwhelming theory attributed to Wing chun with boxing-style punches somewhere towards the supposedly wing chun side.  

I should note that in the genuine traditional karate and wing chun, these things were not the focus.  Traditional karate punches from the waist more to build up hip rotation power than to strike like that in all situations, and chain punching is a very small part of wing chun.  

Many modern martial artists question the reliability of the supposedly traditional version and tend to opt for solid combos rather than counting on one punch knockouts or flurries that overwhelm people.  

_



			2. Waiting for The Attack
		
Click to expand...

_


> Eyebeam's comment is exactly right. There's a ton of stuff out there looking over the whole body of Funikoshi's and Egami's writings and the writings of other masters of the early days. You were _not_ expected to wait to take the first strike from someone who was giving every sign of launching an imminent attack.


 
Agreed.  

_



			3. On Stances
		
Click to expand...

_


> _Karate, (along with several hard Chinese styles) employs some of the most ineffective stances in martial arts. Deep, low karate stances make you completely immobile; they plant you in one spot, making quick movements extremely difficult._
> 
> First of a series of misunderstandings about kata. A low stance isn't something to use in a fight. In a kata, a low stance is a kind of physical highlighting of a weight shift that's part of a fighting move. A deep back stance associated in a kata with a knifehand `block' is likely telling you, move your weight back as you pull the attacker's locked wrist with your or arm with your `chambering' fist to anchor him there while you deliver the disabling strike (posing as a block) to the neck or other exposed areas that your lock has set up. A deep front stance is telling you, project your weight strongly forward as part of the throw that the kata encodes as a block or a punch. If you read stances as markers of weight projection, as vs. static poses, it's a whole different story.


 
If only we could convince the current crop of traditionalists of this.... so much ink spilled about the need for this stuff.  

_



			4. Karate as a Way Of Life
		
Click to expand...

_


> Again, Eyebeams is right---this is just a red herring.


 
Agreed.  

_



			5. Spirituality and Meditation
		
Click to expand...

_


> Right again. In _A Book of Five Rings_, Musashi Miyamoto is always reminding you to clear your mind of distractions and be conscious only of your enemy's movements, anticipating his actions. This sounds an awful lot like the meditative state that fencers, ski racers and tennis players attempt to reach during competition. Why is Mann quibbling about such an obviously useful practice?


 
It often is used to excess.  Also, lots of people overestimate its use or can't do it right. 

_



			6. Breaking Objects can Break You!
		
Click to expand...

_


> So can doing MA, lifting weights, or walking out your door for that matter. But plenty of karateka and TKDist do breaks on a regular basis without suffering injury. There was a really good thread on the TKD forum a couple of years ago---wish I could find it---about the value of breaking as a way of quantifying your ability to generate and apply power. Thought it made a very good case for the practice, if trained under correct supervision...


 
I can see the use of breaking objects to teach correct alignment.  However, some people make demos of breaking a focus - risking injury for no real reason.  The other worry is people convinced that breaking a brick or a piece of wood is the same as breaking a bone or that the breaking demos convey an ability to injure an opponent sucessfully.  

_



			7. The Kata Crutch
		
Click to expand...

_


> I differ from Eyebeam here. If you teach students early on what some of the combat-effective bunkai of the kata or hyungs are, it gives them a much better reason to take them seriously as part of their training than just telling them `you have to do these because that's what we do and you won't pass your next belt test if you don't learn them'. There's a lot of contemporary experimentation with the ura waza of Okinawan, Japanese and Korean karate (aka TKD). Kata are encoded guides to very brutal, hard fighting techniques; they only fail to make sense if you disregard the advice of the very people who gave us the modern kata interpretations, like Itosu, who told us not to follow the children's kick-block-punch bunkai he worked out literally, but to recover the effective violence of the techniques he was deliberately, and explicitly, disguising.


 
There are so many threads on this that I don't think I should discuss the pros and cons here.  There are lots of pros and cons for sure.  



> Whatever Mann's point in writing this thing, his views reflect a number of what I think are common misconceptions about karate that lead people to give it far less credit than it deserves as a family of multi-range fighting systems.


 
I think it reflects how karate and similar systems are commonly practiced more than how they should be or once were.


----------



## exile

Rook said:


> chain punching is a very small part of wing chun.



That's interesting... I had thought it was more fundamental than that. Just goes to show, I guess, that you'd better keep an open mind about systems that you don't yourself practice.



Rook said:


> Many modern martial artists question the reliability of the supposedly traditional version and tend to opt for solid combos rather than counting on one punch knockouts or flurries that overwhelm people.



I've always assumed that the 1punch/1kill slogan was really code for, make every move count maximally to end the fight. Don't let it go on, don't do a bunch of blocking and evasion, because the longer it goes on the more likely it is you'll get badly hurt. So what you're saying seems compatible with that idea---whatever you tactics are, your strategy should be, take this guy out ASAP. 




Rook said:


> If only we could convince the current crop of traditionalists of this.... so much ink spilled about the need for this stuff.



I think it's becoming a more widespread and accepted idea. 



Rook said:


> It often is used to excess.  Also, lots of people overestimate its use or can't do it right.


 
There does tend to be a lot of mystification about it. But that's not just in MA. I was a downhill ski racer in the 1970s and the racers all thought this was the key to success. It definitely had its place, but people were treating it as though it were magic.




Rook said:


> I can see the use of breaking objects to teach correct alignment.  However, some people make demos of breaking a focus - risking injury for no real reason.  The other worry is people convinced that breaking a brick or a piece of wood is the same as breaking a bone or that the breaking demos convey an ability to injure an opponent sucessfully.



Again, it gets mystified. But I've always taken breaking to be a way to train focus, and a way to kind of quantify you ability to deliver power over a given surface area. 




Rook said:


> There are so many threads on this that I don't think I should discuss the pros and cons here.  There are lots of pros and cons for sure.



Yup! 



Rook said:


> I think it reflects how karate and similar systems are commonly practiced more than how they should be or once were.



Yes, and as Iain Abernethy, who's probably done the most to promote this approach to the katas in the MA than anyone else in recent times notes, a lot of the complaints about katas are correct, on the standard interpretations of their application. 

But here's my gripe: before you sit down and write something like Mann did, you really need to make sure your `worst case' interpretation of the system you're criticizing has the strongest justification among the alternatives. By the time Mann's critique appeared, there was a big, rich literature on combat-effective bunkai for kata that he doesn't seem to have been aware of.  It wouldn't have required a superhuman effort on his part to find out about it. Why go to the trouble of badmouthing something, rather than directing people who practice it towards its more effective uses? If someone is going to take as strong a position as Mann does, the burden of proof is really on them to show that their extreme negative take is the only one that the facts support, and Mann comes nowhere near doing that...


----------



## Rook

exile said:


> That's interesting... I had thought it was more fundamental than that. Just goes to show, I guess, that you'd better keep an open mind about systems that you don't yourself practice.


 
In the commercial schools, chain punching has become the central focus because it is flashy and to a certain extent effective in overwhelming less skilled opponents.  However, wing chun actually has alot more stuff, including some deceptively good simultaneous block-strike stuff in their first set and some really interesting and rather complex chin na stuff in their third hand set.  Alot of the people who are delving more into the history of the art before the Hong Kong mini-war with the Choy Lay Fat guys are finding that chain punching wasn't used all that much by the advanced guys.  



> I've always assumed that the 1punch/1kill slogan was really code for, make every move count maximally to end the fight. Don't let it go on, don't do a bunch of blocking and evasion, because the longer it goes on the more likely it is you'll get badly hurt. So what you're saying seems compatible with that idea---whatever you tactics are, your strategy should be, take this guy out ASAP.


 
I agree.  I think the intent was that each of the movements has the potential to end the fight by itself.  Some people tend to see this as a reality rather than an end-goal to be striven for (ie "its karate - we always kill with the first punch" - a certain karate sensei who shall not be named).  




> I think it's becoming a more widespread and accepted idea.


 
I do too, and I think that bodes well for the future of karate.  



> There does tend to be a lot of mystification about it. But that's not just in MA. I was a downhill ski racer in the 1970s and the racers all thought this was the key to success. It definitely had its place, but people were treating it as though it were magic.


 
I think it can be a useful supliment to training and I am only begining to learn it a little bit.  However, some people use meditation to the point that it crowds out other training or don't really know how to do it themselves and can't really teach it, and it just becomes minutes of staring at the wall.  (Yiquan guys are exempt from this criticism but karate guys aren't.)



> Again, it gets mystified. But I've always taken breaking to be a way to train focus, and a way to kind of quantify you ability to deliver power over a given surface area.


 
Sure.  My major complaint is that alot of people go around talking about how their ability to break dried bricks equates with bone-breaking power, which really simply is not the case.  Some people have gotten a very false sense of their own lethality by seeing piles of bricks shatter before them.  


[quoteYup! [/quote]





> Yes, and as Iain Abernethy, who's probably done the most to promote this approach to the katas in the MA than anyone else in recent times notes, a lot of the complaints about katas are correct, on the standard interpretations of their application.


 
I've read his website and paged through one of his books in a store... he has alot of good ideas and that view of bunkai is starting to make a real comback.  If it doesn't get sidetracked too much by either the Dillman crowd or various other pretenders to the throne, or shut down by other traditionalists, it could be very interesting to see how some of those people can fight in a few years.  



> But here's my gripe: before you sit down and write something like Mann did, you really need to make sure your `worst case' interpretation of the system you're criticizing has the strongest justification among the alternatives. By the time Mann's critique appeared, there was a big, rich literature on combat-effective bunkai for kata that he doesn't seem to have been aware of. It wouldn't have required a superhuman effort on his part to find out about it. Why go to the trouble of badmouthing something, rather than directing people who practice it towards its more effective uses? If someone is going to take as strong a position as Mann does, the burden of proof is really on them to show that their extreme negative take is the only one that the facts support, and Mann comes nowhere near doing that...


 
I think that Mann is criticising karate as taught.  There has been a real brutal debate in traditionalist circles about what counts as valid bunkai and which interpretations are traditional.  We have block-punch people, we have people with simple joint locks and armbars, then we have some people with more advanced ideas like Abernathy, and then there are quasi-esoteric nutcases like Dillman and there are some pretty intense discussions of who is teaching real tradition.  Mann seems to have just looked at the most common tradition available and concluded it was the one that had the most valid claim to being "traditional" karate.  It probably doesn't.


----------



## Hand Sword

It seems that is a problem. It's like the commercialized product is so widespread, and has gone on for so long, that it has become the model from which comparison is being made.


----------



## exile

Rook said:


> In the commercial schools, chain punching has become the central focus because it is flashy and to a certain extent effective in overwhelming less skilled opponents.  However, wing chun actually has alot more stuff, including some deceptively good simultaneous block-strike stuff in their first set and some really interesting and rather complex chin na stuff in their third hand set.  Alot of the people who are delving more into the history of the art before the Hong Kong mini-war with the Choy Lay Fat guys are finding that chain punching wasn't used all that much by the advanced guys.



Ain't it always like that?! The more in-depth you get with the history of these things, the more you realize how much people outside the art (and probably a good many inside, too) are seeing the full technical content via a distorted mirror. We're drowning in information about the MAs, but the catch is, it's often very difficult to know what information is good and what isn't. 



Rook said:


> ISome people tend to [one strike/one kill] as a reality rather than an end-goal to be striven for (ie "its karate - we always kill with the first punch" - a certain karate sensei who shall not be named).



That's what I thought when I heard the phrase at the very beginning of my training. Took a while and a lot of reading to twig to the original intention.  



Rook said:


> I think it can be a useful supliment to training and I am only begining to learn it a little bit.  However, some people use meditation to the point that it crowds out other training or don't really know how to do it themselves and can't really teach it, and it just becomes minutes of staring at the wall.  (Yiquan guys are exempt from this criticism but karate guys aren't.)



When I ski-raced way-back-when, we used visualization and other techniques to go through the course in our heads beforehand, to try to get our bodies pre-programmed to the turning pace and optimal lines through the poles---this was particularly important in slalom. As I recall, we just treated it as another prep technique. Nothing magical... but I also remember a couple of books on meditation and `inner skiing' which got uncomfortably mystical in their language (`the mogul comes up to throw you off balance, but there is no you and the mogul passes encounters emptiness' etc etc.)



Rook said:


> Some people have gotten a very false sense of their own lethality by seeing piles of bricks shatter before them.



It's _can_ be nothing more than an ego-massage. But there's another factor too, I suspect:  people really don't have any idea what effects their strikes would have in serious all-or-nothing combat. And mostly they're glad, quite rightly, not to have the opportunity to find out. But that question lingers... how hard am I really striking with this knife-hand? So there's a natural temptation to assume that the (usually) somewhat brittle board with  handy inherent lines of weakness is some kind of substitute for a strike on an attacker's body... big mistake!




Rook said:


> II've read his website and paged through one of his books in a store... he has alot of good ideas and that view of bunkai is starting to make a real comback.  If it doesn't get sidetracked too much by either the Dillman crowd or various other pretenders to the throne, or shut down by other traditionalists, it could be very interesting to see how some of those people can fight in a few years.



That's my sense of his work too and others in that new movement. One thing I like about Abernethy is that he's extremely sensible, rational and balanced in his positions: so yes, vital points are good to go for if you can, but don't expect anything magical, and do expect that susceptibility to vital-point strikes is going to vary tremendously from person to person. As Kane & Wildner note in their book, some people don't seem to _have_ any nerve clusters, and in a real fight, with massive adrenaline surges, people don't react to pain the way they're `supposed' to.



Rook said:


> I think that Mann is criticising karate as taught.  There has been a real brutal debate in traditionalist circles about what counts as valid bunkai and which interpretations are traditional.



Do you have any pointers to that discussion---karate magazines, on-line fora, that sort of thing? I'd like to see who's taking what positions in that debate...



Rook said:


> We have block-punch people, we have people with simple joint locks and armbars, then we have some people with more advanced ideas like Abernathy, and then there are quasi-esoteric nutcases like Dillman and there are some pretty intense discussions of who is teaching real tradition.  Mann seems to have just looked at the most common tradition available and concluded it was the one that had the most valid claim to being "traditional" karate.  It probably doesn't.



Yes, that's one of the two major problems with the piece---it looks like he hasn't done his homework. One of the things about MA history is that it isn't `just' history; it also can have major technical payoffs in understanding what the intent is of the moves you're learning.  Criticize away, but make sure you're not attacking a straw man. The other problem is the tone---no qualification, no sense that there might be another side to it---no caution; instead, this aggressive confidence and contempt for karate as a practical fighting art. Given all that, the intensely negative reaction to the essay people registered by people on the thread isn't particularly surprising.


----------



## exile

Hand Sword said:


> It seems that is a problem. It's like the commercialized product is so widespread, and has gone on for so long, that it has become the model from which comparison is being made.



The problem is... the economics of martial arts training are so different here than they were in Okinawa a hundred and fifty years ago, Japan eighty years ago and even Korea fifty years ago. The ethic is totally different. The Kwans in Korea didn't have large numbers of students and kid's programs and a you-pays-yer-money-and-takes-yer-choice approach to what was offered. Instead, you had relatively few, very dedicated students, strict discipline, no questions asked for the most part... and noone was making very much money. You can't do that in 21st c. America (or most other places in the west). You have a largely market-driven society where people treat education (including MA training) as ane economic transaction, period. MAs wind up being as commercial as anything else under those conditions...


----------



## twendkata71

*Isn't that why all of these Korean,Japanese and some Okinawan instructors immigrated to the US. They found out that they could make money teaching. Wasn't really much for them to leave behind. None of the Korean,Japanese or Okinawan masters that came the the US could make a living teaching their art in their own country. The martial arts industry has made some of them quite confortable financially.*
*Sorry a bit off topic.*









exile said:


> The problem is... the economics of martial arts training are so different here than they were in Okinawa a hundred and fifty years ago, Japan eighty years ago and even Korea fifty years ago. The ethic is totally different. The Kwans in Korea didn't have large numbers of students and kid's programs and a you-pays-yer-money-and-takes-yer-choice approach to what was offered. Instead, you had relatively few, very dedicated students, strict discipline, no questions asked for the most part... and noone was making very much money. You can't do that in 21st c. America (or most other places in the west). You have a largely market-driven society where people treat education (including MA training) as ane economic transaction, period. MAs wind up being as commercial as anything else under those conditions...


----------



## exile

twendkata71 said:


> *Isn't that why all of these Korean,Japanese and some Okinawan instructors immigrated to the US. They found out that they could make money teaching. Wasn't really much for them to leave behind. None of the Korean,Japanese or Okinawan masters that came the the US could make a living teaching their art in their own country. The martial arts industry has made some of them quite confortable financially.*
> *Sorry a bit off topic.*



Yes, absolutely right. For a lot of people in those closed societies, you were going to be poor no matter what you did---there was very little social mobility---it was quasi-feudal there till quite late. The wealth and social openness of the West gave incredible opportunities to people who, with all their great skill and expertise, would have had very little comparatively speaking if they'd stayed. So the commercial side of it is in a sense the price we pay for having, in a lot of places, our choice of MAs to study. 

I don't think anyone minds paying for instructions, and paying a lot for good instruction---that seems quite right (even if it makes the old master/apprentics system of traditional Asian training seem like something out of prehistory). What none of us likes is the idea that we might pay top-dollar for something that isn't very good---like paying for a Ferrari and finding that it's a lemon.


----------



## twendkata71

_*If I am going to train with someone, I do some background checking on that person and get some feedback from others that have trained with that person. No one wants to waste time or money. *_


----------



## exile

twendkata71 said:


> _*If I am going to train with someone, I do some background checking on that person and get some feedback from others that have trained with that person. No one wants to waste time or money. *_



Exactly---caveat emptor. Unfortunately, a lot of people going into MA for the first time don't really have a clue as to what the pitfalls are, or even that there _are_any. It's kind of catch-22: not until you're in the MAs for a while do you find out all the stuff that you really needed to know _before_ you started. If you're buying a dishwasher, you can check _Consumer Reports_, if you're looking for a mortgage broker, there are ways you can check on their reliability... but if you're looking for a dojang/dojo/whatever, you're really on your own unless you're lucky enough to know someone who (i) really likes his or her school and (ii) has been doing MA long enough to know what's at issue in terms of instructional quality. An experienced MA does know where to look and who to talk to, but there are a lot of very uninformed or underinformed consumers out there buying pigs in pokes...


----------



## eyebeams

Strictly speaking, Ikken hissatsu ("one strike one kill") was a philosophy adapted from kendo, not native to karate.


----------



## exile

eyebeams said:


> Strictly speaking, Ikken hissatsu ("one strike one kill") was a philosophy adapted from kendo, not native to karate.



That's true, no question---the sword art came first, and 1s1k came with it. But it's a logical strategy for _any_ combat system whose general strategy is to control an opponent's movements and body position so as to set up a disabling strike. I take 1s1k to  mean just this, that every action by the karateka either has the capacity to disable the opponent, or to force them into a response which will then allow the defender to disable them. This approach dictates, for example, that you have to reexamine the elements in katas which are labelled---and typically interpreted---as blocks. It will usually turn out that the blocking interpretation of the motion is unrealistic, and often makes no sense at all. Interpreting the `block' as a strike, or as a sequence of grappling moves cashed out as a strike, will in contrast often yield a very effective and practical response to an attacker's aggression. The same logic that makes 1s1k a very sensible approach in swordsmanship---the longer you let the fight go on the greater the odds you'll be killed!---applies in realistic combat situations.

There's an interesting article on the 1s1k concept in hand-to-hand fighting systems in the most recent issue of _Black Belt_, or maybe the one before that. I'm not a big fan of BB, but the analysis of 1s1k in this essay struck me as very plausible...


----------



## Brandon Fisher

If someone wants to equate breaking a brick or patio block with breaking a bone wiht a strike they are missing a key element to this theory.   The human body has muscle!!  To counter act this place a metro yellow pages phone book on top of the brick or patio block and then try to break it.  Makes it a lot more difficult but closer to reality in my opinion.  The power has to get through the phone book first just like muscle in the body.

Traditional Karate can be very effective if someone actually takes the time to learn how.  This whole thing about it not being is ususally skeptics not taking the time to truly understand the techniques and methods.


----------



## Hand Sword

exile said:


> The problem is... the economics of martial arts training are so different here than they were in Okinawa a hundred and fifty years ago, Japan eighty years ago and even Korea fifty years ago. The ethic is totally different. The Kwans in Korea didn't have large numbers of students and kid's programs and a you-pays-yer-money-and-takes-yer-choice approach to what was offered. Instead, you had relatively few, very dedicated students, strict discipline, no questions asked for the most part... and noone was making very much money. You can't do that in 21st c. America (or most other places in the west). You have a largely market-driven society where people treat education (including MA training) as ane economic transaction, period. MAs wind up being as commercial as anything else under those conditions...


 

I agree. However, it can't be denied, the M.A's have changed because of this. Early on here, instructors had other jobs, so, they taught in a more pure manner. With the education available, jobs, and finances too, I feel The M.A.'s didn't have to go down the route that they have. There are still pockets of the "old" way. They are in the minority, though. The commercialised form is what most make their comparisons on. They don't know how it used to be. Bottom line, each of us could eventually teach, money doesn't have to be a factor, IMHO.


----------



## exile

Hand Sword said:


> I agree. However, it can't be denied, the M.A's have changed because of this. Early on here, instructors had other jobs, so, they taught in a more pure manner. With the education available, jobs, and finances too, I feel The M.A.'s didn't have to go down the route that they have. There are still pockets of the "old" way. They are in the minority, though. The commercialised form is what most make their comparisons on. They don't know how it used to be. Bottom line, each of us could eventually teach, money doesn't have to be a factor, IMHO.



This is dead right. I'm incredibly lucky, my instructor, a KKW-certified fifth dan in TKD, teaches a curriculum that's both deep and broad and which reflects the old Kwan-based fighting style, with its Shotokan roots and grappling components intact---and, not coincidentally, he has a `day' job which pays for his family's needs, while he teaches as a labor of love. As you say, this kind of situation is really part of the `traditional' MAs---the full-time owner/operator/CEO/chief instructor is a product of the times, but not a necessary model nor one we necessarily strive for. This doesn't mean there aren't full time MA entrepreneurs who teach out of love for the full integrity of their arts, but being in that situation puts you under _pressure_ to go the McDoj. route, absolutely, and a lot of people will conform to that pressure.


----------



## JBrainard

Wikket said:


> Traditional karate should contain aspects the grappling art of Tuite, and Kyusho Jitsu, the study of vital strike points. Sadly, these are all but passed from the art.
> 
> Traditional karate - real traditional karate, is a most thorough self defence system. Alas, you would be hard pressed to find it.


 
I have never heard this. What ryu(s) encompas these aspects of karate?


----------



## twendkata71

*Matsumura Seito Shorin ryu, Goju ryu, uechi ryu, ryuei ryu, Matsubayashi ryu, ryukyu kempo, Okinawan kenpo. These are styles that still teach those type of things at the advanced levels. Then again you will have to find the right teacher in those styles.*
*Most styles of Japanese karate do do not teach them because of the emphasis on sport karate. There are a few in Japanese karate do that teach these things, but they are hard to find and you would have to train with them for a long time to gain their trust. *


----------



## exile

twendkata71 said:


> *Matsumura Seito Shorin ryu, Goju ryu, uechi ryu, ryuei ryu, Matsubayashi ryu, ryukyu kempo, Okinawan kenpo. These are styles that still teach those type of things at the advanced levels. Then again you will have to find the right teacher in those styles.*
> *Most styles of Japanese karate do do not teach them because of the emphasis on sport karate. There are a few in Japanese karate do that teach these things, but they are hard to find and you would have to train with them for a long time to gain their trust. *



Good info. Major grappling components are, I suspect, implicit in (and recoverable from) the forms of _all_ the variants of karate (Okinawan, Japanese, Korean), but it's very helpful to have a list of the ryu which at least in principle build them into the formal curriculum, instead of leaving it to the individual practitioner to carry out the bunkai analysis that uncovers them.


----------



## JBrainard

twendkata71 said:


> *Matsumura Seito Shorin ryu, Goju ryu, uechi ryu, ryuei ryu, Matsubayashi ryu, ryukyu kempo, Okinawan kenpo. These are styles that still teach those type of things at the advanced levels. Then again you will have to find the right teacher in those styles.*
> *Most styles of Japanese karate do do not teach them because of the emphasis on sport karate. There are a few in Japanese karate do that teach these things, but they are hard to find and you would have to train with them for a long time to gain their trust. *


 
Thank you very much! Now I've gotta' do some research...
I found a bunch of schools that teach these ryu, now I gotta' check 'em out.
Thanks again dude!


----------



## donald

as i am sure has been already stated in previous responses to this post. i believe its a mix of the student, and the art being taught. i believe that alot of the things taught in traditional karate,i.e. goju ryu, are highly applicable to a self defense situation. probably not everything is usable on the streets of today, but what you put in, is what you will get out. if you train with a street defense mindset, and give it your best. i believe that you will be able to defend yourself.


----------



## exile

donald said:


> if you train with a street defense mindset, and give it your best. i believe that you will be able to defend yourself.



yes---the training mindset is the key---the resources are all there. I also think though that it's really important to have an instructor who is on the same page with you in that respect.


----------



## evenflow1121

Most people learn how to make a fist, throw a punch, execute certain blocks through traditional Karate among other things, all part of self defense.  Think the article is inaccurate.


----------



## exile

evenflow1121 said:


> Most people learn how to make a fist, throw a punch, execute certain blocks through traditional Karate among other things, all part of self defense.  Think the article is inaccurate.



Evenflow---I agree, but I think what Mann would say in response to you is that, well sure, you learn blocking/punching/kicking in traditional karate but what you don't learn is how to _fight_---how to put the striking components together to protect yourself in response to an attacker's physical aggression. And it's true that not all dojos/dojangs emphasize the use of striking weapons in a coordinated effective way to incapacite an attacker as soon as possible, at least enough to get away safely from the situation. Mann's would put it this way: traditional MAs, by their very nature, equip you to become not martial artists but, in effect, martial arts _actors_, able to create the illusion of effective fighting skills under choreographed conditions where no real danger exists, but hopeless in the brutal conditions of unscripted violence. And it's true, many people who train in the MAs are limited in that way---_but not because of the inherent content of traditional MAs_. What's at fault is not karate, nor TKD, nor [fill in favorite maligned martial art] but the way those people have trained. If you train right, you learn not only how to throw a punch or deliver a kick, but how to force an unwilling opponent to comply with your defensive strategy so that you can actually _deliver_ those tools effectively. 

The missing link between that level of skill and the MAist is, according to a lot of knowledgeable people (many of them on this board), the kind of instruction that is offered at too many MA schools. Mann would have done far better to aim his criticism not at karate itself but at programs which claim to teach karate never cover the basics of effective self-defense against an untrained antagonist who is nonetheless quite used to, and comfortable with, a level of violence that would be scary to even experienced MAists, who tend to be fairly normal people. There's plenty to criticize in that directlon---but what Mann does instead is something like blame the car itself for an accident caused by a careless driver... it's not a perfect analogy but the two cases do have something in common.


----------



## JasonASmith

My Sensei is always harping on the fact that if what we are doing NOW in the Dojo can't translate effectively to THERE in the street, it's bogus...He also often makes the point that no one is born a fighter, it's something that you have to LEARN through dedicated practice and the proper mindset...


----------



## exile

JasonASmith said:


> My Sensei is always harping on the fact that if what we are doing NOW in the Dojo can't translate effectively to THERE in the street, it's bogus...He also often makes the point that no one is born a fighter, it's something that you have to LEARN through dedicated practice and the proper mindset...



A lot of very experienced instructors have indicated that they don't teach the genuinely dangerous applications until they've had someone as a student long enough to judge whether s/he will use that knowledge responsibly. And the thing is, it's not easy to learn combat applications of MA tactics on your own. You need someone who's been there and experimented with the fighting system to show you how to use the resources of that system under realistic (i.e. extremely unpleasant) conditions. I suspect though that as you continue with your Sensei, bits of the fighting applications latent in the system will start creeping into your training. It's an unusual instructor who completely ignores that aspect of their art in their teaching.


----------



## twendkata71

*I am a traditional karate practicioner. I have had to use karate in real street situations. You have to learn to work with the adrenelan rush that happens in a real attack. That is where many martial artists get stuck in a real situation. When that addrelelan kicks in and they don't know how to manage it. It becomes overwhelming and they make mistakes. In some cases fatal mistakes. Mental training is just as important as the physical. Mental training in the dojo should somewhat similar to what soldiers go through before going off to battle. Many of my past instructors were ex miliary. And their classes reflected that. The problem definetely lies in today's feel good karate,martial arts,etc. Now mind you that another important aspect of karate, and martial arts in general is the development of the individual to become a better,stronger minded person. To defeat their weaknesses.*


----------



## Hand Sword

Excellent points!


----------



## exile

twendkata71 said:


> * The problem definetely lies in today's feel good karate,martial arts,etc. *



The real problem, I've come to believe, is that training along the lines you describe---`reality-based' is the new buzzword---forces people to confront something that they really, really don't want to look at: the prospect of actually _fighting_. And they're right to not want to fight; a real fight is horrible, win or lose (except for the sickies who thrive on violence for its own sake). But MAs exist in the first place as sets of skills to you the best chance of coming out of a real fight relatively undamaged. That's where the arts came from in the first place. The people who developed Asian MAs probably didn't want to fight any more than any of us do, but unreasoning violence was part of their reality and they didn't have the luxury of ignoring it. MAs weren't parts of their entertainment lives; they were tools to survive real assaults that weren't uncommon under often lawless conditions. 

When these arts are transplanted to radically different circumstances, like mid-20th c. urban mega-societies, they become something very different. For most people, most of the time, personal violence is kept at a distance (though you can find it easily enough if you go looking for it!). The reality of the MAs---you are trying to hurt someone severely enough to stop them from trying to damage you---is just too raw. So if you run a MA school and want to stay in business, you just might not want to make your students have to take seriously the fact that the real `feel-good' intention of the MAs is to be able to congratulate yourself on shutting some guy who was trying very hard to take your head off. I think that's why so many MA schools do the kind of thing you're complaining about...


----------



## twendkata71

*You make a good point. I do not teach on a commercial basis. My students came to me looking for self protection training. Plus the rest of what traditional martial arts have to offer.(Physical fitness,mental training,etc.). You are right. Real attacks are ugly,and it is never like in the movies.  When I studied Okinawan Shorin ryu, that instructor did not have a commercial school, he didn't waste time on padding your emotions.  Our dojo moto was*
*" The more you sweat in the dojo, the less you blead in battle."*
*Yes the majority of dojo/dojangs/etc. simply do not want to face the reality of a street confrontation. And when your primary income is that school. Well, you are going to teach people in a way that is going to keep them coming back. *


----------



## JasonASmith

[* And when your primary income is that school. Well, you are going to teach people in a way that is going to keep them coming back. *[/quote]

Thank God that my Sensei isn't like that, but I guess that I can't slam on people that are...too much...


----------



## exile

twendkata71 said:


> *You make a good point. I do not teach on a commercial basis. My students came to me looking for self protection training. Plus the rest of what traditional martial arts have to offer.(Physical fitness,mental training,etc.). You are right. Real attacks are ugly,and it is never like in the movies.  When I studied Okinawan Shorin ryu, that instructor did not have a commercial school, he didn't waste time on padding your emotions.  Our dojo moto was*
> *" The more you sweat in the dojo, the less you blead in battle."*
> *Yes the majority of dojo/dojangs/etc. simply do not want to face the reality of a street confrontation. And when your primary income is that school. Well, you are going to teach people in a way that is going to keep them coming back. *



Yes, and your students are lucky to have you as a source of the real deal, which people in a heavily commercially oriented MA school are frequently denied, for just the reason you mention. I'm fortunate too in that my TKD teacher does not get paid by his students; he teaches as part of a city program here in Columbus and I think he gets some compensation from the city---not anything like what his teaching, knowledge and skills are worth, but 'twas ever thus, eh? But it's an arrangement that allows him to cover exactly the material from the vast treasurehouse of TKD skills that he thinks are crucial and central to real mastery of the art. And I know of other instructors whose schools are their livelihood but who don't compromise their integrity, who teach the technical core of their art and also its combat applications to students who they judge to be responsible enough to learn that material, and sacrifice large classes and serious money in order to maintain a very high level of quality. But it's all too rare... 

There's a real dilemma involved. When an MA is made available only to a very small number of devoted adepts, its survival is dicey because knowledge of it is vested completely in a small group of people living in a dangerous world, and one-to-one replacement of expertise over the generations is in no way guaranteed. And when an MA is very widely spread, its survival is also dicey because that wide a spread tends to go hand-in-hand with dilution of the core components of the system, resulting in what you called the `feel-good', lowest common denominator content we see in McDojangs/McDojos. The best place for an MA to be is somewhere in between these poles---I have the sense from my reading that that's what Anko Itosu was aiming at when he started his program of repackaging Okinawan karate for the schools there a century or so ago. But it seems as if we've definitely gone about as far as we can go in the `mega' direction...


----------



## twendkata71

*Master Choon Yang in Columbus is a Taekwondo instructor that teaches the art for the development of his student and the art, and teaches for realizm. He also does not incourage competition. There are a lot of people that feel that Taekwondo has lost its effectivness as a self defense art. There are still many Taekwondo instructors that teach what the original Masters in Korea meant the art for. Not just the commercial side or Olympic Taekwondo.*
*I come from a Japanese/Okinawan background. I respect all arts. And I feel that for the most part all arts have value.*


----------



## exile

twendkata71 said:


> _Master Choon Yang in Columbus is a Taekwondo instructor that teaches the art for the development of his student and the art, and teaches for realizm. He also does not incourage competition._



Thanks for the info, twendkata---do you have the name of his dojang? I'd like to stop by and pay my respects---I'm trying to get a sense of the `traditional TKD' community in Columbus and nearby places.



twendkata71 said:


> _There are a lot of people that feel that Taekwondo has lost its effectivness as a self defense art._



They're basing that on the media picture of TKD, which tends to focus on the sports side. And some of it, of course, comes from people who love to bash anything other than their own fighting system. It's not just MAs---in trying to answer one of my son's questions, I recently encountered the same kind of disdain for what others do/think on some discussion board involving the relative toxicity of Australian snakes! Believe it or not, there are some herpetologists out there with _big_ chips on their shoulders...




twendkata71 said:


> There are still many Taekwondo instructors that teach what the original Masters in Korea meant the art for. Not just the commercial side or Olympic Taekwondo.
> 
> I come from a Japanese/Okinawan background. I respect all arts. And I feel that for the most part all arts have value.



I agree completely, and I think it's worth doing a bit of studying to see how those other systems work---even though you don't do them yourself, there are probably lessons in them for more effective application of ones' own  MA.


----------



## twendkata71

*The name of his school is the Choon Yang karate institute,( I think that is the name. He never changed it from the karate sign when he opened the school back in the early 70's.) It is on 2870 West Broad street I believe.  Not so far out as Paiks school.  I met Master Yang several years ago. A friend of mine and former student married his niece. *
*My personal experience with Taekwondo was at one of our karate camps many years ago. Taekwondo and karate master Roger Jarret (Chong Shin Kwan ) used to come to our camps. He taught me several kicking techniques when I was starting out. He now is the President of the USA National Karate do Federation,(sport) NGB for traditional karate with the USOC.*


----------



## exile

twendkata71 said:


> The name of his school is the Choon Yang karate institute,( I think that is the name. He never changed it from the karate sign when he opened the school back in the early 70's.) It is on 2870 West Broad street I believe.  Not so far out as Paiks school.  I met Master Yang several years ago. A friend of mine and former student married his niece.
> 
> Thanks so much for this info. I have a dim idea of where his dojang is located---over the river a ways from my side of town, but quite easy to get to. He's in the phone book.
> 
> *My personal experience with Taekwondo was at one of our karate camps many years ago. Taekwondo and karate master Roger Jarret (Chong Shin Kwan ) used to come to our camps. He taught me several kicking techniques when I was starting out. He now is the President of the USA National Karate do Federation,(sport) NGB for traditional karate with the USOC.*



I've always thought that it would be good for TKD and karate practitioners to spend a bit of time learning a bit about each other's technical bases. The two, while they've developed in somewhat different directions from their `common ancestor' fighting systems, are close enough in their overallstrategic view of combat and their skill sets to be able to fit ideas from each other's approaches into their own existing curricula. The kind of camp you referred to sounds like it was great in that respect. I wonder if there's anything like that around here... hmmm... could be a great way to spend part of a summer.


----------



## JBrainard

exile said:


> You need someone who's been there and experimented with the fighting system to show you how to use the resources of that system under realistic (i.e. extremely unpleasant) conditions.


 
Very good point. I found (on accident, I admit) a Shotokan Sensei who was a marine for years, so I suspect he knows what works and what doesn't.


----------



## JBrainard

exile said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twendkata71*
> 
> 
> _There are a lot of people that feel that Taekwondo has lost its effectivness as a self defense art._
> 
> 
> They're basing that on the media picture of TKD, which tends to focus on the sports side. And some of it, of course, comes from people who love to bash anything other than their own fighting system. It's not just MAs---in trying to answer one of my son's questions, I recently encountered the same kind of disdain for what others do/think on some discussion board involving the relative toxicity of Australian snakes! Believe it or not, there are some herpetologists out there with _big_ chips on their shoulders...


 
I don't think it's because of the media picture of TKD. I think that it's because most "belt factories" teach TKD. I don't know why this is, it's just something I've noticed.


----------



## exile

JBrainard said:


> Very good point. I found (on accident, I admit) a Shotokan Sensei who was a marine for years, so I suspect he knows what works and what doesn't.



Yeah, that's probably a safe bet. Military application of an MA tend to prune a lot of the decorative extras from the system. The ROK Black/White Tigers who fought in the Korean and Vietnamese wars were trained in a very hard TKD skill set and had the reputation in both wars of being the toughest of the tough, people you did _not_ want to go hand-to-hand with. I suspect that what they were doing in their combat training then wouldn't look too much like what we've seen in Olympic-style WTF sparring...


----------



## twendkata71

*Our organization had a lot of exposure,cross training with Taekwondo stylist, mainly because we were involved with the USAKF movement for traditional karate competitions when the USAKF was the NGB for the USOC,WUKO/WKF. The president of the USAKF is a Taekwondo and karate grand master. He was originally a Taekwondo stylist and then got involved in more Japanese karate back in the 70's when he became involved with the USKA and then AAU karate. He teaches both Taekwondo and karate programs in his school as well as a variety of other arts. He became affiliated with several Masters in Japan. I know several fantastic Taekwondo stylist that do not run the" belt factories". The sad fact is that there are soo many Taekwondo schools out there that are Mcdojo/Mcdojangs that it has tarnished the credibility of Taekwondo. There are just as many karate schools that are the same way.*
*With all of the years that I have spent in the martial arts, it pays to keep an open mind and to learn from everyone that you can. :asian: *


----------



## exile

twendkata71 said:


> _Our organization had a lot of exposure,cross training with Taekwondo stylist, mainly because we were involved with the USAKF movement for traditional karate competitions when the USAKF was the NGB for the USOC,WUKO/WKF. The president of the USAKF is a Taekwondo and karate grand master. He was originally a Taekwondo stylist and then got involved in more Japanese karate back in the 70's when he became involved with the USKA and then AAU karate. He teaches both Taekwondo and karate programs in his school as well as a variety of other arts._



I happen to think that is a _great_ natural combination. I don't think of it as `cross training' because the skill sets are so close (as reflected in the near identity of the kata on the one hand and the hyungs on the other). I think of them as kind of like two dialects of, say, German---people from different villages can tell that X is from their own village and Y is from the other village by the way they speak, but X and Y can talk to each other and understand each other perfectly, no problem. In that same way, TKD and karate are mutually intelligible. 




twendkata71 said:


> _He became affiliated with several Masters in Japan. I know several fantastic Taekwondo stylist that do not run the" belt factories". The sad fact is that there are soo many Taekwondo schools out there that are Mcdojo/Mcdojangs that it has tarnished the credibility of Taekwondo. There are just as many karate schools that are the same way._


_

Yes. I've started referring to `Mcdojs.' because it starts taking too long to keep writing 'Mcdojo/Mcdojangs'. Both TKD and karate are afflicted with the same problem. My main gripe with such places is that the students in those outfits are being deceived---they think they're getting effective training but typically aren't. And the problem is, as someone pointed out on another thread a while back, they think everything is on the up-and-up because they just don't know any better---their only experience in the MAs is in that Mcdoj. Only when something happens like what Iceman describes in his thread about his new 8-year-old student who came to him with a `black belt' from another dojang (commercially driven, unlike Iceman's) do the people involved find out that they've been had.



twendkata71 said:



With all of the years that I have spent in the martial arts, it pays to keep an open mind and to learn from everyone that you can. :asian: 

Click to expand...


Absolutely---and the best reason for doing so is that your own interpretation of your`core' art can improve if you're open to other influences. It's like anything else---there's a lot more going on there than any one system of thought can dream of. Can't understand the venom with which some people view the existence of MA other than their own--diversity in the MAs is like biodiversity in nature; it makes for an ecosystem much more likely to survive._


----------



## twendkata71

*The whole idea of one style the only style came from the commercialization by the Japanese and Korean masters  to keep their students and income. Originally the old Okinawans would crosstrain with other styles learning as much as they could. When it got to Japan, and in some part Korea they started telling their students to only train in one style  and that their style was superior to the others (ego driven).*


----------



## exile

twendkata71 said:


> *The whole idea of one style the only style came from the commercialization by the Japanese and Korean masters  to keep their students and income. Originally the old Okinawans would crosstrain with other styles learning as much as they could. When it got to Japan, and in some part Korea they started telling their students to only train in one style  and that their style was superior to the others (ego driven).*



Funny---we tend to have the impression that this factionalization of the MAs began with the export of the Asian MAs to North America, but what you're pointing out is that it happened well before the postwar `karate boom'. (Just as a matter of interest, does anyone recall the earliest appearance of karate in popular culture? I remember it appearing in _The Manchurian Candidate_ in 1962, in a fight between Frank Sinatra's character and some villain who was, I believe, supposed to be Korean.) We know that there always were rivalries between different fencing schools in Japan during the samurai era, so hostility among the karate dojos would have been nothing new. The Okinawan approach seems so much more realistic and practical...


----------



## twendkata71

*Interesting fact. GM George Anderson teaches Chang moo kwan Taekwondo, Which they call "Korean Shotokan" because his teacher and the founder of this style studied with Funakoshi at the Shotokan in Japan. I am sure this did not set well with the KTA or WTF as they are trying to space themselves as far from the Japanese as possible. Several of them even try to say that Taekwondo does not have any Japanese influence. Which is totally false. The Japanese invaded and ruled Korea for 35 years and tried to wipe out the indigenous Korean martial arts and implant their own arts and culture. No wonder that the Koreans still dislike(hate) the Japanese and wish to deny any lineage with the Japanese karate masters.*


----------



## exile

twendkata71 said:


> *Interesting fact. GM George Anderson teaches Chang moo kwan Taekwondo, Which they call "Korean Shotokan" because his teacher and the founder of this style studied with Funakoshi at the Shotokan in Japan. I am sure this did not set well with the KTA or WTF as they are trying to space themselves as far from the Japanese as possible. Several of them even try to say that Taekwondo does not have any Japanese influence. Which is totally false. The Japanese invaded and ruled Korea for 35 years and tried to wipe out the indigenous Korean martial arts and implant their own arts and culture. No wonder that the Koreans still dislike(hate) the Japanese and wish to deny any lineage with the Japanese karate masters.*



This is a very important point that Last Fearner has made in some of his recent posts in the Korean fora, that there was a strong motive for the Koreans to reassert their cultural autonomy and stress, to the rest of the world, that their culture had indeed survived the efforts of the Japanese to eliminate it during the occupation. And I suspect that the continuing reluctance of the Japanese government to really face up to any of that is going to continue to fuel hostility in Korea toward the Japanese thread in their culture---especially TKD, which is one of Korea's highest profile `exports', a true icon of the culture. 

But while it's understandable, it's also unfortunate, I think, for a very concrete reason: if you accept the root of the Korean patterns in Okinawan/Japanese kata, you can then access all of the deep analysis of the O/J katas---the work on bunkai, the reconstruction of the kaisai no geri to `unlock' the combat meanings of the kata, and what actual explicit information the earlier O/J masters explicitly provided. The work of Abernethy, Kane & Wilder, Rick Clark and Javier Martinez (among many others) become available and can to some degree be applied `off the shelf', the way Simon O'Neil does. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, you can take off from the research that these people have done. And as you say, there's abundant documentation that essentially all of the original Kwans were founded by Korean MAists who had trained extensively in Shotokan/Shudokan and related styles. Might as well use the knowledge that's out there, eh?


----------



## Hand Sword

Exactly right. True research for answers should have no bias.


----------



## Seeking Zen

still learning said:


> Hello, Real fighting is fast, no rules, anything goes. Karate does not teach you to bite,scratch,spit in to the eyes, and karate is not set-up to fight a real street fight, who fights like the Katas?
> 
> But it does teach you to beware, and not fight, this is the best self-defence!
> 
> Did you ever see anyone punch like they train in Karate fist to side and straight long punch? Watch all the fighters of the world and see how they punch? Notice the best guys are the same! (like boxing)
> 
> The top karate guys will hold there own,but the average karate black-belt students will most likly lose to the street fighter. They are not train to fight like the streets fights. Just my thoughts (from books and videos on street fights)...Aloha


 
No offence intended...but your comments suggest you havent spent much time training Traditional Karate. To clarify I am not any kind of master, but thus far my understanding of the purpose behind the traditional "basics" you are referring to is that they are dramatic and precise movements all of which contain components that will generate the most power and stability. Repetitive practice of these movements trains the MA to be quick, precise and powerful. When the MA then moves to sparring or self defence the movements are shortened and sped up as well as reactionary.
As for Kata, Kata IMHO is powerful. Yes, as they say the essence of Karate is in the Kata. To me the defence is hidden in the art. Perfecting Kata trains you to control emotion, think, react, and see opportunity in the moment. 
As for fighters of the world...I assume you mean on T.V. and yes they all have similar styles...it is called sport. You have never seen nor will you ever see Traditional Karate in a ring. Traditional Karate self defences do not conform to rules of the ring and seek only to eliminate a threat as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is not pretty like the movies.



Block 
Counter
Break 
Take Down
Finish

All of that said...as many have said the individual not the style or art will dictate victory.


----------



## ISMA girl

this post got  my attention and that is why i am now a member. i am a student of a traditional style karate(matsubyashi shorin ryu) 
1- at my dojo we are taught the difference between training methods and actual uses.
2- my dojo is inside of a mall and may be considered commercial , however it is the  farthest thing from commercial. the dojo owner is there for the students not to make money.
3- any self defense is based on reaction time
4- traditional karate teaches you techniques to react with 
if someone pulls a gun on you , you can not beat that bullet no matter what style you use to defend with, but if properly trained you should be able react to the threat and disarm before the gun is fully pulled.
self defense requires awareness and reaction.


----------



## exile

ISMA girl said:


> this post got  my attention and that is why i am now a member. i am a student of a traditional style karate(matsubyashi shorin ryu)
> 1- at my dojo we are taught the difference between training methods and actual uses.
> 2- my dojo is inside of a mall and may be considered commercial , however it is the  farthest thing from commercial. the dojo owner is there for the students not to make money.
> 3- any self defense is based on reaction time
> 4- traditional karate teaches you techniques to react with
> if someone pulls a gun on you , you can not beat that bullet no matter what style you use to defend with, but if properly trained you should be able react to the threat and disarm before the gun is fully pulled.
> self defense requires awareness and reaction.



Sounds good to me! The crucial point is the relationship between the movements of the kata forms and the SD uses of those movements, which can be a world away from the literal description as `block', `punch' etc. As long as your instructor pushes you to analyze, understand and train in realistic bunkai, that to me counts as traditional, and it's the heart of the karate-rooted arts as self-defense systems.


----------



## karatekid1975

I agree. I have been training 6 years in korean MA. Not that it's bad, mind you. But I tried this dojo, which is traditional style training (if I don't block, I get hit hard type stuff). I got my rear kicked by a lower ranked person. I was wondering what I did wrong. It's not that I did anything wrong, but they are used to being hit (no gear) and this guy was so much faster because he was trained "not to get hit or get hurt." His reaction time was much better. I'm used to gear, but he's used to hard "knocks." So I don't "dis" traditional MA. They know how to "give it out" and take it as well. It hurts as well, but I'll one day be like that, too.


----------



## exile

karatekid1975 said:


> I agree. I have been training 6 years in korean MA. Not that it's bad, mind you. But I tried this dojo, which is traditional style training (if I don't block, I get hit hard type stuff). I got my rear kicked by a lower ranked person. I was wondering what I did wrong. It's not that I did anything wrong, but they are used to being hit (no gear) and this guy was so much faster because he was trained "not to get hit or get hurt." His reaction time was much better. I'm used to gear, but he's used to hard "knocks." So I don't "dis" traditional MA. They know how to "give it out" and take it as well. It hurts as well, but I'll one day be like that, too.



And that difference you're talking abouit, it's strictly a training difference. When I talk with people I know who do karate and we compare situations---OK, so the guy does this, what's your response?---a lot of times, maybe most times, we come up with the very same menu of possible response moves (most of which involve evasion, moving in, trap, lock, elbow/knifehand strike---almost all hand techniques, maybe the odd low disabling turning kick to the side of the knee)---even though I'm TKD and they're Shotokan or whatever. But in TKD it's taken for granted that you're going to wear padding, in most dojangs. In karate, it's much more likely to be no padding, open season... A lot of times, I suspect, people doing different MAs which share the same general strategic plan will wind up doing a lot of the same things so far as tactics and actual _moves_; what differentiates them is how willing the practitioners are to train for what Geoff Thompson calls `the pavement arena' as realistically as they can and still not wind up in, or send someone else to, the hospital. 

Sounds like you're gonna get into that kind of training at your new dojo---good luck with it, and keep safe, eh?


----------



## pkaronin

This was a well written article, with several good points.  However, it does not directly address Karate in the 21st century.  Rather, it seems to address the author's stereotype of Karate in the 21st century.  

I'd like to address each of his points below.  To lay the groundwork, I train in Okinawan Kenpo.
_
   1. The One-Strike Kill
 The biggest cliché of karate is the one-strike kill. This of course does not exist, but has fooled so many for years. Shigeru Egami (one of Funakoshi's top students) freely admitted there was no such thing. At one point in his career, Egami admits going into a deep depression after concluding a personal study about which martial style had the most powerful tsuki (punches). He found that karate had the least powerful tsuki, and boxing the strongest. Betting everything on one punch can get you killed. 
_- This is more of a stereotype (more common to certain flavors of Karate than to others).  I agree with the author, there is no such thing as one-punch/one kill.

_   2. Waiting for The Attack
 Karate philosophy states, "wait for the attack." Remember Funakoshi's maxim, "Never attack first?" This is suicidal. In real situations, the first person to strike usually walks away. The untrained public, (influenced by Hollywood and martial arts mythology) erroneously thinks you have to eat the first punch, but you give up your lawful right to self-protection by letting anyone strike you first. Criminals take advantage of this civilized mindset. If you feel that violence is about to break out, strike first. _
    - This is both purely philosophical and theoretical.  First, in the event that violence is about to break out, I need to ask why?  Are you actually involved in an altercation with someone?  If so, why?  If that is the case, the easiest thing to do is to apologize and walk away.  Problem solved.  No fight.  If you are getting mugged, again, the easiest and best way to get out alive is to just turn over your wallet and cooperate.  Violence rarely, if ever, just "breaks out".  There is usually a cause or a catalyst to it and the easiest way to stay safe is to just not be there.  In a real life and death situation, where you are truely caught unawares, odds are that the first strike already happened and you have no choice BUT to block/evade and counter.  The idea that a karateka should never strike first goes beyond the concrete and stereotypical example of two people arguing and the karateka just waiting for the first punch to be thrown.  It has meanings on different levels.  First and foremost, you should be not be in that situation to begin with.  Secondly, if you ARE in that situation, every effort should be made to de-escalate the situation and disengage.  If and only if the first two rules have already been broken and you have NO other recourse should you physically have to defend yourself.  At that point, you have already failed in everything you have learned in self-defense and at that point you will have to strike your oponent to stay alive.  Any martial arts instructor NOT teaching the theory behind WHY you should not have to strike first and how you got into that situation is not doing a good job.  

_   3. On Stances
 Karate, (along with several hard Chinese styles) employs some of the most ineffective stances in martial arts. Deep, low karate stances make you completely immobile; they plant you in one spot, making quick movements extremely difficult. You may as well hang a sign around your neck saying "strike me at will, I can't move." If you recall early kickboxing, the first thing they got rid of were those limiting stances. 
_- First, kickboxing is a sport, as the author points out later in their argument.  There are set rules that make deep, low karate stances disadvantageous to use.  In an actual self defense situation, there are times (such as in takedowns and throws), where you actually WANT to be rooted to the ground as to not go down with your oponent.  They are not always a bad idea.  Furthermore, in the argument above, the author is assuming that every karateka will fight from a horse or front stance of some sort.  This is simply not true.  I've trained in three different dojos in three similar Okinawan styles, and in EVERY case, the instructor also has a "fighting" stance taught to students which is considerably more mobile and designed for use in a "realistic" setting.

_   4. Karate as a Way Of Life
 Years ago while in Japan, Gogen (Yamaguchi) once came up to me and asked, "I never see you practice kata, why?" I replied that I thought it was an exercise in futility, having no functional value. He grew upset and chastised me by saying, without kata, we're just animals, like boxers or wrestlers, I replied, "that's OK, I just want the skills." More than anything else, karate people have a fear about being labeled "killers." Their reply is always, "I follow the path, karate is a way of life." I guess they feel absolved from their inner conflicts or sociological guilt when they say that, sort of like what confession does for a Catholic. 
_Kata serves two very important purposes:
1) Physical conditioning
2) Maintaining a catalog of all of the techniques in a given system to keep everyone doing that system on the same page.  
Without some structure and rigor to training, "systems" will quickly devolve to flailing about in an effort to harm your oponent.  I strongly believe that the author is missing the point of people that tell him that "karate is a way of life" or that "without kata, we're just animals, like boxers or wrestlers". What they are saying is in line with my first point.  Fighting should be avoided at all costs.  THAT is what martial arts is (or should be) about - promoting discipline and physical health.  Fighting CAN and SHOULD be avoided.  As the author makes a comparisson to catholicisim, I can just as easily compare his comment about "just wanting the skills" to really meaning that "I just want to be a better brawler for my bar fights".

_   5. Spirituality and Meditation
 For many Japanese karateka, religion and martial arts are inseparably linked. Japanese spirituality and meditation are not a function of karate; they're emblematic of the culture that developed it. Westerners really buy into this big time. It's actually a direct affront to your personal beliefs. What if a Japanese boxer wanted to train in the U.S. with a Baptist coach, would he have to join the church, sing out loud, clap his hands, dance and get down? Changing your spiritual identity in order to learn self-defense is ludicrous! Mas Oyama once asked me how much time I meditate per day. I told him -- I don't, I have my own religion; I don't need to replace it with another. 

 Meditation does not necessarily benefit any martial activity. For example, I recall, in the 1983 Olympics in Korea, the Koreans had the strongest archery team in the world. They attributed their secret of success to their late night meditation practices in cemeteries. Did it help the men's team win - no, an American walked away with the gold. Did he meditate? No, before each match he was listening to Van Halen! _ 
    - Allow me to say clearly, once and for all, that meditation is NOT a direct affront to your personal beleifs, NOR is it a relegion.  It is meant soley as a method of teaching focus.  I have never once been told, by different Okinawan instructors, to meditate on something that I did not believe in.  I HAVE been told to clear my mind, focus on what I have learned that day OR focus on something else.  If you are a christian, there is NOTHING preculding you from meditating on a scripture that you just read.  It is meant merely as a tool through which you can develop focus.

_   6. Breaking Objects can Break You! 
 Karate, more than any other martial art is renowned for its breaking demonstrations; but anyone can break inanimate objects, it's easy and you don't have to study karate to do so. Do breaking boards and bricks translate into fighting ability? Again Egami comments that breaking objects is very different than striking a human body, humans are resilient. He goes farther, saying that even "makiwara" training is harmful to the body, and stopped doing it already in the late '50's. Robert Smith, in his book "Martial Musings" notes that Mas Oyama damaged his hands so much he couldn't even place a blanket on top of them when he went to sleep. Continued breaking over a period of years brings with it such delights as arthritis and other degenerative diseases. 
_I agree completely with the author on this.  Point well taken.

_   7. The Kata Crutch
 A major part of karate practice focuses on kata. I've never understood why so many people defend it so vehemently. There's almost a cult-like obsession with doing it. Perhaps karateka feel it grants them a special kind of spiritual dispensation, allowing them to indulge in the study of fighting. Kata however is nothing more than several techniques strung together; a tool to help beginners understand how techniques flow. For advanced practitioners, it constrains your progress and adds no functional value to your fighting skills. Jon Bluming said it best, something to the effect of, "it takes up time, and the money rolls in." _
    - I discuss Kata in more detail above.  See my earlier comment.  To be somewhat blunt (and just as sarcastic as the author) - I suppose the money is NOT rolling in as your coach gives you new pad drills, ect?

_   8. Karate Doesn't Prepare You for the Street
 Unlike a sparring match, there are no rules on the street, no time-outs, no referees to separate you; there's no sanctity of life. Street fights don't start at sparring distance; many times they suddenly erupt chest-to-chest, many times from behind without warning. Your attacker won't necessarily stop if you scream in pain. Unlike the smooth floor of the dojo, the street and pavement can be uneven, broken and contain dangerous objects you can fall over. 
_- I agree here too.  I must ask the author though, why, in all of your years in karate, have you never taken to trying to do a form outdoors on uneven pavement?  I have certainly tried it, discovered that it is in fact different, and continue to practice it and I would encourage everyone else to do the same.  Training does not end when you leave the dojo.
_
 In all the years I spent in karate, there was never a word about fighting under adrenaline stress conditions, the use-of-force, gross motor skills, and absolutely no legal considerations. Karate is only concerned with the attack stage of the encounter; no mention is made about the pre and post-conflict stages. Environmental and situational awareness, preemptive strike, what to do if you're hurt, do you run away, or make a citizen's arrest? 
- _I would rephrase that to state that "Many karate instructors are only concerned with the attack stage of the encounter."  I've also been tought by instructors who WERE concerned with the pre and post stages of conflict.

_ Many karate techniques employ fine motor skills; under stress these are the first skills that abandon you. To work under excited conditions, techniques must be simple and based on gross motor skills. If you've been in fights, you know that after a few seconds of wild striking, many people start grabbing each other and quite often fall to the ground. How is your ground game? Do you know how to fight in a parking lot at midnight, on sand, gravel, on ice on a winter's day? Training barefoot in a dojo doesn't prepare you for any of these scenarios. 
- _I agree that under stress fine motor skills are the first to abandon you.  Have you ever seen anyone do a form or spar with an audience for the first time?  There are several things you can do to develop these skills SUCH as sparring (continuious, not point) and performing kata with an audience, simulating training under stress, etc.  Additionally, I agree that groundwork is neglected in many (but not ALL) karate dojos.  

_   9. Karate Makes you Stiff and Rigid
 For years people have avoided weight training for fear that they would become stiff. If they only knew the truth -- weight training actually makes you flexible and supple; it's karate that makes you stiff! I've spoken at length to many boxing, kali, Brazilian Jujitsu and muaythai instructors and they all agree, karate produces a tenseness and rigidity that seems almost irreversible. I believe it's all those hard air punches and kicks, tense kata and deep immovable stances contributing to this condition. You see this state most pronounced when karate students take up reality-based defense. _
    - In many cases, this is true.  However, in the dojo that I train in now, a regimine of boxing, kickboxing, and groundwork is built into the training to help avoid the "stiffness" that the author is describing.

_   10. Karate is Ineffective Against Modern Weapons
 The term Empty-Hand says it all; the main focus of karate is on unarmed combat. They do practice traditional weapons however, but what use is sai, tonfa, sickle, and bo practice when you can't carry them. This is unrealistic in 2003, where attacks are mainly carried out with guns, knives and impact weapons. When you typically hear of karateka being hurt in an attack, it usually involves a knife or gun. Whenever we do seminars employing weapons scenarios, it's usually the most advanced karateka that get killed the quickest. _
    - I strongly disagree with the author in this area.  Practicing with the sai, tonfa, sickle, and bo does wonders for your forearms and upper body strength and endurance overall.  I do agree that a good self defense regimine should include a knife and gun.  That being said, I certainly HOPE that you are teaching the people at your seminars that the best (and often only) way to survive an encounter with someone with a gun is to cooperate OR not be there in the first place.  The only exception to this is when the person with the gun makes the mistake of getting well within striking range of an elbow (not to say that an elbow is the appropriate response, merely to delineate distance) OR if you have a gun yourself.

_   11. Karate Takes Too Long to Learn, and You Still Can't Fight!
 In terms of effort spent, to proportion of effectiveness gained, traditional karate is one of the least efficient systems of any fighting style. Too much time is spent on the inanities of rituals and form. Most karate schools spend countless hours on kata or mindless sparring, as if this will prepare students for a real fight, but it doesn't. Free sparring in karate only teaches you to fight other (barefoot) karateka's in a dojo (school) environment. Kata practice is a primitive form of shadow boxing, nothing more. There usually is no counter-knife, counter-firearms training, if it is taught all, it's usually presented in a rigid step-by-step process, having no relation to what a real attack looks like. _
    - I disagree with this.  Conditioning takes time.  There is no way around it.  Pitting an unconditioned intiate who has been to a weeklong seminar against a seasoned street-fighter or martial artist will only result in the untrained getting hurt.  A week is only long enough to introduce the new person to everything they do NOT know and to stress how NOT to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or how to de-escalate a situation if you are.  

_   12. The Apotheosis of the Master
 I've always felt uncomfortable with the semi-deification of the so-called martial arts master. It just goes against the grain of my western upbringing. My goal in learning fighting was not to become a supplicant of an old man with a tough reputation. I believe that's another reason why mixed martial arts (i.e., BJJ, muaythai, boxing, and Filipino martial arts) have become so popular. There's no groveling involved just mutual respect. In the west, a coach doesn't demand a special status, over and beyond his normal duties. A coach guides athletes in their respective sports. His goal is to encourage, goad and train his charges to success. He is the father, the friend and the teacher; athletes trust him and his judgment.
_- Ah, but the semi-deification of a sports legend is okay, right???  I am afraid that our "western" values are conflicted a bit here.  I do agree that there are instructors that let their "rank" get to their head.  However, for every one of them, I have seen good humble people who just want to teach.  

If you are going to attack Karate, try to look past the stereotypes and really analyze what karate is.

Regards,
Matt


----------



## twendkata71

:deadhorse


----------



## chinto

i would say that the individual who wrote this is not knowledgeble about karate at all. tought correctly it is a very efficent and capible system of self defence.  my suspician is that this individual is one of the "reality based self defence " instructors or student of such that thinks that say 3 weeks of 3 hours a day will make you effective if you only use their "magical reality based system". The other real posibility is some one who is teaching something along the lines of the older military hand to hand combat systems that again to start with were not intended to deal with a skilled trained martial artist at all, but other conscripted solders with similer or less training.  ether way its totaly inacurate and provably intentionaly so.


----------



## chinto

JBrainard said:


> I have never heard this. What ryu(s) encompas these aspects of karate?


 

the older styles of okinawan karate all have them. shobayashi shorin ryu, kobayashi shorin ryu, matsubayashi shorin ryu, and others all have grapling and locking and vital points and basicly every other thing you could want. these arts were developed and designed to criple or kill an attacker who was provably armed before he injured or cripled or killed you or your family! you dont develop any system and certianly do not have it survive in an envirement where the looser is cripled or dead far more often then not if it is not efficent and effective in combat. I you did develop a system that did not work for self defence in that envirement that was every bit as violent and dangrous as any today, then it would have died out centurys ago!


----------



## bushidomartialarts

two threads resurrected in the same night for the same reason. now realfighting.com is one of several websites that try to sell you a self-defense course. it's the charles atlas of our generation.

what gets me is why people take the ad copy any more seriously than they take any other ad copy.

are there threads on "Burger King:  Do I Really Get It My Way?", or "1001 Things Brown Can Do For Me"?  

no.  

let's ignore the fearmongering and chest thumping of poorly written advertising and get back do discussing the important issues, like whether MMA or TMA is more effective on the street.


----------



## chinto

Hammer Head said:


> Well, it all depends on what you mean by the term "traditional karate". There are different types of karate practices to be considered. At this time, I will mention two:
> 
> We have contemporary Japanese karate, which is sometimes called "traditional". Many of these karate schools train for "traditional" tournament karate. Others put much less emphasis on thet endeavor.
> 
> We also have "old style" okinawan karate schools which are mainly concerned with effective combat applications in life or death situations. None of the techniques practiced by these schools are suitable for any today's karate tournaments. Not for the traditional tournaments, not for the kyokushin style "kenka" tournaments, nor for any type of competitive situation for that matter. I would say that this type of karate is very effective indeed for real combat.


 

I would like to say very very well said sir! this is very very true.


----------



## Hand Sword

I would say all the arguing is irrelevant. Whether it's TMA or MMA the techniques used are the same. The MMA grappling, boxing, and Kickboxing is all from TMA styles. (Boxing is included in that) They aren't doing anything new. It's all been done, and is still being done. The real discussion is about the applications and training methods.


----------



## chinto

Pacificshore said:


> You probably hit the nail on the head w/a cultural difference regarding SD in the UK Ceicei. I mean after all practically any sort of weapon is outlawed back there, and many seem to talk about wanting to be "street" effective :idunno:


 

My understanding is at least as far as the UK, and meany other countrys there too im told, is that any pocket knife that the blade locks and the blade is over 2 inches is " an offensive weapon" the penelty is the same as for carring a loaded SUBMACHINGUN! so meany of the thugs in the UK Im told are getting guns. but also the man I know in the UK who teaches MA said that if you hurt the thug badly you may be charged too.. and if you are a constable ( uk cop) you will surely get in trouble if you do any harm hardly at all... sigh... just goes to show what happens when PC continues to gain exceptance....but then you have to have aproval ( licence or permit i guess ) of some sort to even take martial arts im told there in a lot of jurisdictions, go figure. I am also told that the instructors have to be licenced to teach by gov officals 
( I do not live there but that is what i have been told.)


----------



## Nobody

As far as reality goes there is count coup that is the most important thing here not always do you in the real world see it or notice it happening, but this is the way most criminals look at how they deal with someone in reality.  Count coup is when you do a very specific set of ideas to first test boundaries than if successful well you do something else that shows even more openings in your enemies weakness.  This is all done to setup the person an then attack them.


----------



## seasoned

*Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense.*
I am on my way to work so this will be short.Principals are born of concepts. Just because something calls itself traditional does not mean it adheres to the trial and error that formed the principals. Give me a school that not only calls itself traditional but adheres to the founding methods that were tested in real battle. If it worked then, it will work now. Traditional Karate was born of life or death.


----------



## kroh

seasoned said:


> *Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense.*
> I am on my way to work so this will be short.Principals are born of concepts. Just because something calls itself traditional does not mean it adheres to the trial and error that formed the principals. Give me a school that not only calls itself traditional but adheres to the founding methods that were tested in real battle. If it worked then, it will work now. Traditional Karate was born of life or death.



Great viewpoint.  Nicely said.
Regards, 
Walt


----------



## suicide

when it comes to real fight you got to go for yours who said a karateka won bite scratch or bust a bottle over your head it all depends on you :BSmeter:


----------



## chav buster

i think what he said is both true and false as the way most karate is train is aload of rubbish as  most instructors dont fully understand the art.read a book by Iain Abernethy and Gavin Mulholland and you will understand the art alot better for instance the kata's are solo drills like shadow boxing but designed to teach you a specific way of fighting and if you use a little reason you will see theres all sorts of  grappling techniques ect including guard passes locks strangles ect the board breaking is designed to help you deal with adrenaline as you shouldnt be allowed to  practice breaking boards until your grading and the grading should be done infront of family and your mates. karate has all the techniques from boxing in it most of the muay thai techniques all the basic judo throws and a good amount of ground fighting along with all the kill/dirty stuff from krav maga  its just the focus for most karate instructions is either comps or thay dont know or focus on the real stuff.
alot of the modern  rbsp stuff have a root in karate aswell


----------



## Hand Sword

Exactly. It's all in there. Unfortunately this is what happens when black belts are so quick to start their own schools, teach, and from their own systems. Not enough maturity. They advance as they age but their systems, being made early and marketed stay as they are, mature very slowly, or worse--get wattered down.


----------



## MilkManX

I can see that. It really depends on your Sensei though I think. I have sparred some guys from Traditional styles that were great and some not good at all. 

The Enshin(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshin_Karate) system strips away alot of the old training and its focus is on practical self defence.
The kata is "fighting" kata that has no hidden bunkai but practical training.

Its not for everyone but I think it works great for me.


----------



## exile

chav buster said:


> i think what he said is both true and false as the way most karate is train is aload of rubbish as  most instructors dont fully understand the art.read a book by Iain Abernethy and Gavin Mulholland and you will understand the art alot better for instance the kata's are solo drills like shadow boxing but designed to teach you a specific way of fighting and if you use a little reason you will see theres all sorts of  grappling techniques ect including guard passes locks strangles ect the board breaking is designed to help you deal with adrenaline as you shouldnt be allowed to  practice breaking boards until your grading and the grading should be done infront of family and your mates. karate has all the techniques from boxing in it most of the muay thai techniques all the basic judo throws and a good amount of ground fighting along with all the kill/dirty stuff from krav maga  its just the focus for most karate instructions is either comps or thay dont know or focus on the real stuff.
> alot of the modern  rbsp stuff have a root in karate aswell



Quoted for truth!

Always it comes down to learning how to read the kata. What CB is correctly calling 'reason' is just the basic idea that there was a rationale to the combination of movements in kata, and that that combination had nothing to do with aesthetics, or conditioning or some weird idea that the katas were enactments of religio/philosophical ideas. They were there because they represented effective tactical responses based on the strategic premises of Okinawan karate. All that other stuff came in when people basically lost the instruction manual, the _kaisai no genri_, for reading the kata. And that's something that started a long time ago. 

People like IA, Mulholland, Burgar, Rick Clark and many others show just how much there is in the kata. But they'd also be the first to tell you (Abernethy _does_ tell you, over and over and over) that once you've seen how the techs fit together, how a striking hand becomes a gripping hand to set up the next strike, and a gripping hand becomes the next striking hand&#8212;then you have to train it, pressure test it with someone who's less and less cooperative. And that's the hard part. Legally, it can be very dicey for an instructor to promote that sort of thing. And realistically, very few people _want_ their karate training to be that street-realistic&#8212;that _violent_.  

This violent, for example.... courtesy of our achives.


----------



## Flying Crane

Ceicei said:


> Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective For Self-Defense​
> 
> _By WR Mann_​


 
Who is WR Mann, and why should his opinion matter to me?




> _"If you're up against someone who doesn't know how to fight -- yes, old-style karate can work, but if you fight an experienced streetfighter or a trained fighter, no way!" - Jon Bluming_​


 
who is Jon Bluming, and why should his opinion matter to me?

It's funny, seeing people quote some yokel and expect that to add weight or meaning to their own nonsense.

Kinda like when some 12 year-old quotes Bruce Lee "discard what is useless, blah blah blah..." and thinks that justifies him founding his own system.

Sorry, guess I'm just in that kind of mood right now...


----------



## chinto

Flying Crane said:


> Who is WR Mann, and why should his opinion matter to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is Jon Bluming, and why should his opinion matter to me?
> 
> It's funny, seeing people quote some yokel and expect that to add weight or meaning to their own nonsense.
> 
> Kinda like when some 12 year-old quotes Bruce Lee "discard what is useless, blah blah blah..." and thinks that justifies him founding his own system.
> 
> Sorry, guess I'm just in that kind of mood right now...




but you are right none the less.  I agree.


----------



## chav buster

Hand Sword said:


> Exactly. It's all in there. Unfortunately this is what happens when black belts are so quick to start their own schools, teach, and from their own systems. Not enough maturity. They advance as they age but their systems, being made early and marketed stay as they are, mature very slowly, or worse--get wattered down.


 
most of the masters back in the day wouldnt tell you the meaning of katas sometimes for years after you had been studying them until he knew what you were like as a person. 

i blame this mentality for the watering down of karate as once it was brought to the west it exploded and now what you have is a mostly flashy inpractical techniques rather then the practical martial art that it really is, i have studied many martial arts and reality based self protection systems and im get to find something thats not in karate, a good example is when i went to Geoff thompson seminar and he was talking about the verbal fence which was cutting edge at the time and all i could think was he's talking about kai. betwean judo and karate which has a large overlap but a different focus you have pretty much everything in there to one degree or another. everyone was going on about muay thai a few years back like it was the answer to stand up fighting and yes it is awesome but theres nothing in there thats not in karate, one of the first things i learned in karate was how to break the may thai clinch by cranking the neck. 
now people seem to be obsesses with the crazy monkey guard but the blocks are in karate and boxing ect imo if people properly learned an art thay would be much better fighters then jumping from one to another.
my sensie is a 4th down and if you ask him he says theres still more for him to learn in karate and at my dojo we learn all the strikes self defence scenarios grappling throwing weapons multiple attackers  gnp standing locks dirty tactics everyhing from how to control someone without hurting them to how to kill somneone if nesssesary and more importantly is the "do" aspect respect  honour humility ect.


----------



## dnovice

yet another disgruntled student that didn't trully understand what his sifu was telling him. Who is this WR man???

That article= supreme epic fail


----------



## blindsage

Quick googling brought me to this website for WR Mann http://www.realfighting.com/

And here's the Wiki page for Jon Bluming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Bluming
the link at the bottom of the page, to his website, does not work.


----------



## exile

I read a very interesting article, an interview with Bluming, at one point some time back in which he debunked the legend of Oyama killing bulls with hand strikes. He said that once Oyama had struck an ox and obviously hurt it, though mostly shock and distress, since where he was living, oxen were cared for as pets and the ox had been given loving treatment by humans all its life.  According to Bluming, Oyama felt absolutely horrible about it, and never laid a hand on an animal in anger again. Unfortunately, the link to the interview no longer appears to be up... I wish that sort of thing didn't happens so much!


----------



## chinto

All I can say is that very basic Karate saved my life years ago..  believe it or not.. I could care less. 

but Okinawan Karate is still here because it does work when its for keeps.. again.. you may believe it or not as you wish.


----------



## Errant108

Flying Crane said:


> who is Jon Bluming, and why should his opinion matter to me?



Someone who has far more experience in using karate in violent combat than the majority of posters on this thread.

If you don't know his name, you should research it.


----------



## kaizasosei

Karate has been around for a long time.  There are many types of karate. Karate doesn't focus certain strikes you see on the street, but selfdefense is up to the individual to a high degree.
I don't agree with the bulk of the stuff the article claims although there are a couple of good yet obvious points.



j


----------



## seasoned

Traditional arts contain all aspects of self defense. The problem is short sightedness in presenting it that way. A strong base for self defense involves body mechanics, "proper movement, if you will" that kata provides. The quick learning arts skip that portion, and go straight to the techniques, which gives you many options early on, but lacks the foundations of those techniques. What amazes me is the fact that most people that state that traditional karate does not work, are the ones that built their base upon those principals, and now expound there uselessness.


----------



## Sukerkin

Just to add a little visual content to the debate, here is a short documentary (15 minutes) that is nominally about Jon Bluming but also has an smattering of flavour about the 'nature of martial arts'.

I actually disagree with some of what is said, particularly about why people study martial arts but it's an interesting watch nontheless.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Documentary-on-Jon-Bluming-a-terrific-martial-artist-15m


----------



## astrobiologist

I disagree with WR Mann's approach to his article all together.  I'm not sure who he is, but I doubt his knowledge of martial arts.

The 12 Immutable Reasons Why WR Mann needs to read a few books and open his mind

1. The One-Strike Kill
Agreed.  One strike - one kill, likely won't be the case everytime.  I don't teach my students to rely on one strike.  I've never been told to rely on one strike.  The idea, though, is that you have to consciously think through your strikes to make each one count.  

2. Waiting for The Attack
I don't wait for an attack.  A guy gets inside my presonal zone and I think beyond a doubt that he is going to strike me then I will most assuredly slap him upside his noggin.  I've never told my students that they have to wait for an attack.  I think what WR Mann is missing here is that we are trying to teach respect and humility.  We don't go out and actively start the fight. 

3. On Stances
Stances teach body movement and are good for muscular development.  I don't use long, ridgid stances when I fight.  

4. Karate as a Way Of Life
What is WR Mann talking about here?  Wrestlers train as wrestlers.  Karateka train in karate.  Scientists are scientists all day and all of the night.  WR Mann is silly.

5. Spirituality and Meditation
I am not religious.  I do not believe in any gods or mysticism.  I am a martial artist.  There is no problem here.

6. Breaking Objects can Break You! 
Breaking is a training tool.  Same as a punching bag or a jump rope.  It is a means to a goal of body strengthening.

7. The Kata Crutch
I can see where WR Mann gets this from.  Many people train kata without training applications (bunkai).  In that case, WR Mann is right, but when you add the applications WR Mann's argument goes out the window.

8. Karate Doesn't Prepare You for the Street
WR Mann needed a better instructor.  Then maybe he would have learned that not training at all is what doesn't prepare you for the street.  It's hard to replicate a street fight without getting into a street fight, but many of us try our hardest to keep things as realistic as possible.

9. Karate Makes you Stiff and Rigid
Okinawa has the highest proportion of centurians on the planet.  That is because of their lifestyle and exercise.  WR Mann is just too silly.

10. Karate is Ineffective Against Modern Weapons
So what, a wrestler or a street fighter is going to somehow stop a gun from taking him down at 20 paces.

11. Karate Takes Too Long to Learn, and You Still Can't Fight!
You don't learn calculus in 2nd grade.  Learning is always progressive.

12. The Apotheosis of the Master
President, King, Senator, Governor, Teacher, Instructor, Master, Professor, Leader, Captain, General...  Leadership always has a title of some kind...

Oh so silly, WR Mann


----------



## seasoned

astrobiologist said:


> I disagree with WR Mann's approach to his article all together. I'm not sure who he is, but I doubt his knowledge of martial arts.
> 1. The One-Strike Kill
> Agreed. One strike - one kill, likely won't be the case everytime. I don't teach my students to rely on one strike. I've never been told to rely on one strike. The idea, though, is that you have to consciously think through your strikes to make each one count.


Although this is a very good point, and I do agree, there are some people that don't believe in it at all. To those people I say you have never taken a shot to the solar plexus, because if you did, you would know that for the next few minutes after, you would think, you were hit by a truck. And let me add that a few minutes of down time in a fight situation would mean you suould have stayed home.


----------



## Sukerkin

That reminds me of the tale I've told here before of the only time I've been dropped with one hit in my adult life ... by my 11 year old sister with her tiny fist that fitted just neatly under my breast-bone when we were mock fighting one day .


----------



## seasoned

Out of the mouths of babes, or fists, so to speak.


----------



## astrobiologist

seasoned said:


> Although this is a very good point, and I do agree, there are some people that don't believe in it at all. To those people I say you have never taken a shot to the solar plexus, because if you did, you would know that for the next few minutes after, you would think, you were hit by a truck. And let me add that a few minutes of down time in a fight situation would mean you suould have stayed home.



I was just watching UFC Unleashed.  They showed the fight with Tito Ortiz vs. Lyotto Machida.  Machida, who uses his karate experience well in MMA, kneed Ortiz in the solar plexus.  Ortiz buckled over and fell to the ground.  Not "one kill" per se, but that kind of infliction can result in serious wounding, even death, in a street fight.


I don't think WR Mann quite gets it.  I may see why he's attacking traditional martial arts; he appears to lack an understanding of the martial arts themselves.  He has the "outsider looking in" perspective.  To write the way he did, he obvioulsy had some level of experience.  However, he either (1) has very little experience in martial arts and did not take the time to investigate karate fully, or (2) he has a lot of experience in martial arts but he has had some very lacking instruction in karate (like those curriculums that don't include applications for forms or instructors who avoid letting their students experiment in class with semi-resistant opponents to test their technique).

I'm not trying to really blast the guy, since I have no clue who he is outside of this article he wrote.  I don't like his approach to the article though.  He presents some 12 "Immutable" opinions as fact without any citation or proper reference outside of his own beliefs.  I've heard a lot of good arguments against a few of the things that are done in some of the TMAs, but Mr. Mann's arguments are truly lacking.


----------



## K-man

> _"If you're up against someone who doesn't know how to fight -- yes, old-style karate can work, but if you fight an experienced streetfighter or a trained fighter, no way!" - Jon Bluming _


This quote is probably quite accurate if taken in context. Jon Bluming as a 10th dan karateka would have wasted a lifetime if he really believed what was attributed to him. I believe that 'old style' karate he refers to is the type of karate we were taught 30+ years ago. We followed blindly what we were told and had only a primative understanding of application. Good schools now teach reality based application that is probably little different to what Mann teaches in his classes. Of course he has a vested interest (read _financial_) in putting traditional martial art down.
To be honest, we still see a lot of karate schools here teaching the same cr*p that was taught years ago. Fortunately there are many others that have moved on. If Mann confined his remarks to schools that do not incorporate RBSD then he has some valid points. However, I read 'traditional karate' as being the karate that was taught in Okinawa before it was sanitised for Japanese school children! :asian:


----------



## seasoned

I would love to comment on old style teachings, as I know them. In the early 60's, traditional martial arts, the fighting kind, so I don't confuse it with tea ceremonies, was lacking. When I say lacking, I mean in the bunkai department. There just wasn't a lot of info out there to substantiate what we were doing. We adhered to strict guidelines on how, but not a lot on the why. We practiced all the associating drills for the certain kata, but nothing involved. Our form was great, our sparring was rigorous, but everything was looked at as sparring based. Even subsequent trips back to Okinawa, even though educational, didn't add much to our bunkai base. But now looking back, because we were faithful, and adhered to kata, as it was taught, a whole new world of information is open to those that persevered. With the onset of diligent people that have spent untold years in pursuit of, the missing links, and attached the dots, kata, for those that stayed true, has taking on a whole new meaning. Don't get me wrong, we could always fight "defend ourself", if need be, but we can do it so much better now. So I think you are correct, when calling people like Bluming and Mann on things they say, and statements they make, cutting down traditional karate. Just some thoughts.


----------



## Haze

On the* "one punch kill*",
 lets think about it in the context of the past. Some cultures lacked any great medical or surgical abilities and if a punch cracked a rib that punctured a lung you would most likely die. Maybe not that instant but in a short time. Also with a ruptured kidney or spleen death was most likely the outcome. A broken bone that protruded through the skin could end up infected and possibly cause death.

Maybe it was the punch / kick that created the situation that caused death.


----------



## K-man

Haze said:


> On the* "one punch kill*",
> lets think about it in the context of the past. Some cultures lacked any great medical or surgical abilities and if a punch cracked a rib that punctured a lung you would most likely die. Maybe not that instant but in a short time. Also with a ruptured kidney or spleen death was most likely the outcome. A broken bone that protruded through the skin could end up infected and possibly cause death.
> 
> Maybe it was the punch / kick that created the situation that caused death.


 And how much of this is responsible for the delayed death in Dimak? (kidneys, liver, spleen, bladder)


----------



## Flying Crane

> _"If you're up against someone who doesn't know how to fight -- yes, old-style karate can work, but if you fight an experienced streetfighter or a trained fighter, no way!" - Jon Bluming_ ​


​ 




Flying Crane said:


> who is Jon Bluming, and why should his opinion matter to me?


 




Errant108 said:


> Someone who has far more experience in using karate in violent combat than the majority of posters on this thread.
> 
> If you don't know his name, you should research it.


 
So Jon Bluming has had tons of actual fights on the street, as a karate guy, and whenever he fought someone who doesn't know how to fight he won, while his battles against experienced street fighters or otherwise trained fighters, he got his *** handed to him?  Is that the basis for his comment?  Because that seems to be what you are saying.  If as you say he has so much experience using karate in violent combat, yet he states that it's no good, then I guess he lost all the time.

Sorry, I've been in the martial arts since 1984 and I've read a lot over the years, and I've never heard of him before this.  I'm simply not impressed, and I'm not really into the guru worship thing.

But then hey, I'm not even a karate guy, so I don't really have a dog in this race.


----------



## Errant108

Flying Crane said:


> So Jon Bluming has had tons of actual fights on the street, as a karate guy, and whenever he fought someone who doesn't know how to fight he won, while his battles against experienced street fighters or otherwise trained fighters, he got his *** handed to him?  Is that the basis for his comment?  Because that seems to be what you are saying.  If as you say he has so much experience using karate in violent combat, yet he states that it's no good, then I guess he lost all the time.



Bluming is critical of "traditional karate"...endless repetitions of kata, no-touch or ippon sparring, etc.  He is an accomplished Kyokushin & Judo competitor, and has trained championship fighters for much longer than before 1984.  The fact you haven't heard of him is hardly surprising.  In the US, karate has been dominated by "point sparring" and creative kata for decades.  Kyokushin and other schools of full contact martial arts barely ever took hold here.  Meanwhile, in Japan & in places like the Netherlands & Europe, where Bluming is fun; Kyokushin & Muay Thai took root long before they did here.

When the Gracies went around doing their Dojo Challenges, there's a reason they came to the US & cleaved through countless karate blackbelts.

Meanwhile, Bluming had integrated Judo & Kyokushin decades before & had his fighters competing in Japanese shootboxing & shootwrestling, the precursors to MMA.

When the Gracies issued their challenge in the late 80s, early 90s, Bluming accepted.  The Gracies never stepped up to fight his people.  Why?  They already had a reputation as grapplers & stand-up fighters.

Bluming is a karateka through & through, but he is a pioneer, not a traditionalist, by any means.



Flying Crane said:


> I'm simply not impressed, and I'm not really into the guru worship thing.



I'd rather listen to someone who has actually been there & done that.  That's not guru worship.  Dismissing someone out of hand just because I haven't heard of them...that's something else entirely...



Flying Crane said:


> But then hey, I'm not even a karate guy, so I don't really have a dog in this race.



Well, there ya go:ultracool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Bluming

That might help people.


----------



## TimoS

Errant108 said:


> Bluming is critical of "traditional karate"...endless repetitions of kata, no-touch or ippon sparring, etc



I can understand that he is critical of those, but on the other hand, those are hardly the real traditional karate schools. To me, being a quite recent convert to okinawan karate, the only real traditional schools are those that teach the okinawan karate styles (mind you, based on what I've heard, there's a lot of really awful karate schools in Okinawa also)


----------



## Errant108

TimoS said:


> I can understand that he is critical of those, but on the other hand, those are hardly the real traditional karate schools. To me, being a quite recent convert to okinawan karate, the only real traditional schools are those that teach the okinawan karate styles (mind you, based on what I've heard, there's a lot of really awful karate schools in Okinawa also)



There is no such thing as traditional karate.


----------



## Makalakumu

Errant108 said:


> There is no such thing as traditional karate.



"Traditional" karate is a mixed martial art.


----------



## TimoS

Errant108 said:


> There is no such thing as traditional karate.



Oh? Why not? I happen to disagree, but that's just my opinion


----------



## Errant108

Because it has been in a state of flux, evolution, & de-evolution since its inception.


----------



## seasoned

maunakumu said:


> "Traditional" karate is a mixed martial art.


That was the inteat that people just are not getting.


----------



## seasoned

Errant108 said:


> Someone who has far more experience in using karate in violent combat than the majority of posters on this thread.
> 
> If you don't know his name, you should research it.


 
An assumption on your part.



Errant108 said:


> Bluming is critical of "traditional karate"...*endless repetitions of kata, no-touch or ippon sparring, etc.* He is an accomplished Kyokushin & Judo competitor, and has trained championship fighters for much longer than before 1984. The fact you haven't heard of him is hardly surprising. In the US, karate has been dominated by "point sparring" and creative kata for decades. Kyokushin and other schools of full contact martial arts barely ever took hold here. Meanwhile, in Japan & in places like the Netherlands & Europe, where Bluming is fun; Kyokushin & Muay Thai took root long before they did here.
> 
> When the Gracies went around doing their Dojo Challenges, there's a reason they came to the US & cleaved through countless karate blackbelts.
> 
> Meanwhile, Bluming had integrated Judo & Kyokushin decades before & had his fighters competing in Japanese shootboxing & shootwrestling, the precursors to MMA.
> 
> When the Gracies issued their challenge in the late 80s, early 90s, Bluming accepted. The Gracies never stepped up to fight his people. Why? They already had a reputation as grapplers & stand-up fighters.
> 
> Bluming is a karateka through & through, but he is a pioneer, not a traditionalist, by any means.
> 
> *endless repetitions of kata, no-touch or ippon sparring, etc.*
> If you feel that this is what traditional karate is, then you are mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Errant108 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as traditional karate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are few and far between, but they are out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Errant108 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it has been in a state of flux, evolution, & de-evolution since its inception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on what style you look at, and who you talk with.
Click to expand...


----------



## Makalakumu

Errant108 said:


> Because it has been in a state of...de-evolution...since its inception.



There's no such thing as de-evolution.  Karate changed, that is all.


----------



## Makalakumu

seasoned said:


> That was the inteat that people just are not getting.



The mixing of arts is how karate was created.  All sorts of arts were drawn together to formulate what would become known as karate.  These arts were personalized to fit how a particular person would fight.


----------



## Errant108

seasoned said:


> An assumption on your part.



Quite possibly, but given some of the posts, I'm willing to make it.



Errant108 said:


> *endless repetitions of kata, no-touch or ippon sparring, etc.*
> If you feel that this is what traditional karate is, then you are mistaken.



No, that is what Bluming & those like him feel "traditional karate" is.

Everyone & their mother stake the claim that they are "traditional karate".  They all make the claim that they have "the real".

Such a distinction is thus, worthless.



Errant108 said:


> They are few and far between, but they are out there.



They are just another facet, another flavor, another moment.  They do not define karate anymore than Bluming does.



Errant108 said:


> Depends on what style you look at, and who you talk with.



Looking at all the styles, there is no such thing as "traditional karate".  It does not exist.  It never has.


----------



## Errant108

maunakumu said:


> There's no such thing as de-evolution.  Karate changed, that is all.



When something is removed from the challenges of aliveness & combative application, then the factors that cause evolutionary development no longer apply.  The art stagnates & "tradition" begins.


----------



## TimoS

Errant108 said:


> When something is removed from the challenges of aliveness & combative application, then the factors that cause evolutionary development no longer apply.  The art stagnates & "tradition" begins.



So? The point at least I'm trying to make is that not all "traditional" styles fall into that category. Some, though probably not even most of that call themselves traditional train the way some schools do: the kata applications are an integral part of the system and although basic bunkai can look a bit ritualized, they are just a tool and like every tool, you have to learn to use them


----------



## Errant108

TimoS said:


> So? The point at least I'm trying to make is that not all "traditional" styles fall into that category. Some, though probably not even most of that call themselves traditional train the way some schools do: the kata applications are an integral part of the system and although basic bunkai can look a bit ritualized, they are just a tool and like every tool, you have to learn to use them



They styles you call "traditional" aren't.  The term "traditional" is useless because it cannot be defined in the context of karate.


----------



## TimoS

Errant108 said:


> They styles you call "traditional" aren't.  The term "traditional" is useless because it cannot be defined in the context of karate.



That is your opinion, one that I don't agree with, but it is pointless to argue about that


----------



## Flying Crane

Errant108 said:


> Bluming is critical of "traditional karate"...endless repetitions of kata, no-touch or ippon sparring, etc.


 
Is this your definition, or Bluming's definition of traditional karate?  

keep in mind, not all schools train alike, even within the same style.  Granted, I would agree that a lot of schools train in an unrealistic way and what skills may be obtained thru their methods would be questionable.  But not all schools train the same way, so a more realistic and accurate observation would be case-by-case.  To lump all karate together is simply inaccurate and misleading.  To then judge all karate as essentially worthless is simply not true and it smells of an agenda that someone might be trying to push.  That's my objection to what was said in the original article, including the quote by Mr. Bluming.  It lumps all karate together and suggests it is all worthless.  And that is blatant ********.  And to me, that makes me question the credibility of people like the author of the article, and Mr. Blumberg, altho I'll grant that Mr. Blumberg may have been quoted out of context, or may have been quoted in this article without his knowledge or permission, or desire.



> I'd rather listen to someone who has actually been there & done that. That's not guru worship. Dismissing someone out of hand just because I haven't heard of them...that's something else entirely...


 
I'm not dismissing him entirely out of hand, but I don't feel any need to suddenly take his word as final authority just because someone quoted him in a dubious article, or just because someone else on an internet forum says I should take his word as truth.

So here's a question for you:  if you believe karate as a whole is essentially worthless (please correct me if I've misunderstood your position), then please tell me what you would recommend in its place.  If you've got an agenda to push here, put it on the table.


----------



## Errant108

TimoS said:


> That is your opinion, one that I don't agree with, but it is pointless to argue about that



Actually, it's not an opinion.

It's a conclusion, based upon an argument outlined by Socratic logic.

Everyone's welcome to have opinions on anything what-so-ever.

The point of having a discussion is not opinion, but rather, a sharing of logical arguments in order to validate or invalidate conclusions.

Perhaps you could share your definition of "tradition" in the context of Karate with us.


----------



## Errant108

Flying Crane said:


> Is this your definition, or Bluming's definition of traditional karate?



I don't use "traditional" as a descriptor for karate, since almost everyone uses it in a different manner, either applying it to their karate as some sort of validation, or in Bluming's manner, as a dismissal.  Further, no working definition can be agreed upon for the term, making it pretty much useless.



Flying Crane said:


> Granted, I would agree that a lot of schools train in an unrealistic way and what skills may be obtained thru their methods would be questionable.



There are schools that train in such a manner that label themselves "traditional".  Thus, when karateka like Bluming dismiss "traditional" karate or "traditional" methods because of a lack of combative applicability, then they are within context correct in their conclusions.  The semantic validity of that context is a separate matter.



Flying Crane said:


> But not all schools train the same way, so a more realistic and accurate observation would be case-by-case.



This simply proves my point, that utilizing "traditional" as a disntinction in these discussions is absolutely fruitless, and only serves to assuage the ego of practitioners.



Flying Crane said:


> To lump all karate together is simply inaccurate and misleading.  To then judge all karate as essentially worthless is simply not true and it smells of an agenda that someone might be trying to push.  That's my objection to what was said in the original article, including the quote by Mr. Bluming.



Neither the author, nor Bluming are lumping all karate together.  Remember, Bluming is a 10th dan in Kyokushin & has a long history of karate practice.  You must put his words within that context when he & the author (who I believe is connected to Bluming), critiques "traditional" karate.  In the video, Bluming has very positive things to say about the practice of karate & its effect on his life.  He was not dismissing karate all together.



Flying Crane said:


> I'm not dismissing him entirely out of hand, but I don't feel any need to suddenly take his word as final authority just because someone quoted him in a dubious article, or just because someone else on an internet forum says I should take his word as truth.



The issue is not about taking him as a final authority.

Rather, when someone writing an article quotes some one or attributes a point of view to that person, they are doing so in a certain context.  Lack of familiarity with that context is not an excuse to dismiss the views out of hand, as we saw earlier with posts such as "Jon Bluming?  Who's he?  Why should I listen to him?"



Flying Crane said:


> So here's a question for you:  if you believe karate as a whole is essentially worthless (please correct me if I've misunderstood your position), then please tell me what you would recommend in its place.  If you've got an agenda to push here, put it on the table.



You've misunderstood my position, the author's position, and Bluming's position.

The only agenda I have to push is to question the logic behind those who dismiss things out of hand, or seek to solidify their arguments based on fallacious logic.


----------



## Flying Crane

Ceicei said:


> It is a little long... Here is an interesting article that was posted in another martial arts discussion website. It generated quite a bit of discussion and I think it will do the same here. There are some points mentioned I agree and some I disagree. Let's share our thoughts on this:
> 
> - Ceicei
> 
> ********************************************************
> 
> 
> Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective For Self-Defense​
> 
> 
> _By WR Mann_
> 
> At first glance *karate* seems to provide a solution, until you look more closely at its underpinnings; then you realize it's not equipped to handle violence in the 21st Century. I often refer to karate (and other traditional Asian martial arts) as the Potemkim Village of the martial arts -- *a grand facade offering significantly less in the way of substantive tactics and defensive measures than any of the reality-based defense systems*.​
> ....
> 
> That sent chills up my spine, and with the same fervor as a surgeon desperately trying to save the life of a stroke victim; I informed them that karate would produce the least beneficial results.​
> ....
> 
> The reason I dissuade people from getting into karate (and other traditional martial arts) is because I don't want them misinformed like I was, studying retrograde theories and techniques that no longer have any relevance to the way we live and need to respond to.
> 
> ....
> 
> _"If you're up against someone who doesn't know how to fight -- yes, old-style karate can work, but if you fight an experienced streetfighter or a trained fighter, no way!" - Jon Bluming_​
> ....
> 
> Karate (as well as other traditional styles) have been slow to add realistic elements to their training. They just go on about their business, ignoring the way today's criminals conduct themselves, or if they have, they are stuck in a time warp, as if they've never heard of home invasions, car jackings, firearms attacks and terrorists.​
> ....
> 
> Summary
> Karate (and similar traditional martial arts) look great in the movies; they take a very long time to learn but don't provide efficient solutions for violent confrontations in any form. ​....
> 
> Why study karate at all?
> 
> I have no problem with people practicing traditional karate for the sake of art or culture. If that's the case, supplement it with a realistic modern fighting method. The problem I have with karate is that all too often it's represented to the public as an effective and efficient fighting system for the street -- which it is definitely NOT.​


 





Errant108 said:


> Neither the author, nor Bluming are lumping all karate together.
> 
> Rather, when someone writing an article quotes some one or attributes a point of view to that person, they are doing so in a certain context. Lack of familiarity with that context is not an excuse to dismiss the views out of hand, as we saw earlier with posts such as "Jon Bluming? Who's he? Why should I listen to him?"
> 
> You've misunderstood my position, the author's position, and Bluming's position.


 
I believe I've understood their positions quite clearly.

Go back and read the exerpts I've taken from the original article.  He doesn't specifiy karate within any particular context.  He just says "karate", and he even lumps other "traditional Asian martial arts" under the same umbrella and categorizes them all as of little worth.

Looks to me like the author (and Mr. Bluming if he supports this author's position) are pushing "reality-based martial arts" as the agenda they want to sell.  It's a sales job, and little else.



> The only agenda I have to push is to question the logic behind those who dismiss things out of hand, or seek to solidify their arguments based on fallacious logic.


 
as WR Mann has done.


----------



## Errant108

Flying Crane said:


> Go back and read the exerpts I've taken from the original article.  He doesn't specifiy karate within any particular context.  He just says "karate", and he even lumps other "traditional Asian martial arts" under the same umbrella and categorizes them all as of little worth.



You took the excerpts out of context.  The article's title places it in context.  An understanding of Bluming & the author put them in context.



Flying Crane said:


> Looks to me like the author (and Mr. Bluming if he supports this author's position) are pushing "reality-based martial arts" as the agenda they want to sell.  It's a sales job, and little else.



You're more than welcome to tell Bluming that he doesn't do karate, just because he does he doesn't fit your definition of "tradition".

This, again, is why "traditional" is a completely useless descriptor.


----------



## seasoned

The word *tradition* comes from the Latin _traditionem_, acc. of _traditio_ which means "handing over, passing on", and is used in a number of ways in the English language:

Tradition manifest through the kata, of which are handed down, intact. When the kata are changed, added to, or done differently, then their initial form, then traditional is out the window. Left intact, and handed down, and practiced in their original form with the same intent, would render them a tradition, and as such, a tradition over generations continually, would be the act of following tradition. In doing this tradition now a days, it would be coined traditional. A Dojo who's base of teaching revolves around kata that are intact from their initial conception, would in fact, could in fact, be called traditional.


----------



## Flying Crane

Errant108 said:


> You took the excerpts out of context. The article's title places it in context. An understanding of Bluming & the author put them in context.
> 
> 
> 
> You're more than welcome to tell Bluming that he doesn't do karate, just because he does he doesn't fit your definition of "tradition".
> 
> This, again, is why "traditional" is a completely useless descriptor.


 
It really has nothing to do with the definition of traditional.  

Regardless of the use of the term in the title of the document, it is very clear from the context that the author considers karate as a whole, and other Asian martial arts in general (with various exceptions such as Muay Thai) to be of little value.  No reasonable person could read the article and not perceive that message.

I honestly don't care what Mr. Bluming does or does not do, nor do I care about his ranking.  He didn't write the article, tho he was quoted in it.

Mr. Mann is a fool and has the agenda of pushing "reality-based" martial arts.  He makes it clear in the article that that is what people ought to do instead.

As I stated earlier: it's a sales pitch and little else.


----------



## Errant108

seasoned said:


> Tradition manifest through the kata, of which are handed down, intact. When the kata are changed, added to, or done differently, then their initial form, then traditional is out the window. Left intact, and handed down, and practiced in their original form with the same intent, would render them a tradition, and as such, a tradition over generations continually, would be the act of following tradition. In doing this tradition now a days, it would be coined traditional. A Dojo who's base of teaching revolves around kata that are intact from their initial conception, would in fact, could in fact, be called traditional.



Then by your own definition, there is no traditional karate.

Every karate school claims to perform their kata in the traditional manner. Yet very few know the combative applications to this kata.  If this is the case, they are not traditional, since they have lost the original intent of their kata.

Every karate school claims to be a traditional school because they have the traditional kata.  Yet each school performs it completely differently.  A different performance would seem to reflect a diverging application to the kata's motions, yet if the variation is not applicable through combat, then it is not traditional.

Further, the farther back we go, we find that kata were often tailored to each individual student to meet their training needs.  Thus, the only traditional would seem to be the change of karate, its ability to adapt & grow.

Thus, the stagnancy you advocate of kata performance, as if they were a dance, is not traditional karate, but rather a symptom of the ossification of training methods, the development of slavish worship of a "master", rather than an ownership & continued development of the art.


----------



## Errant108

Flying Crane said:


> Regardless of the use of the term in the title of the document, it is very clear from the context that the author considers karate as a whole, and other Asian martial arts in general (with various exceptions such as Muay Thai) to be of little value.  No reasonable person could read the article and not perceive that message.



Considering Mann's experience in Kyokushin, I doubt he'd see it that way.



Flying Crane said:


> Mr. Mann is a fool and has the agenda of pushing "reality-based" martial arts.  He makes it clear in the article that that is what people ought to do instead.



Unless you can create a reasoned counter-argument, which almost no one in this thread has, you can't call him a fool.


----------



## seasoned

Not to get off tract, but I see this same type of thinking, this splitting of hairs on word meaning, at the threshold of change. This new way of thinking is revolutionizing life as we know it, by throwing out the old, and reinventing it as new. This new thinking is manifesting in all facets of life.


----------



## Errant108

seasoned said:


> Not to get off tract, but I see this same type of thinking, this splitting of hairs on word meaning, at the threshold of change. This new way of thinking is revolutionizing life as we know it, by throwing out the old, and reinventing it as new. This new thinking is manifesting in all facets of life.



Hardly.  This is simply the result of understanding logic.  The first rule of discussion is that terms must be defined.  If no definition of "traditional" proves logically consistent enough for use in rational discussion, then the term is useless.  Adhering to it only prevents discussion & learning.


----------



## Flying Crane

Errant108 said:


> Considering Mann's experience in Kyokushin, I doubt he'd see it that way.


 
go back and read the original article.  it's all over the place in there.  Not too difficult to find. 




> Unless you can create a reasoned counter-argument, which almost no one in this thread has, you can't call him a fool.


 
Ha, now THAT'S funny!  :rofl:


----------



## Makalakumu

Errant108 said:


> When something is removed from the challenges of aliveness & combative application, then the factors that cause evolutionary development no longer apply.  The art stagnates & "tradition" begins.



Agreed.


----------



## Errant108

Flying Crane said:


> go back and read the original article.  it's all over the place in there.  Not too difficult to find.



I did.  And in context, many of the areas where he critiques "traditional karate" he is absolutely correct on.

Perhaps you'd like to make a reasoned counter-argument now?


----------



## Flying Crane

Errant108 said:


> I did. And in context, many of the areas where he critiques "traditional karate" he is absolutely correct on.
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to make a reasoned counter-argument now?


 
I've already done so, but in case you are unable to grasp what I've said, I'll say it again.

He needs to look at a dojo on a case-by-case basis.  Not all dojos train alike.

I've already conceded that there are those who follow poor training habits.

But there are others who follow good training habits and develop very capable martial artists.  

they cannot all be lumped together.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tradition is subjective.  The definition that Seasoned posted basically means that it can be just about anything that is taught.  

What Bluming suggests in his article, really doesn't address "traditional" karate so to speak.  It addresses poor practice.  Often times in the karate world, bad teaching/training methods, are _traditional_.


----------



## Sukerkin

Gentlemen, this is a friendly nudge before things get too heated. It is more than alright to hold different views on things and to put those views into words here - its what the forum is for, after all.

However, if you cannot do so without resorting to verbal tactics that would more than likely get you a bloody nose in real life, then it is best to keep silent. Amending such 'aggressive' posting before things start getting 'official' would be very much appreciated.

The 'style' forums are not the Study; it would be good to bear that in mind.

Mark A. Beardmore
MT Moderator


----------



## Errant108

Flying Crane said:


> I've already done so, but in case you are unable to grasp what I've said, I'll say it again.
> 
> He needs to look at a dojo on a case-by-case basis.  Not all dojos train alike.
> 
> I've already conceded that there are those who follow poor training habits.
> 
> But there are others who follow good training habits and develop very capable martial artists.
> 
> they cannot all be lumped together.



He's looking at this purely from a self-defense point of view.  When asked "is traditional karate good for defense?"  if the answer cannot be a resounding yes, as you yourself admit, then then answer is no.  The lack of quality control in "traditional karate" is not the fault of people like Mann or Bluming, but rather the fault of karateka themselves.  Mann & Bluming approach this argument from a very narrow criteria.

He's listed the criteria for what makes a viable self-defense system in the modern world.  For the most part, if karate as a whole cannot provide the answers to those criteria, then he is logical in dismissing.  Given that he has listed the criteria, you must either counter-argue the criteria itself, or contradict his conclusions.

The "case-by-case, dojo by dojo" argument does not hold water.  Either karate is good for reality based self-defense, or it is not.

The fact of the matter is, that a great deal of karate, as it is practiced, traditionally or not, does not address the needs of modern-day self-defence given the criteria listed by Mann.

Outliers, exceptions, or those schools that only partially meet the criteria, do not prove Mann false.


----------



## Flying Crane

Errant108 said:


> He's looking at this purely from a self-defense point of view. When asked "is traditional karate good for defense?" if the answer cannot be a resounding yes, as you yourself admit, then then answer is no. The lack of quality control in "traditional karate" is not the fault of people like Mann or Bluming, but rather the fault of karateka themselves. Mann & Bluming approach this argument from a very narrow criteria.
> 
> He's listed the criteria for what makes a viable self-defense system in the modern world. For the most part, if karate as a whole cannot provide the answers to those criteria, then he is logical in dismissing. Given that he has listed the criteria, you must either counter-argue the criteria itself, or contradict his conclusions.
> 
> The "case-by-case, dojo by dojo" argument does not hold water. Either karate is good for reality based self-defense, or it is not.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, that a great deal of karate, as it is practiced, traditionally or not, does not address the needs of modern-day self-defence given the criteria listed by Mann.
> 
> Outliers, exceptions, or those schools that only partially meet the criteria, do not prove Mann false.


 
well, believe what you want.  I hold Mr. Mann's and Mr. Bluming's opinions, insofar as they are expressed in that article, to be foolishly innacurate and an attempt to sell something.  I hold your opinion in the same light, as far as your attempts to defend their position.

But I guess I gotta realize that changing your opinion is not really all that high on my agenda.  So I've contributed my thoughts, and I've got nothing more to share with you here.


----------



## Errant108

Flying Crane said:


> well, believe what you want.  I hold Mr. Mann's and Mr. Bluming's opinions, insofar as they are expressed in that article, to be foolishly innacurate and an attempt to sell something.  I hold your opinion in the same light, as far as your attempts to defend their position.



Again, it's not an opinion.  It's a conclusion.

If you want me to change my conclusion, you've got to give me a rational argument.



Flying Crane said:


> But I guess I gotta realize that changing your opinion is not really all that high on my agenda.  So I've contributed my thoughts, and I've got nothing more to share with you here.



I'm sorry to hear that.


----------



## Flying Crane

Errant108 said:


> I'm sorry to hear that.


 
well, i've simply got nothing more to add.  I think we've reached the point where the best we can do is agree to disagree.  I'm OK with that.


----------



## TimoS

Errant108 said:


> Actually, it's not an opinion.
> 
> It's a conclusion, based upon an argument outlined by Socratic logic.



I might have to get back to you on that, after I consult a friend who really is a philosepher


----------



## Errant108

TimoS said:


> I might have to get back to you on that, after I consult a friend who really is a philosepher



Really a philosopher, eh?


----------



## TimoS

Errant108 said:


> Really a philosopher, eh?



Yes, but a smart guy nevertheless


----------



## astrobiologist

maunakumu said:


> Tradition is subjective. The definition that Seasoned posted basically means that it can be just about anything that is taught.
> 
> What Bluming suggests in his article, really doesn't address "traditional" karate so to speak. It addresses poor practice. Often times in the karate world, bad teaching/training methods, are _traditional_.


 
There is definitely a lot of back-and-forth going on here concerning terms and definitions.  I agree that the term "traditional" in relation to the martial art is very vague, and, if not for the fact that so many use and understand it's use in relation to the martial arts, it really serves no purpose to us. 

Martial arts are martial arts.  We use traditional to relate to the passing of information and etiquette along, but all schools do this to one degree or another so everyone would thusly be traditional (even kickboxing schools and the like pass on techniques from one "generation" to the next).  A lot of the MMA schools talk about karate schools and such as being traditional, but martial arts has always been "mixed" so that means that they would be traditional too, and all other arts are pretty much mixed martial arts.  On that note, aren't all martial arts supposed to be reality-based?  That means that "reality-based martial art" really does not signify anything new, either.  It all gets a little confusing.  Too much interest in terms and not enough about value.  

I agree with what was said by Maunakumu.  There are good instructors and bad instructors.  I'm sure that some of the, again so-called, reality-based martial arts instructors have their flaws, too.    

WR Mann was pointing out flaws he saw in the thinking of some (but taken from his point of view).  The problem is that the way the article comes off it seems like he is lumping everyone from a "traditional" martial arts background into that group.  This is one of the major flaws of the article.

Also, another problem with WR Mann's aticle is that he claims his points to be "immutable".


----------



## chinto

Look people, you can believe what you want, but Traditional Okinawan Karate has been used on the battlefield, in Allys on docks, and in the streets all over the world.  the attacks were lethal and nonlethal in intent but every where used it worked well.  

This is of course dependent to some extent on the practitioner, but then all martial arts are the same way to the same extent!  

So it comes down to Opinion here, and not based on fact.  Fact is that most older martial arts are extremely efficient and effective in self defense.  If they were not they would not have survived.  

Now there are some that are more sports such as BJJ and Judo that are not as applicable to self defense as they were designed and optimized to specific applications and uses in more controlled situations.  

Kodokan judo I understand does add in the nastier self defense stuff at dan level that was taken out for sport use as I understand it. 

the same is not as I understand it true of  Bjj for example.  same could be said about western boxing, where the most efficent techniques have been removed for over a century.

but either way you will decide as you wish as to the usefulness of any art be it Karate, boxing or what have you.


----------



## TimoS

chinto said:


> Traditional Okinawan Karate has been used on the battlefield



Maybe by some individuals at some stage, but since karate isn't a war art, hardly systematically


----------



## fightingpower

At the risk of being even more contaversial, don't overcomplicate things.  I have seen Karate used effectively by colleagues to such a degree that they simply smashed through and controlled anything a much larger opponent had to offer.  I am a Judo practitioner and have used my system on regular occasions to overcome street attackers.  It is'nt the art guys its the individual.  I know MMA guys that train Judo and can't do anything and I have a Karate friend who regularly batters me when we train!!!


----------



## chinto

fightingpower said:


> At the risk of being even more contaversial, don't overcomplicate things.  I have seen Karate used effectively by colleagues to such a degree that they simply smashed through and controlled anything a much larger opponent had to offer.  I am a Judo practitioner and have used my system on regular occasions to overcome street attackers.  It is'nt the art guys its the individual.  I know MMA guys that train Judo and can't do anything and I have a Karate friend who regularly batters me when we train!!!




yep the man is a major factor with out question.  Karate and other arts that are century's old work. if they did not they would not have survived! That is the BOTTOM LINE!  If they did not work when a practitioner trained hard and needed them they would have gone away, if for no other reason then the practitioners would not have survived to pass them on!


----------



## fightingpower

It is also true that we are not at war and that the likelyhood of getting attacked these days is considerably lower than it may have been in fuedal Japan. Despite what the papers say!  Martial Arts must be effective, of course otherwise we are all running up hill, also the chances of getting attacked or having to defend a loved one at some point in your life is are relatively high, it just won't be every other day!  We are not all proffesional fighters and lets face it, life gets in the way sometimes.  Isn't is reasonable therefore that we learn an effective system that gives us confidence in what we do to challenge those we believe to be in the wrong in everyday life.  I guess what i am trying to say whilst admittedly waffling around the issue, is that we should exercise common sense in both our training and our general outlook to what is usefull and not.  Whether that be in Karate or MMA or any other style.  Just beware of the money making knock of wanna be's!

Thanks for reading my ramble if you got that far!


----------



## Makalakumu

chinto said:


> yep the man is a major factor with out question.  Karate and other arts that are century's old work. if they did not they would not have survived! That is the BOTTOM LINE!  If they did not work when a practitioner trained hard and needed them they would have gone away, if for no other reason then the practitioners would not have survived to pass them on!



On the other hand, when you look at modern karate styles, it didn't take very long for it to get watered down.  By the 1950's, pretty much what most people would recognize as karate arrived and the old close quarters self defense style had become more difficult to find.  As time went on, the popularity of the "new karate" infected the old karate because that's how you had to teach in order to make money...even in Okinawa!

So, today we are left with an environment where the label "traditional" is rather dubious is just about every sense.  No body trains karate like it was trained 100 years ago.  It all got watered down to a certain degree...especially for those of us who live in the US.


----------



## TimoS

maunakumu said:


> As time went on, the popularity of the "new karate" infected the old karate because that's how you had to teach in order to make money...even in Okinawa!



Not so sure about that. To some extent, yes, but not all of it. To my understanding, not all the okinawan masters teach for a living. For example, I seem to remember that Zenryo Shimabukuro was a baker and his son Zenpo is a real estate developer.


----------



## Makalakumu

TimoS said:


> Not so sure about that. To some extent, yes, but not all of it. To my understanding, not all the okinawan masters teach for a living. For example, I seem to remember that Zenryo Shimabukuro was a baker and his son Zenpo is a real estate developer.



I hope so, but I have to wonder exactly how close is what they teach to what Kyan sensei taught decades ago.  There are going to be changes...and as you move farther away from the source, the changes get larger.


----------



## TimoS

maunakumu said:


> I hope so, but I have to wonder exactly how close is what they teach to what Kyan sensei taught decades ago.  There are going to be changes...and as you move farther away from the source, the changes get larger.



Of course there are changes. For example, I remember reading that Zenryo Shimabukuro started teaching with Seisan. No kihon, just straight into kata. The way I've understood it, tradition isn't so much a question about keeping the teaching exactly like e.g. Kyan taught it, but to pass on the actual core, which are the kata and the applications therein. The kata vary from one instructor to another, sometimes slightly, sometimes not so slightly, but that's just the external form. What is inside doesn't usually vary that much. Just as an example, kata Seisan, which is taught in both Goju and (some) Shorin traditions. Goju and Shorin Seisan look quite different from each other, but when you start looking at them more closely, you see similarities and the applications are in many cases (more or less) exactly the same.


----------



## Errant108

chinto said:


> Look people, you can believe what you want, but Traditional Okinawan Karate has been used on the battlefield, in Allys on docks, and in the streets all over the world.  the attacks were lethal and nonlethal in intent but every where used it worked well.



This is a huge fallacy.

It does not matter what karate was or where it was used.

Your training is what matters.

If you are not training for the battlefield yourself, utilizing the methods that karate's forebears were, you cannot say that YOUR KARATE is effective for battlefield combat.  The same goes for "the street".



chinto said:


> This is of course dependent to some extent on the practitioner, but then all martial arts are the same way to the same extent!



All martial arts are not the same.

Either your training is applicable in a live environment, or it is not.



chinto said:


> Fact is that most older martial arts are extremely efficient and effective in self defense.  If they were not they would not have survived.



Once removed from the necessity of live combat, it is actually very easy for martial arts to survive.  They become stagnant & traditional, and exist for reasons other than combat.  The Koryu of Japan are a perfect example of this.



chinto said:


> Now there are some that are more sports such as BJJ and Judo that are not as applicable to self defense as they were designed and optimized to specific applications and uses in more controlled situations.



Kano's Judo took on all comers in open, unregulated combat & defeated the so-called "self-defense" schools of jujutsu of the time, *because of the emphasis on randori & live training, rather than the dead, static training you are referring to.*



chinto said:


> the same is not as I understand it true of  Bjj for example.  same could be said about western boxing, where the most efficent techniques have been removed for over a century.



Completely incorrect, and why the US Army bases much of its hand-to-hand curriculum off of Brazilian JJ.


----------



## TimoS

Errant108 said:


> The Koryu of Japan are a perfect example of this.



Right right, and you know this for a fact because you've seen all of them and know how they train. I actually agree with you up to a point, but your basic flaw as I see it is that you tend to lump everything that says it is traditional under one umbrella: "it just doesn't work". But if that makes you happy, then good for you


----------



## seasoned

fightingpower said:


> At the risk of being even more contaversial, don't overcomplicate things. I have seen Karate used effectively by colleagues to such a degree that they simply smashed through and controlled anything a much larger opponent had to offer. I am a Judo practitioner and have used my system on regular occasions to overcome street attackers. *It is'nt the art guys its the individual.* I know MMA guys that train Judo and can't do anything and I have a Karate friend who regularly batters me when we train!!!


 This is indeed a very excellent point. Even a club in the hands of someone not willing to use it is rendered useless.


----------



## seasoned

Errant108 said:


> Completely incorrect, and why the US Army bases much of its hand-to-hand curriculum off of Brazilian JJ.


Now that you have mentioned it, does the army hand to hand curriculum train to the death, or do they go just so far so as to not kill off their fellow soldiers. You always talk about live training, how so. The army as well as LEO train to kill but never kill anybody until a certain point in time when they are called upon to follow through with what they have simulated all through training. Just like most karate dojo, right.  I do think that you mentioned that it was the individual that mattered, as opposed to a style, this much I will agree with. But, a kick is still a kick and a strike is still a strike.


----------



## blindsage

After going back and re-reading the article I find it kind of interesting that Mann quotes Jon Bluming saying 

_"If you're up against someone who doesn't know how to fight -- yes, old-style karate can work, but if you fight an experienced streetfighter or a trained fighter, no way!"   _

And then goes on to use that to help 'prove' Karate is ineffective (not some, all), despite the fact the Jon Bluming is a Kyokushin fighter, which still incorporates training in much of the 'traditional' aspects of Shotokan, Goju, and other styles Mas Oyama developed it from, i.e. kata, traditional stances/punches/blocks, etc.


----------



## Errant108

TimoS said:


> Right right, and you know this for a fact because you've seen all of them and know how they train. I actually agree with you up to a point, but your basic flaw as I see it is that you tend to lump everything that says it is traditional under one umbrella: "it just doesn't work". But if that makes you happy, then good for you



I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

The Koryu train dead.  Period.

If they don't, they cease to be koryu.  That's the definition of Koryu.  Unlike nebulous terms like "traditional", we are here dealing with a very precise, self-ascribed definition.

Koryu training is engaging in a preservation of heritage.  It must, by necessity, stay exactly the same.  It cannot adapt for modern needs or the realities of modern combat.  Once it does so, it is no longer koryu.  The goal of Koryu is not about creating fighters.

In fact, most koryu practitioners are very realistic about their training.  Those that harbor dreams of using their deadly sword skills on legions of ninja assailants do not last long in the strict environment of the koryu.

The Koryu were created to deal with a completely different set of variables than modern battlefield or street combat.  Thus, their applicability to modern settings will be limited.

Granted, the human body can only move, affect, and be affected in so many ways.  This does not mean that all martial arts are the same and that all martial arts are equally effective.

A student of Koryu jujutsu will likely be able to defend themselves to a degree.  However, they are not trained for the modern element.  They are trained for a battlefield that ceased to exist centuries ago and are restricted by cultural elements that likely do not affect the majority of posters on this site.  Time spent learning how to deal with sword wielding attackers will have some cross-over, but time would be better spent learning how to deal with the issues confronting modern practitioners.

The issue is not that karate "doesn't work".

The issue is that there are better ways, and when asked to recommend something *for a given set of parameters*, it's not going to be the karate dojo down the street when that dojo does not meet the parameters.


----------



## Errant108

blindsage said:


> After going back and re-reading the article I find it kind of interesting that Mann quotes Jon Bluming saying
> 
> _"If you're up against someone who doesn't know how to fight -- yes, old-style karate can work, but if you fight an experienced streetfighter or a trained fighter, no way!"   _
> 
> And then goes on to use that to help 'prove' Karate is ineffective (not some, all), despite the fact the Jon Bluming is a Kyokushin fighter, which still incorporates training in much of the 'traditional' aspects of Shotokan, Goju, and other styles Mas Oyama developed it from, i.e. kata, traditional stances/punches/blocks, etc.



Bluming doesn't teach kata at all & the majority of the so-called kihon.


----------



## Errant108

seasoned said:


> Now that you have mentioned it, does the army hand to hand curriculum train to the death, or do they go just so far so as to not kill off their fellow soldiers. You always talk about live training, how so. The army as well as LEO train to kill but never kill anybody until a certain point in time when they are called upon to follow through with what they have simulated all through training. Just like most karate dojo, right.  I do think that you mentioned that it was the individual that mattered, as opposed to a style, this much I will agree with. But, a kick is still a kick and a strike is still a strike.



Are you familiar with Aliveness Theorem as explained by Matt Thornton?


----------



## jarrod

Errant108 said:


> I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
> 
> The Koryu train dead.  Period.
> 
> If they don't, they cease to be koryu.  That's the definition of Koryu.  Unlike nebulous terms like "traditional", we are here dealing with a very precise, self-ascribed definition.
> 
> Koryu training is engaging in a preservation of heritage.  It must, by necessity, stay exactly the same.  It cannot adapt for modern needs or the realities of modern combat.  Once it does so, it is no longer koryu.  The goal of Koryu is not about creating fighters.



i'm only hopping in here because i just finished reading "koryu bujutsu" edited by diane skoss, & an essay in there by ellis amdur addresses this point exactly.

his position was that a koryu wasn't bound to never undergo transformation, but only had to maintain the principles & lineage of it's founding.  in fact he expressly stated koryu should update with the times, otherwise they cease being martial arts altogether & merely become interesting cultural relics.  he was very interested in koryu remaining relevent in today's world.

he goes on to say that many koryu practitioners, particularly in japan, don't seem to train with any sort of real martial intent, which he thinks is a great shame.  

just throwing that out there.

jf


----------



## Makalakumu

jarrod said:


> He goes on to say that many koryu practitioners, particularly in japan, don't seem to train with any sort of real martial intent, which he thinks is a great shame.



Great post!  It's the same with Karate.  There is no need.  Our world isn't ans dangerous in some respects and it is filled with different kinds of weapons.  When you consider the rate of training accidents into the mix of preparing a person for battle, it just makes sense that civilians who practice MA for recreation would like to avoid those.  

In all honesty, after repairing two debilitating injuries while having young children, that is not an experience I'd like to repeat a third time.  My wife would kill me for one.  For another, I'd like to be able to walk without a cane when I'm 80.  

Some acomodations need to be made.  There's no way around it.  

In the same vein, you can train smarter.  You can train safely and train more realistically so that you don't take it too far off the original mark.  It's a matter of objectives.


----------



## jarrod

i'm with you on that.  i may not be the baddest dude in town, but i'll be the baddest dude in the nursing home for sure.  

jf


----------



## TimoS

Errant108 said:


> The Koryu train dead.  Period.



Not even a comma


----------



## Sensei Payne

I would rather go into a fight knowing something than nothing.

karate is that something, and has helped me numerous times.


----------



## chav buster

its the training not the techniques at fault in karate along with the whole secrecy thing which means most karate people even the most senior dont have a clue how to apply the techniques. 

in Okinawa back in the day a student wouldnt learn the full reason for the kata's for many years until thay have proven themselfs trust worthy and even then thay may not be told the full explaination behind the techniques, multiply this over many generations and you get into the state karate is in today.
 karate people are only now learning the true meaning of there art mostly from studying other arts for example the karate blocks that are considered so ineffective by many, in silat and the fma are actuelly strikes to the attacking limbs knocking the attacker of balance and opening him up for counters, the x block is actuelly used in muay thai as a cover to smash through a flurry of punches and hike uki is the same thing a swan neck catch used in thaiboxing to clinch but as these techniques are never tought in an active way and the fact thay are done in a very formal stylized way along with the fact thay have not been explained properly thay have became largely useless.


----------



## TimoS

chav buster said:


> its the training not the techniques at fault in karate along with the whole secrecy thing which means most karate people even the most senior dont have a clue how to apply the techniques



Secrecy doesn't have much anything to do with the current state. It is the advent of sport karate and focusing only on that that is to blame.



> in Okinawa back in the day a student wouldnt learn the full reason for the kata's for many years until thay have proven themselfs trust worthy and even then thay may not be told the full explaination behind the techniques, multiply this over many generations and you get into the state karate is in today.



Quite simply put: not true. "Back in the day" in Okinawa the teaching started straight with kata. You would learn the moves maybe even one at a time, but you also learnt the applications there at the same time. For example, the first move of Sanchin: someone tries to either choke you or grab a hold of jacket/shirt/whatever. You step in and break the hold with the "double block". Next step is you then punch him



> karate people are only now learning the true meaning of there art mostly from studying other arts



Now why would I need to study different arts to learn to use my karate when all the lessons are already there? If you want to learn to use a hammer, you sure don't pick up a saw


----------



## chav buster

TimoS said:


> Secrecy doesn't have much anything to do with the current state. It is the advent of sport karate and focusing only on that that is to blame.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite simply put: not true. "Back in the day" in Okinawa the teaching started straight with kata. You would learn the moves maybe even one at a time, but you also learnt the applications there at the same time. For example, the first move of Sanchin: someone tries to either choke you or grab a hold of jacket/shirt/whatever. You step in and break the hold with the "double block". Next step is you then punch him
> 
> 
> 
> Now why would I need to study different arts to learn to use my karate when all the lessons are already there? If you want to learn to use a hammer, you sure don't pick up a saw


 
 i have read many anecdote conserning the secrecy around the meaning of the techniques in karate.

the sanchin example was funnily enough the same example i used for the swan neck grip. of course its subjective but the thai's use it in combat and your instructor dosnt so im going to lean towards the thai verson which further supports my stance on miss understanding of the katas although your reasoning isnt bad and more or less right i have heard some frankly ludicruos explinationd for the katas.

if you dont want to study other arts to understand karate thats fine but in my training life i have found many techniques from other arts that are almost identical to the ones in karate but are far more practical and i put this down to a lack of understanding due to secrecy, i know you dont agree with me and fair enough but if it wasnt the case there would be no need for guys like ian aberneathy and gavin muholland to spend so much time studing  the katas. 

the x block is a good example of my point, used as a static block like it is taught is more or less useless but if you drive it through a flurry of punches into someones face it becomes a very practical technique so really its not a block at all but a defencive and offensive weapon at the same time.


----------



## Landshark

Look into Isshinryu Karate.It  uses a more natural movement,less reaction time or should I say faster.A block is a punch that kind of thing.Of course like with anything you are only as good as you practice.But I feel for the attacker that prays on a Real Isshinryu black bealt.


----------



## TimoS

chav buster said:


> i have read many anecdote conserning the secrecy around the meaning of the techniques in karate.



Don't trust everything you read about karate. There's tons of bad info out there about karate and it's history. Another popular one is that it was used by farmers and fishermen to fight the invading samurai



> i have heard some frankly ludicruos explinationd for the katas.



As have I. One of my favourites is the sequence at the start of Pinan/Heian 3: the two double blocks there are supposedly against someone who attacks you not once, but twice in a row with a combined kick and punch. Based on my (limited, I'll grant you) observations the one thing that is common with those who give these applications that have more to do with science-fiction than street survival is that they don't have access to the original stuff that is passed on in at least some okinawan karate schools. Or they are too proud to admit that they don't know the stuff and make things up.



> i put this down to a lack of understanding due to secrecy



Again, I don't see the reason for current state of affairs as being secrecy as the okinawans are to my understanding quite helpful in helping you understand the kata. The reason is that many people just didn't care for kata. All they wanted was to compete and if you want to compete against other people who are also learning karate, you don't necessarily need the kata anymore. It is only lately that many people have started to realize that maybe there is something to learn in these kata and that is why people such as Abernathy and McCarthy and others are popular.



> the x block is a good example of my point, used as a static block like it is taught is more or less useless but if you drive it through a flurry of punches into someones face it becomes a very practical technique so really its not a block at all but a defencive and offensive weapon at the same time.



Just to be clear, which x block are you referring to? I can think of at least three different x blocks  I'm fairly sure about which of those you mean, but I just want to be sure.


----------



## chav buster

i would agree with you about the sporting aspect to karate, its the same as judo which due the sport not having much grappling is not really seen as an effective martial art yet bjj is even though thay are the same thing really.

we will have to agree ti disagree about the other issue


----------



## blindsage

Errant108 said:


> Bluming doesn't teach kata at all & the majority of the so-called kihon.


 
Strange then that his website says that "Traditional Kyokushin Karate" is part of his organization including "the traditional Kihon and Kata".
http://www.jonbluming.nl/


----------



## blindsage

chav buster said:


> i would agree with you about the sporting aspect to karate, its the same as judo which due the sport not having much grappling is not really seen as an effective martial art yet bjj is even though thay are the same thing really.
> 
> we will have to agree ti disagree about the other issue


Judo doesn't have much grappling?


----------



## seasoned

blindsage said:


> Strange then that his website says that "Traditional Kyokushin Karate" is part of his organization including "the traditional Kihon and Kata".
> http://www.jonbluming.nl/


Must be a miss print.


----------



## seasoned

One of the first things taught in a "traditional" dojo is humility, of which, is a hard pill to swallow, for some.


----------



## chinto

Errant108 said:


> This is a huge fallacy.
> 
> It does not matter what karate was or where it was used.
> 
> Your training is what matters.
> 
> If you are not training for the battlefield yourself, utilizing the methods that karate's forebears were, you cannot say that YOUR KARATE is effective for battlefield combat.  The same goes for "the street".
> 
> 
> 
> All martial arts are not the same.
> 
> Either your training is applicable in a live environment, or it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> Once removed from the necessity of live combat, it is actually very easy for martial arts to survive.  They become stagnant & traditional, and exist for reasons other than combat.  The Koryu of Japan are a perfect example of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Kano's Judo took on all comers in open, unregulated combat & defeated the so-called "self-defense" schools of jujutsu of the time, *because of the emphasis on randori & live training, rather than the dead, static training you are referring to.*
> 
> 
> 
> Completely incorrect, and why the US Army bases much of its hand-to-hand curriculum off of Brazilian JJ.




LOL  bjj is not designed for or that useful for the street or the battlefield in genreal. it is optimized for the ring.. the reason the MMAP and US ARMY has adopted  so much of it is that the pentagon wanted it all toned down for "nation building and peace keeping" were you are not suposed to hurt the person your fighting... some things never change, including the amount of military stupidity.  this is the same thinking that has  embasy guards standing sentury duty with out ammo in danger zones. and guards on payroles in the past with out ammo too.  ( they might hurt some one if they had ammo! sheesh!)

as for my karate, it works, it has been used  back when i knew a lot less then I do now of it and it kept me alive. 
you may say karate does not work.. your opinion, nothing more.

Most soldiers and marines are not well trained in unarmed combat at all. They are not expecting to engage in unarmed combat in the first place! that is why they carry a RIFLE! 

 That is why the special operations troops, most all actually, study a martial art at their own expense and on their own time. Every one I have ever known has studied  Karate,   jujitsu         (   traditional samurai types ) kung fu, or silat or kali or one of the other traditional systems.


----------



## K-man

chinto said:


> Most soldiers and marines are not well trained in unarmed combat at all. They are not expecting to engage in unarmed combat in the first place! that is why they carry a RIFLE!
> 
> That is why the special operations troops, most all actually, study a martial art at their own expense and on their own time. Every one I have ever known has studied Karate, jujitsu ( traditional samurai types ) kung fu, or silat or kali or one of the other traditional systems.


Our police forces are the same. There is debate in Australia at the moment as to whether police should carry tasers as a bridge between capsicum spray and firearms. The training for hands-on arrests is now minimal. Everything is at-a-distance.

On another vein. Chojun Miyagi developed the two gekesai kata in the early 1940s and these were used in military training. If you look at the techniques you can see where they could be used against an enemy using bayonet and wearing a helmet in the situation where you had lost you own weapon. This is really an example of how a martial art has evolved to adapt to a new environment as opposed to those who say that martial arts are from the past and have no relevance today. :asian:


----------



## chav buster

blindsage said:


> Judo doesn't have much grappling?


 what!! judo has loads of grappling infact bjj  just judo grappling


----------



## blindsage

chav buster said:


> what!! judo has loads of grappling infact bjj just judo grappling


If you look closely you will see a question mark at the end of my sentence.  It was a response to a previous statment of your which says,



chav buster said:


> i would agree with you about the sporting aspect to karate, *its the same as judo which due the sport not having much grappling* is not really seen as an effective martial art yet bjj is even though thay are the same thing really.


----------



## chav buster

blindsage said:


> If you look closely you will see a question mark at the end of my sentence. It was a response to a previous statment of your which says,


 ok but sports judo dosnt have alot of grappling maybe 30 seconds if your lucky


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Talk about an old thread! This one started in 2004.

I just read the article. I do not know who WR Mann is, but his article makes him look like a shyster with something to sell. 

"_That sent chills up my spine, and with the same fervor as a surgeon desperately trying to save the life of a stroke victim"_

Come on! Talk about self importance. Gag. This article is so patronizing that I really could not take it seriously. I would have almost laughed had I not believed that he was serious.

Maybe this guy is really good at what he does. Maybe people know his work and respect him. Maybe he posts here.  Maybe he is a really cool cat.  I do not know and am not familiar with him. He came across as either ignorant or deliberately misleading in his presentation of the facts. Either way, I found him to be little more than a self important windbag who's article I could pick apart and demonstrate its errors without a whole lot of effort. 

Daniel


----------



## Sandwich

chav buster said:


> what!! judo has loads of grappling infact bjj  just judo grappling



Yes, they use many of the same grappling techniques. BJJ did evolve from Judo after all. But in practice, they're very different. 

The biggest factor is time spent grappling. In BJJ, most schools spend 95%-100% of their time on the ground. In judo, the average is more like 70/30 throws/ground, though this varies greatly in some places.

Emphasis on techniques is another big factor. The guard is not a big part of Judo. Because so many schools train with an emphasis on competition, pins are a big part of Judo. In judo, when someone takes your back, turtling is often totally acceptable. In BJJ, no practitioner is going to give up their back willingly (unless they have a good turtle offense). And if you do get their back, they're not going to be content to just defend. They're going to be working for an escape, trying to turn into your guard, etc.

The amount of submissions that one learns in BJJ is quite substantial. It's not uncommon for a BJJ white belt to know more submissions than a Judo black belt, but the ability to utilize them won't be there.

A judo black belt is roughly equivalent to a BJJ blue belt. And if anyone would like to disagree, I can show them a thread on a judo forum with dozens of judoka who are in agreement.

Having said that, there are some great judo clubs that put equal emphasis on both the ground as well as throws. Unfortunately they are few and far between.

Sorry, not the main topic of this thread. I just wanted to add my own thoughts.


----------



## twendkata71

K-man said:


> Our police forces are the same. There is debate in Australia at the moment as to whether police should carry tasers as a bridge between capsicum spray and firearms. The training for hands-on arrests is now minimal. Everything is at-a-distance.
> 
> On another vein. Chojun Miyagi developed the two gekesai kata in the early 1940s and these were used in military training. If you look at the techniques you can see where they could be used against an enemy using bayonet and wearing a helmet in the situation where you had lost you own weapon. This is really an example of how a martial art has evolved to adapt to a new environment as opposed to those who say that martial arts are from the past and have no relevance today. :asian:


 *Actually Miyagi Chojun O'sensei coauthored those kata with Nagamine Shoshin. Miyagi creating fukyugata ichi and Nagamine creating fukyugata ni. And they were designed to simplify instruction for small school children(they were called promotional kata) meaning that they were used in demonstations to gain new students in the elementary, middle and high school on Okinawa.  This is why they are so wide spread throughout many styles of karate on Okinawa.  And yes the Japanese Military included them in their pre and during WWII training of millitary personell. It gave them a quick and basic learning opportunity. For troops in basic training.  Miyagi and Nagamine were not so much pro military as they were patriots and believed in national pride, eventhough they were Okinawan, not Japanese. Just because Japan owns/runs the  Island country of Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands doesn't mean they are Japanese. There is quite a difference in culture, language,etc. even though the official language on Okinawa is Japanese. That is a political control issue. Many of the old Okinawans are still a bit rebellous in that they continue to speak the old Hogan dialects in small circles, keeping their Okinawan heritage alive. The Japanese tend to try to stamp out the cultures of the places they control, even today. *


----------



## TimoS

twendkata71 said:


> *Miyagi creating fukyugata ichi and Nagamine creating fukyugata ni*



Actually, the other way round. Fukyugata ichi is Nagamine's and ni Miyagi's creation. At least that's the order in Seibukan


----------



## K-man

twendkata71 said:


> *Actually Miyagi Chojun O'sensei coauthored those kata with Nagamine Shoshin. Miyagi creating fukyugata ichi and Nagamine creating fukyugata ni. And they were designed to simplify instruction for small school children(they were called promotional kata) meaning that they were used in demonstations to gain new students in the elementary, middle and high school on Okinawa. This is why they are so wide spread throughout many styles of karate on Okinawa. And yes the Japanese Military included them in their pre and during WWII training of millitary personell. It gave them a quick and basic learning opportunity. For troops in basic training. Miyagi and Nagamine were not so much pro military as they were patriots and believed in national pride, eventhough they were Okinawan, not Japanese. Just because Japan owns/runs the Island country of Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands doesn't mean they are Japanese. There is quite a difference in culture, language,etc. even though the official language on Okinawa is Japanese. That is a political control issue. Many of the old Okinawans are still a bit rebellous in that they continue to speak the old Hogan dialects in small circles, keeping their Okinawan heritage alive. The Japanese tend to try to stamp out the cultures of the places they control, even today. *


 


> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The two forms Gekisai dai ichi and Gekisai dai ni were introduced by Chujun Miyagi as training kata into the Goju Ryu curriculum in 1940 for school children and adolescents. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The preservation and promotion of Okinawan Karate had been a concern to many senior karate masters for some years and led to a number of initiatives in the 1930's. One such being the 'Okinawan Prefectual Karate Do Promotion Society' founded in 1937, by Chosihin Chibana, Shimpan Gushukuma, Chomo Hanashiro, Chotoku Kyan, Jyuhatsu Kyoda, Choryu Maeshiro, Chojun Miyagi, Genwa Nakasone and Kentsu Yabu, prior to the second world war 1938-1945. [/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This desire to promote Karate resulted in the development of the Hookiyu Kata meaning 'Unified Forms' at the official request of Gen Hayakawa the governer of Okinawa. With Soshin Nagamine and Chojun Miyagi creating the Fukyu Kata or examination forms. Sochin Nagamine of Matsubyashi Shorin Ryu created the form Fukyu Kata Ichi and Chujun Miyagi created Fukyu Kata Ni. Miyagi adopted Fukyu Kata Ni as Gekisai Dai Ichi and went on to develop Gekisai Dai Ni with its Naha Te influence. .... Sodokan Goju Karate Association[/FONT]​
> [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
I'm glad I am writing these names and not trying to pronounce them!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




It has been my understanding that the Gekisai kata were developed from Fukyu Kata Ni. 
It is also important to understand the political situation that existed in Japan at that time. Japan had been in armed conflict with China in an undeclared war since 1931. This became a full scale struggle in 1937 and war was finally 'declared' in 1941. Even though this was the largest Asian war of the 20th century, the war was never 'declared' or Japanese steel imports from America would have stopped because of the US 'Neutrality Acts'. Japan did not enter the 2nd World War until Dec 1941. As can be seen at the time these kata were being developed many young Japanese men were either at war or training for war. 
Another interesting point about kata Gekisai Dai Ichi is that it finishes with the rear foot coming forward to finish beside the front foot. As far as I can see all other kata finish with the front foot moving back to finish beside the rear foot. My understanding of this is that this was to be symbolic of the Japanese warrior advancing in the face of adversity.
Another thing to take into account is that Miyagi was closely involved with Japan in the early 1930s with demonstrations at many universities. Gogen Yamaguchi set up his Goju teaching in Japan (basically with Miyagi's blessing) not long afterwards and established the Goju Kai in 1935. So, although Miyagi was Okinawan, his focus was clearly on Japan during that decade. 
This is why I believe the Gekisai kata were developed within a modern (1930s) military context, that although taught to children as youngsters, the kata could be explained later to the military as a true form of unarmed combat. :asian:​[/FONT]


----------



## twendkata71

*Actually, it was the US that didn't get into WWII until 1941. The Japanese were in it when Germany started in. Japan had already started annexing several countries by force before Germany started attacking Europe. Japan was waging war all over the asian continent for several years before WWII broke out.  They did not declare war on the US until 1941.  The US sent equipment, supplies and pilots into China a few years before our entry in WWII to help the Chinese fight against the Japanese who were waging war on China and starting to take over the whole country.  By 1940 they had taken over China, Korea, Taiwan, Indochina(Vietnam) Thailand and Burma. They were by no means bystanders in WWII at anytime.  They were at war with Russia in 1905.  They however were on the allies side during WWI. Not sure what this has to do with Karate other than the fact that the Japanese were training their soldiers in karate. *


----------



## K-man

twendkata71 said:


> *Actually, it was the US that didn't get into WWII until 1941. The Japanese were in it when Germany started in. Japan had already started annexing several countries by force before Germany started attacking Europe. Japan was waging war all over the asian continent for several years before WWII broke out. They did not declare war on the US until 1941. The US sent equipment, supplies and pilots into China a few years before our entry in WWII to help the Chinese fight against the Japanese who were waging war on China and starting to take over the whole country. By 1940 they had taken over China, Korea, Taiwan, Indochina(Vietnam) Thailand and Burma. They were by no means bystanders in WWII at anytime. They were at war with Russia in 1905. They however were on the allies side during WWI. Not sure what this has to do with Karate other than the fact that the Japanese were training their soldiers in karate. *


The link with karate is that the political background provided the backdrop for the development of recent kata, Gekisai Dai Ichi and Ni.

But, with respect, your history as stated above is far from accurate. As to the history of Japan in the war against the allies, they did not start a declared war on the allies until after they declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour. They signed an agreement with the Axis powers, basically Italy and Germany in 1940 but they were not at war with the Allied Forces until December 1941. At the same time, Dec 1941, after Japan had waged war on Thailand for about 6 hours, Thailand signed a treaty with Japan to allow free passage in return for Japan helping Thailand regain its lost territories and Thailand declared war on Britain and the United States. They helped the Japanese invade Burma in 1942. The Japanese were not at war with Russia until 1945 having signed a treaty with Russia in 1941. Japan's war against China, Korea, etc was technically not part of WW2. 
You also said they took over Taiwan. Taiwan was at this time under Japanese administration and had been since 1895. Taiwan was returned to China after WW2. :asian:


----------



## twendkata71

*Ok, you maybe right about the WWII history somewhat, Japan did invade China a few years before WWII actually broke out 1937. *
*And you are right, I had my facts messed up after going back over historical information. The first Sino/Japanese war was in 1887-1895, which was over the annexation and colonization of Korea. Japan defeated China and took over control of Korea until 1945 when WWII ended. After 50 years of occupation, no wonder Korean Martial arts have so much Japanese martial arts influence(jujitsu,Karate[introduced in around 1930 or mid 30's] was mixed in with Taekkyon to become Tangsoo do and Taekwondo, Aikido/Aikijujutsu-became Hapkido, Kendo(Kumdo) During the occupation the Japanese outlawed all forms of Traditional Korean Martial Arts practice and only allowing practice of Japanese Martial arts. Basically they tried to make all Koreans,Japanese. their effort to wipeout Korean culture and martial arts failed eventhough they did have a lot of influence on the modern forms of Korean martial arts. *
*Sorry folks for the subject being so off topic. I am a history buff, sometimes my memory is not as good as it used to be. When I am corrected I look up the information and admit my error. *
*Now back to discussions about karate.*


----------



## b.monki

well i read through some of the posts and i couldnt find anyone mentioning machida beating evans... machida is like untouchable in mma rightnow and he is text book karate without the blocks... and if you say mma aint reality fighting those guys train to not throw illegal shots which means they know a LOT of illegal shots so they wont do em int he ring... you dont think they wont visciously knee you in the balls or elbow you in the throat in the streets... i dont train in mma but those guys are built like beasts there cardio is bar none and they can take a beating you hit a pro mma a fighter in the throat or poke him in the eye your just gonna piss him off... and machida is owning the mma world with karate... he trains kata, he was a champion karate point fighter, you watch his karate point fighting its no different then his mma style which is pretty much just karate and bjj ya he trained in sumo too but doesnt look lik ehe uses much of that the same with bjj looks like he uses it just to counter the locks...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

b.monki,

Good observations.  The reason you do not see any mention, however, is because this thread is quite old and upon its necro, it seems that the discussion has been mainly historical.

But I totally agree: Machida is a man that every karateka should be taking a good hard look at.

Daniel


----------



## blindsage

Machida is dope.  No question.

But let's get real.  You punch anybody in the throat, they have a problem.  And eye injuries don't go over very well in any context, including MMA.  Those guys are beasts and their conditioning is awesome, but some injuries are damaging to anybody.  Next you're gonna say armbars are worthless because those guys are so well trained that you couldn't break their arms, just piss them off.


----------



## goingd

I will say this: Styles do not teach anything. Systems do not teach anything. Instructors teach. Most "real world" systems I've come across do not put such focus on "awareness" of what could happen, at least no more than most traditional systems I've come across.
People often don't take the time to analyze a style and see the equal potential in every aspect. The realism of traditional Karate is hidden in between the motions. The setup for a technique is a technique itself. Karate finds criticism because it's techniques are too often too slow to the mind's eye that chooses not to see the whole thing. When setting up for an inside block the opposite hand moves to the blocking point so that the block is done with more power. People only see the motion of the other hand as a setup for power. The setup itself deflects or even grabs the attack before the block even needs to.

... Just saying.


----------



## seasoned

goingd said:


> I will say this: Styles do not teach anything. Systems do not teach anything. Instructors teach. Most "real world" systems I've come across do not put such focus on "awareness" of what could happen, at least no more than most traditional systems I've come across.
> People often don't take the time to analyze a style and see the equal potential in every aspect. The realism of traditional Karate is hidden in between the motions. The setup for a technique is a technique itself. Karate finds criticism because it's techniques are too often too slow to the mind's eye that chooses not to see the whole thing. When setting up for an inside block the opposite hand moves to the blocking point so that the block is done with more power. People only see the motion of the other hand as a setup for power. The setup itself deflects or even grabs the attack before the block even needs to.... Just saying.


You are most correct, the real work is done on the half steps in kata. The half steps, as you said, are the moves leading up to the preserved technique itself. This is where the mind can't freeze up. To read kata, we need to read between the lines, so to speak. The thread should read 
"Why the misreading of kata, is not effective for self-defense." IMO


----------



## kroh

goingd said:


> The setup itself deflects or even grabs the attack before the block even needs to.
> 
> ... Just saying.



And then the hand that was originally going to block is free to pummel!  
Regards, 
Walt


----------



## jarrod

blindsage said:


> Machida is dope.  No question.
> 
> But let's get real.  You punch anybody in the throat, they have a problem.  And eye injuries don't go over very well in any context, including MMA.  Those guys are beasts and their conditioning is awesome, but some injuries are damaging to anybody.  Next you're gonna say armbars are worthless because those guys are so well trained that you couldn't break their arms, just piss them off.



yuki nakai defeated an opponent 130lbs larger than himself *after his opponent gouged out his eye*.  i don't mean poked his eye, i mean he's blind in that eye now.  it was a tournament, & he came back out to win against another much larger opponent, then lost to rickson gracie.  eye gouges & throat shots hurt & will stop most people, but you can't bank on anything stopping someone for sure.  

karate is awesome though.

jf


----------



## blindsage

jarrod said:


> yuki nakai defeated an opponent 130lbs larger than himself *after his opponent gouged out his eye*. i don't mean poked his eye, i mean he's blind in that eye now. it was a tournament, & he came back out to win against another much larger opponent, then lost to rickson gracie. eye gouges & throat shots hurt & will stop most people, but you can't bank on anything stopping someone for sure.


 

Of course not, but one example of an extra exceptional individual, is not a rule. Yes, people can fight on through serious injury, most don't. Yes, you can be seriously injured and still win a fight, most don't. But the real implication here from the previous poster was that eye gouges and throat attacks would have no effect on conditioned fighters, just piss them off. This is patently ridiculous.


----------



## jarrod

blindsage said:


> Of course not, but one example of an extra exceptional individual, is not a rule. Yes, people can fight on through serious injury, most don't. Yes, you can be seriously injured and still win a fight, most don't. But the real implication here from the previous poster was that eye gouges and throat attacks would have no effect on conditioned fighters, just piss them off. This is patently ridiculous.



i think i see what you're saying & largely agree :asian:  the only reason i chime in on these sort of discussions is because too many people still believe in a magic bullet, whether it's MMA or "teh deadlies" (eye gouges, groin strikes, etc).  

i think a lot of people assume that poke in the eye=instant victory, just like many think MMA training=invincibility.  eye gouges et al are absolutely effective techniques, it's just that they are not garaunteed to incapacitate your opponent any more than a picture perfect right cross is garaunteed to knock someone out.  whichever approach you prefer, the key isn't whether you throw a punch or an eye gouge, but whether you have a plan b...& c, & d, & e...

not directing this at you, blindsage, just speaking generally.

jf


----------



## blindsage

Absolutely agree with all of the above.


----------



## chinto

Ceicei said:


> It is a little long...  Here is an interesting article that was posted in another martial arts discussion website. It generated quite a bit of discussion and I think it will do the same here. There are some points mentioned I agree and some I disagree. Let's share our thoughts on this:
> 
> - Ceicei
> 
> ********************************************************
> 
> Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective For Self-Defense
> 
> 
> _By WR Mann_
> The underlining motivation in studying any type of martial activity is to protect ourselves (or others) in a real fighting situation. At first glance karate seems to provide a solution, until you look more closely at its underpinnings; then you realize it's not equipped to handle violence in the 21st Century. I often refer to karate (and other traditional Asian martial arts) as the Potemkim Village of the martial arts -- a grand facade offering significantly less in the way of substantive tactics and defensive measures than any of the reality-based defense systems.
> 
> Recently, while speaking to friends visiting from Australia, the topic of self-defense came up for their daughters (age 9 and 11). They mentioned there was a karate school in their neighborhood and were considering enrolling them there. That sent chills up my spine, and with the same fervor as a surgeon desperately trying to save the life of a stroke victim; I informed them that karate would produce the least beneficial results.
> 
> The reason I dissuade people from getting into karate (and other traditional martial arts) is because I don't want them misinformed like I was, studying retrograde theories and techniques that no longer have any relevance to the way we live and need to respond to. Let's be honest, all things being equal, some fighting styles are vastly superior to others. I'm not saying karate is completely ineffective (Bruce Lee did). Karate, like many other fighting styles, has the potential of stopping an attacker, however, the degree of efficiency is far less than muaythai, Brazilian jujitsu, boxing, and especially reality-based systems. Using a metaphor, the flintlock is certainly capable of stopping someone, but the M16 has a far greater degree of efficiency.
> 
> _"If you're up against someone who doesn't know how to fight -- yes, old-style karate can work, but if you fight an experienced streetfighter or a trained fighter, no way!" - Jon Bluming_
> 
> To properly put this question into perspective (why karate is not effective as a modern self-defense system) we must first discuss four topics:
> 1) Conditions of violence in the world today
> 2) Constituents of effective self-defense in the 21St-Century?
> 3) What are people looking for [in their self-defense training]?
> 4) A differentiation and clarification of fighting categories in 2003
> 
> Conditions of violence in the world today
> Although terrorism has been around for years, its most dramatic impact was felt on September 11, 2001, after the destruction of the World Trade Center. From this point on, the world realized that there were no safe havens left. For the first time in history, Americans were scrambling for gas masks, anthrax remedies, survival and first-aid kits. Suddenly, self-defense was no longer only someone trying to rob or punch you, it now extended to potentially surviving large-scale violence, such as nuclear attacks, bombings, poison gas and snipers. Levels of common violence have also grown and laws against defending yourself have been initiated by several governments in the past few years.
> 
> Constituents of effective self-defense in the 21St-Century?
> Nowadays, physical violence can happen to anyone, anytime, anywhere and under any conditions. Therefore it's paramount that modern self-defense must encompass the whole gamut of possible situational and environmental scenarios. That includes surviving a bomb attack, gas and chemical attacks, a mob, snipers, muggings, and more. In general, no fighting style will totally prepare us for these scenarios; some reality-based schools at least provide awareness, avoidance and escape options.
> 
> Karate (as well as other traditional styles) have been slow to add realistic elements to their training. They just go on about their business, ignoring the way today's criminals conduct themselves, or if they have, they are stuck in a time warp, as if they've never heard of home invasions, car jackings, firearms attacks and terrorists.
> 
> Not only is it necessary to practice under a wide variety of conditions and circumstances but you need to be intimately familiar with all three phases of the attack cycle (pre-conflict, the conflict, and post conflict), adrenaline-dump, the use-of-force, self-triage and more. Unless this holistic approach is practiced in simulated environments, expect you or your loved ones to become potential victims.
> 
> What are people looking for [in their self-defense training]?
> With the exception of individuals interested in martial endeavors, most people are busy with full time careers, school, family or other interests. They are disinclined to spend many years studying martial arts; the only time they seek out a protective-measures course is when something happens close to home.
> 
> I can tell you for a fact, most people are not looking for "a way of life," a new religion, or grueling years of pushups and sit-ups interspersed with kata (a pattern of techniques). They "are" however looking for a set of effective and efficient techniques and tactics they can employ to escape a violent attack -- NOW! (not years from now).
> 
> Not only do you need to train in the conflict stage of an attack but you need to add pre-and post-conflict training as well. Karate (as well as most traditional martial arts) ignores the pre and post conflict stages, and their methodology of teaching is of the "spoon-fed" variety. They don't even attempt to approach defensive tactics against firearms, hostage taking, store/bank robberies and multiple armed opponents; but these are very real potential situations today.
> 
> A clarification and differentiation of fighting categories
> When you mention the term "martial arts," today, everyone immediately knows what you mean. The term has become the generic moniker for all fighting styles. What most people don't realize is there are three distinct categories. 1) Traditional-based, 2) Sports-based, and 3) Reality-based defense.
> 
> Traditional-Based
> Traditional "arts" are historical styles originating in Asia. They include karate, jujitsu, aikido, taekwondo, numerous schools of kung fu, and much more. These styles are what the general public refers to when the term "martial art" is used; this is what we see in the movies. They incorporate the use of traditional-based costumes and employ some form of philosophical or pseudo-religious component. Although many of these systems claim to be a thousand years or older, truth be told, most of them have been around for only a hundred years or so, (with the exception of a few Chinese styles and Okinawan karate, which is about 250 years old). Generally traditional "martial arts" are the least street effective styles and take the longest time to learn.
> 
> Sports-Based
> The second group, "sports-based fighting," originate from older styles but have been modified and updated to be effective in the ring and conform strictly to specific rules. They can be adapted for the street (in a weaponless environment). Wrestling and boxing are updated versions of their ancient Greek and Roman counterparts, Brazilian jujitsu is a western version of Japanese jujitsu and muaythai is the modernized style of Thailand's fighting systems from the 14th Century. It takes several years to become proficient in "sports-based fighting." In most cases, practitioners easily prevail over their traditional martial art cousins. This is due to "live-training" and realistic techniques.
> 
> Reality-Based Defense
> Reality-based defense (an offshoot of police and military defensive tactics) are the most street realistic of the three groups, and emphasize simple but effective techniques for both weapons and unarmed attacks. This is also the only group that trains you in all three stages of an attack: the pre-conflict stage (threat assessment, conflict conditioning), the conflict stage (first strike, weapon awareness) and the post-conflict stage (do you run or wait for police, what do you say to the authorities, self medical triage and legal issues).
> 
> Much of the reality-based "conflict stage" comes to us from combatives. Combatives originally came to us from 1930's Shanghai, and WWII; British commandos and US Marines developed it over the years to be a simple but effective method of fighting. Reality-based defense concepts such as fighting under stress, situational and environmental awareness and living an avoidance lifestyle, are more recent developments and came about as many individuals realized they couldn't solely depend on traditional arts.
> 
> A good reality-defense program today incorporates not only defensive tactics against physical violence by individuals or groups but also incorporates defense for all types of modern attacks from conventional to unconventional weapons conducted in situational scenario form.
> 
> Summary
> Karate (and similar traditional martial arts) look great in the movies; they take a very long time to learn but don't provide efficient solutions for violent confrontations in any form. They're centered on the conflict phase and ignore (if by fiat) situational and environmental circumstances. Sports-based fighting provides great skills, i.e., development of speed, power, timing etc., it takes several years to develop these skills; and -- they still may not work in real street circumstances, this is due to their sportive nature. Many reality-based systems train you in situational / environmental conditions and address all three stages of the attack stages (with and without weapons). Most important of all, reality systems provide practitioners with the proper aggressive mind-set. Basic defensive skills can be readily implemented after a short period of training (the same way police officers and combat military personnel are trained).
> 
> A Brief look at Karate's Origins and Development
> Karate as we know it today originated in Okinawa circa 1750 AD, 141 years after Tokugawa Ieyasu ordered the Shimizu clan to invade and occupy it. Contrary to popular myth, karate had no effect whatsoever on Japan's occupation -- Okinawa still belongs to Japan after 394 years. There are two major but disparate approaches to karate, i.e., Okinawan and Japanese styles.
> 
> Pre-WWII
> Karate was introduced into Japan in the 1920's and has evolved into additional sub-styles. Major contributors to Japanese karate were Gichen Funakoshi (Shotokan), considered to be the father of modern karate, and was the first to systematize karate with the purpose and intent of mass instruction. Gogen Yamaguchi (Goju Ryu) devised modern day free-style sparring in 1936 and recognized a link between ancient Yoga and karate. He was also responsible for the founding the All Japan Karate-do Federation.
> 
> Post-WWII
> Modern breakthroughs in karate came with Mas Oyama (Kyokushinkai), and Kazuyoshi Ishii (Seidokan). Influenced by observing muaythai, Mas Oyama started incorporating hard contact during sparing sessions. I remember meeting him years ago Japan [as a teen], and he asked me where I was studying, I replied "with Gogen" (Yamaguchi), he laughed and said Goju practitioners were all ballerinas, and invited me to train at his school.
> 
> Kazuyoshi Ishii is known as the creator of K-1, it's the extreme style of karate and one of the most popular fighting sports today. The "K" comes from the first letter of the various styles of martial arts that make up K-1. Karate, Kickboxing, kung fu, kakutogi, and taekwondo.
> 
> The 12 Immutable Reasons Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective For Self-Defense
> 
> 1. The One-Strike Kill
> The biggest cliché of karate is the one-strike kill. This of course does not exist, but has fooled so many for years. Shigeru Egami (one of Funakoshi's top students) freely admitted there was no such thing. At one point in his career, Egami admits going into a deep depression after concluding a personal study about which martial style had the most powerful tsuki (punches). He found that karate had the least powerful tsuki, and boxing the strongest. Betting everything on one punch can get you killed.
> 
> 2. Waiting for The Attack
> Karate philosophy states, "wait for the attack." Remember Funakoshi's maxim, "Never attack first?" This is suicidal. In real situations, the first person to strike usually walks away. The untrained public, (influenced by Hollywood and martial arts mythology) erroneously thinks you have to eat the first punch, but you give up your lawful right to self-protection by letting anyone strike you first. Criminals take advantage of this civilized mindset. If you feel that violence is about to break out, strike first.
> 
> 3. On Stances
> Karate, (along with several hard Chinese styles) employs some of the most ineffective stances in martial arts. Deep, low karate stances make you completely immobile; they plant you in one spot, making quick movements extremely difficult. You may as well hang a sign around your neck saying "strike me at will, I can't move." If you recall early kickboxing, the first thing they got rid of were those limiting stances.
> 
> 4. Karate as a Way Of Life
> Years ago while in Japan, Gogen (Yamaguchi) once came up to me and asked, "I never see you practice kata, why?" I replied that I thought it was an exercise in futility, having no functional value. He grew upset and chastised me by saying, without kata, we're just animals, like boxers or wrestlers, I replied, "that's OK, I just want the skills." More than anything else, karate people have a fear about being labeled "killers." Their reply is always, "I follow the path, karate is a way of life." I guess they feel absolved from their inner conflicts or sociological guilt when they say that, sort of like what confession does for a Catholic.
> 
> 5. Spirituality and Meditation
> For many Japanese karateka, religion and martial arts are inseparably linked. Japanese spirituality and meditation are not a function of karate; they're emblematic of the culture that developed it. Westerners really buy into this big time. It's actually a direct affront to your personal beliefs. What if a Japanese boxer wanted to train in the U.S. with a Baptist coach, would he have to join the church, sing out loud, clap his hands, dance and get down? Changing your spiritual identity in order to learn self-defense is ludicrous! Mas Oyama once asked me how much time I meditate per day. I told him -- I don't, I have my own religion; I don't need to replace it with another.
> 
> Meditation does not necessarily benefit any martial activity. For example, I recall, in the 1983 Olympics in Korea, the Koreans had the strongest archery team in the world. They attributed their secret of success to their late night meditation practices in cemeteries. Did it help the men's team win - no, an American walked away with the gold. Did he meditate? No, before each match he was listening to Van Halen!
> 
> 6. Breaking Objects can Break You!
> Karate, more than any other martial art is renowned for its breaking demonstrations; but anyone can break inanimate objects, it's easy and you don't have to study karate to do so. Do breaking boards and bricks translate into fighting ability? Again Egami comments that breaking objects is very different than striking a human body, humans are resilient. He goes farther, saying that even "makiwara" training is harmful to the body, and stopped doing it already in the late '50's. Robert Smith, in his book "Martial Musings" notes that Mas Oyama damaged his hands so much he couldn't even place a blanket on top of them when he went to sleep. Continued breaking over a period of years brings with it such delights as arthritis and other degenerative diseases.
> 
> 7. The Kata Crutch
> A major part of karate practice focuses on kata. I've never understood why so many people defend it so vehemently. There's almost a cult-like obsession with doing it. Perhaps karateka feel it grants them a special kind of spiritual dispensation, allowing them to indulge in the study of fighting. Kata however is nothing more than several techniques strung together; a tool to help beginners understand how techniques flow. For advanced practitioners, it constrains your progress and adds no functional value to your fighting skills. Jon Bluming said it best, something to the effect of, "it takes up time, and the money rolls in."
> 
> 8. Karate Doesn't Prepare You for the Street
> Unlike a sparring match, there are no rules on the street, no time-outs, no referees to separate you; there's no sanctity of life. Street fights don't start at sparring distance; many times they suddenly erupt chest-to-chest, many times from behind without warning. Your attacker won't necessarily stop if you scream in pain. Unlike the smooth floor of the dojo, the street and pavement can be uneven, broken and contain dangerous objects you can fall over.
> 
> In all the years I spent in karate, there was never a word about fighting under adrenaline stress conditions, the use-of-force, gross motor skills, and absolutely no legal considerations. Karate is only concerned with the attack stage of the encounter; no mention is made about the pre and post-conflict stages. Environmental and situational awareness, preemptive strike, what to do if you're hurt, do you run away, or make a citizen's arrest?
> 
> Many karate techniques employ fine motor skills; under stress these are the first skills that abandon you. To work under excited conditions, techniques must be simple and based on gross motor skills. If you've been in fights, you know that after a few seconds of wild striking, many people start grabbing each other and quite often fall to the ground. How is your ground game? Do you know how to fight in a parking lot at midnight, on sand, gravel, on ice on a winter's day? Training barefoot in a dojo doesn't prepare you for any of these scenarios.
> 
> 9. Karate Makes you Stiff and Rigid
> For years people have avoided weight training for fear that they would become stiff. If they only knew the truth -- weight training actually makes you flexible and supple; it's karate that makes you stiff! I've spoken at length to many boxing, kali, Brazilian Jujitsu and muaythai instructors and they all agree, karate produces a tenseness and rigidity that seems almost irreversible. I believe it's all those hard air punches and kicks, tense kata and deep immovable stances contributing to this condition. You see this state most pronounced when karate students take up reality-based defense.
> 
> 10. Karate is Ineffective Against Modern Weapons
> The term Empty-Hand says it all; the main focus of karate is on unarmed combat. They do practice traditional weapons however, but what use is sai, tonfa, sickle, and bo practice when you can't carry them. This is unrealistic in 2003, where attacks are mainly carried out with guns, knives and impact weapons. When you typically hear of karateka being hurt in an attack, it usually involves a knife or gun. Whenever we do seminars employing weapons scenarios, it's usually the most advanced karateka that get killed the quickest.
> 
> 11. Karate Takes Too Long to Learn, and You Still Can't Fight!
> In terms of effort spent, to proportion of effectiveness gained, traditional karate is one of the least efficient systems of any fighting style. Too much time is spent on the inanities of rituals and form. Most karate schools spend countless hours on kata or mindless sparring, as if this will prepare students for a real fight, but it doesn't. Free sparring in karate only teaches you to fight other (barefoot) karateka's in a dojo (school) environment. Kata practice is a primitive form of shadow boxing, nothing more. There usually is no counter-knife, counter-firearms training, if it is taught all, it's usually presented in a rigid step-by-step process, having no relation to what a real attack looks like.
> 
> 12. The Apotheosis of the Master
> I've always felt uncomfortable with the semi-deification of the so-called martial arts master. It just goes against the grain of my western upbringing. My goal in learning fighting was not to become a supplicant of an old man with a tough reputation. I believe that's another reason why mixed martial arts (i.e., BJJ, muaythai, boxing, and Filipino martial arts) have become so popular. There's no groveling involved just mutual respect. In the west, a coach doesn't demand a special status, over and beyond his normal duties. A coach guides athletes in their respective sports. His goal is to encourage, goad and train his charges to success. He is the father, the friend and the teacher; athletes trust him and his judgment.
> 
> Bringing karate into the 21st-Century
> To modernize karate I suggest the following: 1) Take away the uniform, belts and add shoes (use the same clothes you normally wear to work or play) 2) remove the useless stances, 3) remove katas 4) instead of rigid air punching/kicking do drills with mitts 5) add some realistic gross motor based techniques, and take away more complicated moves 6) allow attacks on fallen opponents, and include some groundwork 7) Employ realistic tactics against knives and guns and most importantly start training in all three phases of the attack.
> 
> Why study karate at all?
> I have no problem with people practicing traditional karate for the sake of art or culture. If that's the case, supplement it with a realistic modern fighting method. The problem I have with karate is that all too often it's represented to the public as an effective and efficient fighting system for the street -- which it is definitely NOT.​




Any one  including this articals auther who thinks that Karate is not efficient for real self defense is an IDIOT. 

ALL OF THE OLDER SYSTEMS WORK!!!  if they did not they would not exist now!  end of thread as far as I am concerned.   to say that Karate is not effective is like saying that the Chinese martial arts are not effective, or jujitsu or kali  or any other system is not.  if they did not work they would not have survived to the present day.. in short if the system was around 100 years ago or so it works!!


----------



## Hyper_Shadow

What I'd like to know is who rites these bogus articles and what is the basis of their research?It would appear to me that these articles are written mainly to cite more of a divide between martial artists and inflate the egos of the people that write them and the people they are written for.
I've been training okinawan tode for a a fair few years now and I've only just scratched the surface of what I can learn. It's never let me down and offers new challenges every day I train. I believe I have been proficiently trained in dealing the violence of todays age and so far I've had no problems.
 On topic a little more; traditonal karate (I'm talking true traditional. pre 1800s) is very effective when applied and researched correctly. Then you reinforce that knowledge with experience, not in some ring, but in real combat, and you end up with some proficiency. It worked so as farmers could kill armoured nutters with spears and swords, if it worked for that, then it'll work for some wetbag drug addict who wants to hit you up for his next fix.

 (sorry if my reply is not very well thought out, my it is half eleven and it's been a loooong day)


----------



## TimoS

Hyper_Shadow said:


> It worked so as farmers could kill armoured nutters with spears and swords


No it didn't. I've said it before and I'll probably keep on saying it: karate was NOT a "peasant art". Most if not all f the known masters were nobles. There has never been a recorded incident of someone using karate against an armed samurai, so if it did happen, it must've been an isolated incident.


----------



## Uchinanchu

TimoS said:


> No it didn't. I've said it before and I'll probably keep on saying it: karate was NOT a "peasant art". Most if not all f the known masters were nobles. There has never been a recorded incident of someone using karate against an armed samurai, so if it did happen, it must've been an isolated incident.


You may be right...but _any_ documented proof is hard to come by that may (or may not) agree to an all-incompassing 'truth' as to its origins.  There will always be that grey area in its history, so let's try not to get snippy on a subject that is extremely illusive at best.
I think that many martial artists that study Okinawan karate and/or kobudo tend to focus on certain specific historical facts, such as the use of certain farming implements as weapons.  This is a known (and somewhat narrow) fact.  Yes, certain farming implements were used as weapons, but this does not automatically equate to all karate.  Point in fact, it does not point directly towards karate at all.  It does of course point towards the development of kobudo.  Though karate and kobudo have often been taught along side each other, this by no means should imply a direct link between their respective historical developments.
With that said, the same above statement can also be said about every different style of Okinawan karate.  Yes, stories abound of how such-&-such style was created, but there is usually at three different versions of said story that no one can prove or disprove.
Well, enough of my miny tiride.  I think that what many OkinawanTMAs here  can agree upon is to its (their respective arts) effectiveness.  I personally have no complaints in that department.  My training has saved my butt on more than one occasion.  My only wish is that I do not ever have to use it again, and that I can live out my life in peace.


----------



## tallgeese

Ok, so call me an idiot, I agree with a lot of what the original article had to say.

There are things about it that can be modified to lead to more realistic SD.  It doesn't mean you have to shelve the whole thing, and I've seen some really good trad schools that turned out guys and gals who could take care of themselves.  But certainly there are factors to consider to make things more combative in nature.

Yes, the old systems have been around a while.  But longevity does not equal combative effectiveness necessarily.

Now, after browsing the last couple of pages, I'd also agree that MMA isn't the magic bullet.  Neither is a handful of potentially high damage tactics.  

Good self defense has to be put together around a set of principles that address realistic threats.  Then, tactics to accomplish those principles need to be trained.  That training must also accomplish the task of preparing the combatant for a real-world threat.

It's usually the last part of this that, in my opinion (and it's just that) can break down in karate.  

All in all, not a bad article to my mind.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

tallgeese said:


> Ok, so call me an idiot, I agree with a lot of what the original article had to say.
> 
> There are things about it that can be modified to lead to more realistic SD. It doesn't mean you have to shelve the whole thing, and I've seen some really good trad schools that turned out guys and gals who could take care of themselves. But certainly there are factors to consider to make things more combative in nature.
> 
> Yes, the old systems have been around a while. But longevity does not equal combative effectiveness necessarily.


Well, I would say that it equals combat effectiveness in the environment for which they were developed. Many times, an art developes to address the dynamic of fighting in the region that it comes from. If nobody jabs, then defenses are different than they would be if the art was developed where people did use jabs, for example. 

As you point out, a good traditional school will teach a traditional art in a way that it is applicable by the students in the world in which they live.



tallgeese said:


> Now, after browsing the last couple of pages, I'd also agree that MMA isn't the magic bullet. Neither is a handful of potentially high damage tactics.


Absolutely!



tallgeese said:


> Good self defense has to be put together around a set of principles that address realistic threats. Then, tactics to accomplish those principles need to be trained. That training must also accomplish the task of preparing the combatant for a real-world threat.


Again, I agree, but I feel that this is more an issue with the instruction than the art. The art is a collection of techniques. Like any collection of techniques, if only the execution is taught without regard to its real world use, then the student will be ill prepared.



tallgeese said:


> It's usually the last part of this that, in my opinion (and it's just that) can break down in karate.


One could say that about pretty much everything. The "hardcore" traditional schools are mostly gone and the hardcore modern schools all train athletes to compete under MMA rules or some other competition rule set, not to specficially defend themselves on the street.



tallgeese said:


> All in all, not a bad article to my mind.


Well, if you consider an overly sensational and poorly researched article that reads like a sales pitch for a product that competes for the same group of customers that karate schools do to be 'not bad' then I definitely disagree with you. 

If by that you mean that the article does address some legitimate points, I would agree with you, though I would like to point out that those points are addressed in very disengenuous way by an author who seems to be selling something.

Daniel


----------



## tallgeese

I disagree about what is at the heart of an art.  If it is simply a bunch of techniques then it's nothing but a handful of unguided movements with no structure around which to base them.  This does not lend itself to any type of codified response pattern.

To leave this up to instruction is to take out the most effective aspects of any fighting system.  Without guiding factors, then one is practicing "x" technique vs. "y" attack.  This is unwieldy and results in a breakdown in response. 

As to environmental factors that arts are developed under I agree.  But how many of those are simply no longer practical or needed today, and how much more is now present today that we need to deal with?  If that's the case, then it's time to do away with that which no longer is effective and add that which is.  It's the reason people testing to bb in the system I'm out of have to show a level of proficiency with handgun use and care.  It's too large a component in today's society when talking about SD to overlook simply because it's not a trad weapon.

Evolution of the arts isn't a bad thing.  In fact, it's necessary to keep them relevant. 

As to the sport side of things, I agree.  Many schools are stuck in that mindset and combatives aren't being passed along.  However, I've also seen very rigid schools in tradition that were actually hindered by it rather than helped.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree about the thrust of the article, lol!


----------



## Blackjacket

You are completely wrong. 
I'm not a Karate nut. In fact my background spans Jiu Jitsu, Krav Maga, Kung Fu, Tae Kwon Do and Wing Chun. I've studied MA from 1974 onwards and in several countries so as you might guess I'm not 15. Look up Iain Abernethy or better still go to one of his seminars. As he says - Every Karate move is designed to end a street confrontation there and then. It's not for tornaments and it's not for show. I respect your opinion but you are sadly missinformed. I will gladly point you to several Karate exponents who will put you on the right track. Try Iain. Try Steve Rowe. Try Peter Constardine or Geoff Thompson. Karate was and always has been designed for street confrontations. It's just that the manual is in code form because it is not written down. It's in the Katas.


----------



## Blackjacket

Try this for size. Krav Maga and all the rest of the spin offs are just Martial Arts versions of pyramid selling. They are all about buying the DVDs getting membership. The T shirt....that's a big seller. Usually taught by a middling drifter in the MA scene. Street reality..yeh right! More like You tube fantasy.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

tallgeese said:


> I disagree about what is at the heart of an art. If it is simply a bunch of techniques then it's nothing but a handful of unguided movements with no structure around which to base them. This does not lend itself to any type of codified response pattern.
> 
> To leave this up to instruction is to take out the most effective aspects of any fighting system. Without guiding factors, then one is practicing "x" technique vs. "y" attack. This is unwieldy and results in a breakdown in response.


I did not put that well; apologies.

When I say a collection of technique, I did not mean that it is only a collection of techniques.  Certainly, any art will have a structure and a general philosophy, so to speak, about how it is to be practically used.  

The main issue that I see with many schools, traditional or not, is that the material is taught mainly for either wins in competition, simply as a collection of paterns to memorize to in order to collect fees for tests, or in some sort of time warp where everyone trains as if it were the fifteenth century in Japan or China.

There is a general mentality that since these arts were created for fighting that they must by extension be effective in any time period and in any location.  Unless the art is taught in such a way as to deal with the types of encounters that one will have in the real world, then the student will suffer.  Like I said, that is true of any art, traditional or not.  BJJ taught for the express purpose of winning competitions will not be any more practical for real world self defense than sport karate would.

Daniel


----------



## NW_Tengu

I have to agree with Blackjacket.  If you are not aware of Ian Abernathy, look him up.  He puts out a very good (IMO) e-magazine called Jissen.  You can easily find it with a quick google search.  Disregarding techniques revolving around modern weapons (fire arms), there are few if any RBSD techniques NOT found in traditional karate.  Take a look at the older books like Karate-Do Kyohan and Karate: My way of life by Gichin Funakoshi*.  *Try picking up a copy of The Bubishi.  Alot of information and techniques you might not find being tought in your neighborhood dojo, but are eye openers once you realize they are there all along.  My two coppers...


----------



## Tez3

NW_Tengu said:


> I have to agree with Blackjacket. If you are not aware of Ian Abernathy, look him up. He puts out a very good (IMO) e-magazine called Jissen. You can easily find it with a quick google search. Disregarding techniques revolving around modern weapons (fire arms), there are few if any RBSD techniques NOT found in traditional karate. Take a look at the older books like Karate-Do Kyohan and Karate: My way of life by Gichin Funakoshi*. *Try picking up a copy of The Bubishi. Alot of information and techniques you might not find being tought in your neighborhood dojo, but are eye openers once you realize they are there all along. My two coppers...


 

Iain Abernethy is probably one of the best proponents of applied karate in the world, I've been on one of his seminars and am doing another later this year. All the techniques (and they are what I call high 'ouch' factor ones not for wusses!) come from traditional katas.
http://www.iainabernethy.com/

He has free e books as well, well worth visiting the site!


----------



## Em MacIntosh

I think even those who might share the overall opinion would shun this article for it's ignorance and assumptions as well as thinly veiled promotion.  I think it hurts the case he's trying to make.

It's not like the traditional arts don't evolve as well, at least in my experience.  The kyoshi for canadian chito-kai works with our soke to develop and evolve the art, sceptically and critically.  This is why they have shihans, where the emphasis starts to lean more toward advising and contributing rather than just developing physical finesse and teaching curriculum.

I know I've used what I would consider karate technique to defend myself effectively but I wouldn't say I used karate to defend myself (that always brings to mind beating them with my gym bag then choking and tying them up with my belt).  The whole idea is not to _blindly follow _karate and let it restrain you.  There are many things in karate I felt weren't effective for _me _like rotating a punch when I can deliver a much harder strike with a vertical fist.  I can't assert that the vertical fist is more powerful, it just works better for me.  This is why I needed to go shopping for new tools.  Karate isn't intended to put artificial limitations on you, the instructor doing that.  Maybe the instructor is just misunderstood and his or her scepticism is well meaning rather than just being defensive of something he or she is emotionally attached to.

Anyway it offers great physical conditioning and that's the single biggest factor that'll up your chances, along with learning how to deal with the adrenaline dump.


----------



## Hudson69

I have limited to no experience in most martial arts since there are so many but I do have a little experience in a few.  This is my 2 cents; What you have learned, how you understand its application(s), your mind set, the situation and more will decide if a traditional art or a modern combative is better.

My traditional background is American Kenpo, Budo Taijutsu (still called ninjutsu when I started taking lessons and was much more aggressive then as well), Wun Hop Kuen Do Kung Fu, a little Tae Kwon Do and a semester of Hapkido at WeberState University in Ogden, UT.  I actually used a combination of the Kung Fu and Kenpo to defend myself while in San Antonio, TX while going through the AF SF Tech school so that settled in and Kenpo became "my" thing.  fI think that this was because of the constant sparring with and without pads, in uniforms and street clothes; this saved me from a beating and probably a robbery.

Since becoming a Police Officer and actually becoming a defensive tactics instructor for law enforcement I have seen how the core of fighting can be streamlined and still be useful. I have the unfortunate opportunity to put these other skills to use as well and know that it does not take years of study to be able to learn some core attack/response skills and be able to put them to work.

To make a short response overly long winded; Karate and other traditional martial arts are more often than not, just as or more effective than more simple "reality based" defense systems because they tend to be more comprehensive.  The problem with the traditional systems that I have experienced is there is often "old" and "out of date" techniques that are not really all that practical in the modern world (I have never been attacked by a sword outside of a Budo Taijutsu class) or some of the old school systems will not allow certain things (like no sparring or no training in street clothes) or they never allow deviation from a set response to an attack.  

The reason they can be more effective is because they have so much in them.  Reality Based systems shine because they are designed to be murderously simple and direct and any "fluff" is weeded out.  Also true reality based systems grow and evolve constantly, if something new or better comes along they will add it, sometimes throwing out other techniques.  All in all it is what it is and what you make of it.


----------



## K-man

Em MacIntosh said:


> The whole idea is not to _blindly follow _karate and let it restrain you. There are many things in karate I felt weren't effective for _me _like rotating a punch when I can deliver a much harder strike with a vertical fist. I can't assert that the vertical fist is more powerful, it just works better for me. This is why I needed to go shopping for new tools.


Interesting you should bring this point up. I teach tate tsuki (vertical fist) in a _'traditional'_ school because I can produce greater power in the punch and the bone structure of the arm is in a stronger alignment than with the rotated fist (seiken). My understanding of the rotated fist is that it was originally used with the second knuckle extended (nakadaka ippon ken) to provide a tearing effect on underlying tissues. Another bonus is that tate tsuki can be delivered with full force with a broken thumb or index finger. :asian:


----------



## Tez3

K-man said:


> Interesting you should bring this point up. I teach tate tsuki (vertical fist) in a _'traditional'_ school because I can produce greater power in the punch and the bone structure of the arm is in a stronger alignment than with the rotated fist (seiken). My understanding of the rotated fist is that it was originally used with the second knuckle extended (nakadaka ippon ken) to provide a tearing effect on underlying tissues. Another bonus is that tate tsuki can be delivered with full force with a broken thumb or index finger. :asian:


 
We do both, always good to have a choice of the right weapon for the job. On the rotated fist we always use knuckles as you've described.


----------



## rdonovan1

I believe that Karate and many of the Chinese martial arts are good for internal development and overall health, but I don't believe that they should be relied upon only.

I agree with the article in the terms that it is really ineffective in a real fight and that you are better off studying things like ninjutsu, military and police tactics and techniques as they are much more realistic for the street than Karate itself. 

Karate and the kata's along with the Chinese systems are in my opinion best kept and used for things like health, phsyical fitness, and overall stress relief and if done properly can help you to live longer.

I also think that it is also good for mental development and overall character development, but it on it's own should not be relied upon solely for that as one still needs to educate themselves and one should still seek out and join a religion that most closely fits their morals and values like the Baptist faith or something else of that nature.

Studying psychology and human behavior is also a good idea as well as that can and will help you to understand your opponent better and can even help you to more effectively deal with a verbal conflict in which there really should be no reason to use physical force. 

That however does not mean that you should be stupid or naive at all as people can be very unpredicable and the best defense is a good offense.


----------



## K-man

rdonovan1 said:


> I believe that Karate and many of the Chinese martial arts are good for internal development and overall health, but I don't believe that they should be relied upon only.
> 
> I agree with the article in the terms that it is really ineffective in a real fight and that you are better off studying things like ninjutsu, military and police tactics and techniques as they are much more realistic for the street than Karate itself.
> 
> Karate and the kata's along with the Chinese systems are in my opinion best kept and used for things like health, phsyical fitness, and overall stress relief and if done properly can help you to live longer.
> 
> I also think that it is also good for mental development and overall character development, but it on it's own should not be relied upon solely for that as one still needs to educate themselves and one should still seek out and join a religion that most closely fits their morals and values like the Baptist faith or something else of that nature.
> 
> Studying psychology and human behavior is also a good idea as well as that can and will help you to understand your opponent better and can even help you to more effectively deal with a verbal conflict in which there really should be no reason to use physical force.
> 
> That however does not mean that you should be stupid or naive at all as people can be very unpredicable and the best defense is a good offense.


I am sorry but I think we must be from a different planet. 





> I agree with the article in the terms that it is really ineffective in a real fight and that you are better off studying things like ninjutsu, military and police tactics and techniques as they are much more realistic for the street than Karate itself.


 The article is at the very least self promotion for alternate training and to suggest that Ninjitsu is superior to tradititional karate is presumptive. What do you think we do at training? Strut up and down and yell Kiai while you learn the real stuff. Tonight for instance we had headgear on and were defending against full speed attacks with sticks. Interesting the best defences we were training were straight out of kata seinchin, but you probably don't have to learn kata because they are such a waste of time. I actually have a senior police officer in my class and he is amazed at the difference of the self defence that we teach compared with what the police are now taught, which unless the go outside the force is pretty much useless. Hence the debate over guns, tasers and capsicum spray. As for the military, they generally have those things that go bang. They try not to get too close but even their training for hand to hand combat is not to different to that that you would learn in a good 'traditional' karate school. Who do you think brought karate to the USA after the WWII? I doubt that the marines who fought their way through through Pacific campaign and Okinawa, with bloody hand to hand battles learnt karate '_for things like health, physical fitness, and overall stress relief and if done properly to help them to live longer.'_

There may be debate over the validity of the article but I doubt you will get a great deal of support for your views of karate and the Chinese systems of the martial arts.

On the other hand, maybe I just didn't understand what you were saying. I think I'll just hang up the gi and go and take tea with a Baptist, if as you say that will be just as effective as my wasted years of karate training. :asian:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

rdonovan1 said:


> I agree with the article in the terms that it is really ineffective in a real fight and that you are better off studying things like ninjutsu, military and police tactics and techniques as they are much more realistic for the street than Karate itself.


Can you offer a technical reason to support this statement?

Daniel


----------



## rdonovan1

K-man said:


> I am sorry but I think we must be from a different planet. The article is at the very least self promotion for alternate training and to suggest that Ninjitsu is superior to tradititional karate is presumptive. What do you think we do at training? Strut up and down and yell Kiai while you learn the real stuff. Tonight for instance we had headgear on and were defending against full speed attacks with sticks. Interesting the best defences we were training were straight out of kata seinchin, but you probably don't have to learn kata because they are such a waste of time. I actually have a senior police officer in my class and he is amazed at the difference of the self defence that we teach compared with what the police are now taught, which unless the go outside the force is pretty much useless. Hence the debate over guns, tasers and capsicum spray. As for the military, they generally have those things that go bang. They try not to get too close but even their training for hand to hand combat is not to different to that that you would learn in a good 'traditional' karate school. Who do you think brought karate to the USA after the WWII? I doubt that the marines who fought their way through through Pacific campaign and Okinawa, with bloody hand to hand battles learnt karate '_for things like health, physical fitness, and overall stress relief and if done properly to help them to live longer.'_
> 
> There may be debate over the validity of the article but I doubt you will get a great deal of support for your views of karate and the Chinese systems of the martial arts.
> 
> On the other hand, maybe I just didn't understand what you were saying. I think I'll just hang up the gi and go and take tea with a Baptist, if as you say that will be just as effective as my wasted years of karate training. :asian:


 

I agree that we do probably have differing viewpoints on the subject.

My point is based upon reality and the real world and does not come from any dojo. Out on the street and in places like prisons and even foreign countries your enemy is not going to give a damn about what trophies you might have or as to how well your kata is. 

As far as they are concerned you are the enemy and they will do whatever they can to outsmart and defeat you. 

On the street in places like prisons for example your opponent is and will use any tactic and technique that they think will give them the upper hand and if that includes the use of things like guns, knives, explosives or anything else that they can get and use either legally or illegally then they can and will use them without remorse and that is why it is essential for people to be able to know how to properly combat it.

Imagine for example you are in a fight with several guys out on the street. For arguments sake we'll say that they're are four of them. Three of them are in direct contact with you. One is behind you and is holding you down and back while two of them are taking their turns on you or even helping to hold you down. The fourth guy is standing outside of your reach several feet away and is holding a gun or a very large knife. 

His intention is to either just shoot you outright or to do something like give you a Mexican necktie by slitting your throat from ear to ear with a really large knife. 

Let's also say for instance that you can outwrangle the three guys that are on you right now. What is to stop the fourth guy from stabbing or shooting you at anytime and how do you plan on dealing with him?

Things like ninjutsu, police, and military tactics are designed for that kind of thing and even worse whereas Karate just is not up to the task and the sad part is that many people tend to think that it is and more often than not they end up getting killed all because they underestimated their opponents and the situation and of course did not prepare and train properly for the unexepected.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

rdonovan1 said:


> My point is based upon reality and the real world and *does not come from any dojo*. Out on the street and in places like prisons and even foreign countries your enemy is not going to give a damn about what trophies you might have or as to how well your kata is.
> 
> Things like *ninjutsu*, police, and military tactics are designed for that kind of thing and even worse whereas Karate just is not up to the task and the sad part is that many people tend to think that it is and more often than not they end up getting killed all because they underestimated their opponents and the situation and of course did not prepare and train properly for the unexepected.


Last I checked, *ninjutsu* is taught in *dojos*, so please stop bringing it up if a dojo instructed art is no good on "the street."  

Police tactics are not always applicable to civilian self defense, as they focus on the arrest and detainment of suspects and include the use of firearms, tasers, night sticks, and the all important radio with which to call for backup.  

Military training is likewise geared towards fighting with a rifle in a unit with backup, not towards engaging the enemy in hand to hand combat.

I see a lot of "out on the street" comments, and these all sound cool and look great in an advertisement, but do nothing to support your statements.  What technical evidence can you offer to support your statements?

What is it about karate that is lacking in terms of the skill set?  

Karate encompasses blocks and strikes along with some grapples.  The body can only move and strike in but so many ways and grapples can only be applied in but so many ways.  What is it about the specific skills used in karate that makes them ineffective?

Also, are you aware that there is a wide array of karate ryus that are often less similar to one another than they are to martial systems that fall outside of the karate subset, so it would also be helpful if you could specify which ryu or ryus you refer to.  

Or are you referring to sport karate, as you make it a point to mention trophies.

Please do not answer with more lectures about "the street and in prison" as if none of us know what it is or what can take place there.  "The street" has been discussed at great length here and on every other MA forum in existence.  

A technical answer please.

Daniel


----------



## Ojisan

rdonovan1 said:


> My point is based upon reality and the real world and does not come from any dojo. Out on the street and in places like prisons and even foreign countries your enemy is not going to give a damn about what trophies you might have or as to how well your kata is.
> 
> ----Imagine for example you are in a fight with several guys out on the street. For arguments sake we'll say that they're are four of them. Three of them are in direct contact with you. One is behind you and is holding you down and back while two of them are taking their turns on you or even helping to hold you down. The fourth guy is standing outside of your reach several feet away and is holding a gun or a very large knife.


 
Er... what prisons and foreign countries have you been in in order to form your opinion of reality? Have you ever been in a fight as an adult? Have you ever confronted someone who is trying to physically harm you?

Your arguments for reality based defense sound more derived from internet games and movies.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

rdonovan1 said:


> Imagine for example you are in a fight with several guys out on the street. For arguments sake we'll say that they're are four of them. Three of them are in direct contact with you. One is behind you and is holding you down and back while two of them are taking their turns on you or even helping to hold you down. The fourth guy is standing outside of your reach several feet away and is holding a gun or a very large knife.
> 
> His intention is to either just shoot you outright or to do something like give you a Mexican necktie by slitting your throat from ear to ear with a really large knife.
> 
> Let's also say for instance that you can outwrangle the three guys that are on you right now. What is to stop the fourth guy from stabbing or shooting you at anytime and how do you plan on dealing with him?


Irrelevent to the statements you made: first of all, the scenario is incomplete. Self defense begins long before the situation gets to this point.

Where were 'you' when the confrontation started? And no, "the street" is not an acceptable answer. 

How did the four individuals engage 'you' and how did it escalate to the point where you were being held down by one and surrounded by the other three?

Did they demand money? Are 'you' in a rival gang? Did 'you' witness a crime of some kind and get noticed by the perpetrators? Did they insult 'your' honor, resulting in 'you' removing your glove and slapping one of them while uttering the words, "I challenge thee!" Or did one guy jump 'you' from a hidden alcove, secure you while his three accomplices emerged from other hidden places?

I say 'you' as in the general you, not you personally.

Secondly, you never addressed specifically how "things llike ninjutsu, police, and military tactics" would get you out of that scenario whereas karate would be inadequate.

So, you say..



rdonovan1 said:


> Things like ninjutsu, police, and military tactics are designed for that kind of thing and even worse


I disagree, but as you have put forth the assertion that they are, please elaborate on what "things like ninutsu, police, and military tactics" offer you once you have gotten yourself stuck in such a scenario?

This scenario is not one that you just *find* yourself in. Things happen before it gets to this point. Any awareness and deescalation training that "things like ninutsu, police, and military tactics"  taught the hypothetical victim has failed by this point, so if that is the key ingredient, then apparently, this victim's ninutsu, police, or military tactics training was apparently as inadequate as you say karate is.

If you are going to use such a scenario to support your assertions, then please provide the complete scenario: both the lead up to being held and surrounded and the resolution.

Daniel


----------



## Grenadier

rdonovan1 said:


> My point is based upon reality and the real world and does not come from any dojo. Out on the street and in places like prisons and even foreign countries your enemy is not going to give a damn about what trophies you might have or as to how well your kata is.


 
Kata helps you refine your techniques.  In addition to this, kata also strengthens the body, and improves focus.  Each particular kata can also teach you how to have better control over various aspects of the human body.  It is not a flow chart on what to do if attacked.  



> Imagine for example you are in a fight with several guys out on the street. For arguments sake we'll say that they're are four of them. Three of them are in direct contact with you. One is behind you and is holding you down and back while two of them are taking their turns on you or even helping to hold you down. The fourth guy is standing outside of your reach several feet away and is holding a gun or a very large knife.


 
What martial art is going to help in that particular situation?  If someone were holding a gun from a good distance away, and helped by his three buddies, then you're probably not going to win anyways.  



> Let's also say for instance that you can outwrangle the three guys that are on you right now. What is to stop the fourth guy from stabbing or shooting you at anytime and how do you plan on dealing with him?
> 
> Things like ninjutsu, police, and military tactics are designed for that kind of thing


 
How would one go about defending himself from an onslaught of four attackers, one of whom is standing at a good distance away with a gun, using his bare hands?  I am curious to see what you propose...



> and even worse whereas Karate just is not up to the task and the sad part is that many people tend to think that it is and more often than not they end up getting killed all because they underestimated their opponents and the situation and of course did not prepare and train properly for the unexepected.


 
The same could be said about anyone and anything.  By your logic, would that make military training useless, just because some ninny of a colonel underestimated his opposing force, and decided to arm his men with single shot rifles, while the enemy had repeating rifles?  

I doubt that any level of military training would have allowed George Armstrong Custer to survive Little Big Horn.


----------



## blindsage

rdonovan1 said:


> Let's also say for instance that you can outwrangle the three guys that are on you right now. What is to stop the fourth guy from stabbing or shooting you at anytime and how do you plan on dealing with him?
> 
> Things like ninjutsu, police, and military tactics are designed for that kind of thing


No they are not. In that scenario you are screwed either way. You're claiming Karate training makes people delusional about situations like this, but your perception of training in general seems pretty delusional.


----------



## rdonovan1

blindsage said:


> No they are not. In that scenario you are screwed either way. You're claiming Karate training makes people delusional about situations like this, but your perception of training in general seems pretty delusional.


 

What I am saying is that Karate has basically been stripped of all it's truly effective combative techniques over the years so that it could be turned into a sport and the vast majority of those techniques that were originally designed for combat have been lost.

They did that for a reason as many people initially thought that Karate the way it was orginally developed was way too violent for the competitive sports arena and as a result they decided that the best way to make it more friendly for the competitive sport arena was to take out all of the tactics and techniques that orginally made it a combat art.

All martial arts in Japan were once part of what was called budo which was the study of war and combat. Over the years though many of the martial arts were toned down and turned into the Do classification system. 

Martial arts that end in the Do classification are meant for sport and spiritual refinement. Those that have the extension of ryu or jutsu are still designed for actual combat situations. 

Ninjutsu is one of the martial arts from Japan that has not been converted over to the Do system at all and according to Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi who is the 34 generation grandmaster of Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu it never will be converted either and that is why you do not see anyone in the competitive sports arena using ninjutsu. 

Bringing ninjutsu into the sports arena would be a lot like walking down main street with a fully automatic assault rifle, a rocket launcher, and a bag full of explosives. Ninjutsu was at least in feudal Japan the equivalant of our modern day special forces or SWAT as they were very unconventional in their tactics and techniques and saw everything in their environment as a possible weapon that they could use against the Samurai who were at that time the only people who could carry a sword legally and at that time that was the deadliest weapon of the time.

If you were to do your homework about the history of Japan and the martial arts of Japan and Okinawa, then you would already know this and you would also know that what I am saying is true.


----------



## K-man

rdonovan1 said:


> My point is based upon reality and the real world and does not come from any dojo. Out on the street and in places like prisons and even foreign countries your enemy is not going to give a damn about what trophies you might have or as to how well your kata is.
> 
> As far as they are concerned you are the enemy and they will do whatever they can to outsmart and defeat you.
> 
> On the street in places like prisons for example your opponent is and will use any tactic and technique that they think will give them the upper hand and if that includes the use of things like guns, knives, explosives or anything else that they can get and use either legally or illegally then they can and will use them without remorse and that is why it is essential for people to be able to know how to properly combat it.
> 
> Imagine for example you are in a fight with several guys out on the street. For arguments sake we'll say that they're are four of them. Three of them are in direct contact with you. One is behind you and is holding you down and back while two of them are taking their turns on you or even helping to hold you down. The fourth guy is standing outside of your reach several feet away and is holding a gun or a very large knife.
> 
> His intention is to either just shoot you outright or to do something like give you a Mexican necktie by slitting your throat from ear to ear with a really large knife.
> 
> Let's also say for instance that you can outwrangle the three guys that are on you right now. What is to stop the fourth guy from stabbing or shooting you at anytime and how do you plan on dealing with him?
> 
> Things like ninjutsu, police, and military tactics are designed for that kind of thing and even worse whereas Karate just is not up to the task and the sad part is that many people tend to think that it is and more often than not they end up getting killed all because they underestimated their opponents and the situation and of course did not prepare and train properly for the unexepected.


At first I wasn't sure if you were for real or just looking for a rise. Now I think you may have problems discerning virtual and reality.
In none of my posts will you find reference to trophies or sport karate. I do not train for sport karate nor do I teach for sport karate. I teach vital target striking to my students (from white belt) and tell them where and how to strike. I discourage strikes to areas that have a low probability of disabling an attacker. The training is aimed at multiple attacker scenarios, in other words, try and avoid grappling and going to the ground. 
As to an attacker not giving a damn about "how well your kata is", just demonstrates that you do not know what kata is. Kata is just a collection of techniques. How kata is performed is totally irrelevant, that's competition stuff that could be taught to trained monkeys. How you use the techniques is up to the individual. It is determined by your physical structure and is different for everyone. In a dojo we can work together to hone those techniques and make sure they work under pressure.



> On the street in places like prisons for example your opponent is and will use any tactic and technique that they think will give them the upper hand and if that includes the use of things like guns, knives, explosives or anything else that they can get and use either legally or illegally then they can and will use them without remorse and that is why it is essential for people to be able to know how to properly combat it.


 And I suppose this is why no Allied troops are killed in Afghanistan by IEDs. How do you combat that with Ninjitsu or any other other RBSD? And, because they are in the police-force or military, no police or army personel are ever killed on the streets or in bars? That is total cr*p! 
As for being held by three guys while a fourth carves you with a knife. If you are in that situation you had better believe the cavalry will come because your ninjitsu sure as hell ain't going to save you. And even if you did escape the three and couldn't run away, what are your chances against the knife? No matter what your background you have probably a 90%-95% chance of being cut and less than a 10% chance of survival unarmed against a knife fighter intent on killing, be you soldier, policeman or ninja. As for the gun scenario, goodnight my little ninja! I don't buy the 'catching bullets in the teeth' routine.
I'm sorry I have taken you attention for so long, you probably want to get back to your ninjitsu training on your Nintedo! :erg:


----------



## K-man

rdonovan1 said:


> What I am saying is that Karate has basically been stripped of all it's truly effective combative techniques over the years so that it could be turned into a sport and the vast majority of those techniques that were originally designed for combat have been lost.
> 
> They did that for a reason as many people initially thought that Karate the way it was orginally developed was way too violent for the competitive sports arena and as a result they decided that the best way to make it more friendly for the competitive sport arena was to take out all of the tactics and techniques that orginally made it a combat art.
> 
> All martial arts in Japan were once part of what was called budo which was the study of war and combat. Over the years though many of the martial arts were toned down and turned into the Do classification system.
> 
> Martial arts that end in the Do classification are meant for sport and spiritual refinement. Those that have the extension of ryu or jutsu are still designed for actual combat situations.
> 
> Ninjutsu is one of the martial arts from Japan that has not been converted over to the Do system at all and according to Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi who is the 34 generation grandmaster of Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu it never will be converted either and that is why you do not see anyone in the competitive sports arena using ninjutsu.
> 
> Bringing ninjutsu into the sports arena would be a lot like walking down main street with a fully automatic assault rifle, a rocket launcher, and a bag full of explosives. Ninjutsu was at least in feudal Japan the equivalant of our modern day special forces or SWAT as they were very unconventional in their tactics and techniques and saw everything in their environment as a possible weapon that they could use against the Samurai who were at that time the only people who could carry a sword legally and at that time that was the deadliest weapon of the time.
> 
> If you were to do your homework about the history of Japan and the martial arts of Japan and Okinawa, then you would already know this and you would also know that what I am saying is true.


Your last post passed mine in the writing. 





> What I am saying is that Karate has basically been stripped of all it's truly effective combative techniques over the years so that it could be turned into a sport and the vast majority of those techniques that were originally designed for combat have been lost.


To the best of my knowledge no kata has been stripped of ANY of its techniques, truly effective or even just plain effective. If they weren't effective they would not have been included in the kata in the first place. The kata contain all the techniques that the ninja would have used if the had no weapon. Kata in sport is basically the same now as it was before. That is not the issue though. It is how karate, kung fu, or any other MA is taught is the question.
BTW, karate taught for sport is NOT 'Traditional' karate. I would be among the first to admit that sport karate is just that, sport.
As to 'do' classification, I was not aware that any MAs were subject to that such a differentiation. Do just means 'way', so karate-do is the way of the empty hand. Technically what I train, as do many others on this forum, is karate-jutsu. We are not training to compete at the local Sunday School picnic!


> Bringing ninjutsu into the sports arena would be a lot like walking down main street with a fully automatic assault rifle, a rocket launcher, and a bag full of explosives. Ninjutsu was at least in feudal Japan the equivalant of our modern day special forces or SWAT as they were very unconventional in their tactics and techniques and saw everything in their environment as a possible weapon that they could use against the Samurai who were at that time the only people who could carry a sword legally and at that time that was the deadliest weapon of the time.


 I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were that deadly! Ninjas were never the equivalent of SWAT. They were basically spys and assassins. The employed the art of stealth and rather than saying they were trained to fight the Samurai, they were more trained to do what the Samurai thought was below their honour. The were employed by warlords who would also employ Samurai. The Ninja would be more akin to modern day guerilla forces.


> If you were to do your homework about the history of Japan and the martial arts of Japan and Okinawa, then you would already know this and you would also know that what I am saying is true.


We must have read different books!


----------



## rdonovan1

K-man said:


> At first I wasn't sure if you were for real or just looking for a rise. Now I think you may have problems discerning virtual and reality.
> In none of my posts will you find reference to trophies or sport karate. I do not train for sport karate nor do I teach for sport karate. I teach vital target striking to my students (from white belt) and tell them where and how to strike. I discourage strikes to areas that have a low probability of disabling an attacker. The training is aimed at multiple attacker scenarios, in other words, try and avoid grappling and going to the ground.
> As to an attacker not giving a damn about "how well your kata is", just demonstrates that you do not know what kata is. Kata is just a collection of techniques. How kata is performed is totally irrelevant, that's competition stuff that could be taught to trained monkeys. How you use the techniques is up to the individual. It is determined by your physical structure and is different for everyone. In a dojo we can work together to hone those techniques and make sure they work under pressure.
> 
> And I suppose this is why no Allied troops are killed in Afghanistan by IEDs. How do you combat that with Ninjitsu or any other other RBSD? And, because they are in the police-force or military, no police or army personel are ever killed on the streets or in bars? That is total cr*p!
> As for being held by three guys while a fourth carves you with a knife. If you are in that situation you had better believe the cavalry will come because your ninjitsu sure as hell ain't going to save you. And even if you did escape the three and couldn't run away, what are your chances against the knife? No matter what your background you have probably a 90%-95% chance of being cut and less than a 10% chance of survival unarmed against a knife fighter intent on killing, be you soldier, policeman or ninja. As for the gun scenario, goodnight my little ninja! I don't buy the 'catching bullets in the teeth' routine.
> I'm sorry I have taken you attention for so long, you probably want to get back to your ninjitsu training on your Nintedo! :erg:


 
I don't play nintendo at all and could not tell you the first thing about nintendo. All that I know is that it is some sort of game that kids play and that is very popular amongst kids.

As for Kata. I am very familiar with what Kata is and I can tell you for a fact that no one on the street is going to stand around and wait for you to go through your kata and to get into your traditional karate stance. That kind of thinking is just ludicris thinking at best.

My stuff comes from the real world and it not governed by what you might happen to see in some karate movie featuring Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris nor does it come from any dojo.

As for cops and military personnel getting killed, that stuff happens all of the time. Just not too long ago a police officer in Sanoval County was killed in the line of duty and that was on the news.

I'm not talking about catching bullets with your teeth as that is nothing but pure craziness and is the stuff that you will only find in the movies. What I am talking about is being adapative to your environment and in using whatever tactic and technique might work to save your life either on the street or on the battlefield.

If people think that some gangbanger or terrorist is really going to care about what you have around your waist then they are delusional as they really could care less. It is not about what you have around your waist that makes you a good fighter. It is what you know and as to how effective you are with what you know out in the real world that counts the most.

Knives and guns can be taken away from your opponent or even yourself by someone who is properly trained and that knows what they are doing.

one tactic that would work in a scenario like what I described is by thowing something like sand or dirt into your opponents eyes to temporarilty blind them. If they can't see then how are they going to fight.

While I don't subscribe to any of the Karate Kid movies, I do know that many of the principles that they are talking about in those movies are real. Everyone that know's anything about the martial arts and about real life combat situations knows that if a man can't see then he cannot fight. If he cannot breathe, then he cannot fight, and if he can't stand then he cannot fight. These are all very simple and basic concepts that have been proven to be real by Law Enforcement, Military Personel and even by the ninja out in the real world.

All of it is reality based training and that is what will make the difference in a real fight. Going through kata while very, very good does not truly prepare you for a real fight as a real fight is not the same as what you practice in the dojo because out on the street your enemy does not care about you. All that he cares about is himself and that is it.


----------



## Omar B

rdonovan1 said:


> As for Kata. I am very familiar with what Kata is and I can tell you for a fact that no one on the street is going to stand around and wait for you to go through your kata and to get into your traditional karate stance. That kind of thinking is just ludicris thinking at best.



It's called Bunkai kid, the application of Kata in real world situations and when I fight it's largely based on this and I've never had a problem with multiple attackers or one.  I would advise you to actually take some karate before you judge it's effectiveness.  There's a huge difference between practising and internalizing the principles that kata represent and being a moron trying to do Sanchin Kata when attacked on the street, although that's how you seem to think it works.


----------



## rdonovan1

K-man said:


> Your last post passed mine in the writing. To the best of my knowledge no kata has been stripped of ANY of its techniques, truly effective or even just plain effective. If they weren't effective they would not have been included in the kata in the first place. The kata contain all the techniques that the ninja would have used if the had no weapon. Kata in sport is basically the same now as it was before. That is not the issue though. It is how karate, kung fu, or any other MA is taught is the question.
> BTW, karate taught for sport is NOT 'Traditional' karate. I would be among the first to admit that sport karate is just that, sport.
> As to 'do' classification, I was not aware that any MAs were subject to that such a differentiation. Do just means 'way', so karate-do is the way of the empty hand. Technically what I train, as do many others on this forum, is karate-jutsu. We are not training to compete at the local Sunday School picnic!
> I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were that deadly! Ninjas were never the equivalent of SWAT. They were basically spys and assassins. The employed the art of stealth and rather than saying they were trained to fight the Samurai, they were more trained to do what the Samurai thought was below their honour. The were employed by warlords who would also employ Samurai. The Ninja would be more akin to modern day guerilla forces.
> 
> We must have read different books!


 
I think that you are right about our posts passing at the same time. That is a very real possibility. 

I'm not sure what books that you have read, but it has been a long time since I read any books relating to the martial arts, but I do remember a good portion of what I studied.

I have taken Tae Kwon Do in the past, and I have not only read books about ninjutsu, but I have also been doing my best to actually study ninjutsu for real. Due to my previous interest in the martial arts and due to movies like the Karate Kid I have done what I could do to study things like Goju-Ryu Karate, Aikido, and Ninjutsu but I have also done what I could to read up about all of them both online and offline.

What you wrote about the ninja being assasins and spies is innacurate. While some of them did engage in those types of activities the majority of them just tried to do what they could do to live in peace and harmony, but more often than not they were not allowed to do so because of the ruling Samurai class. 

Basically all the Samurai was was a bully endowed with the right to kill anyone who did not live up to his expectations and that was not a Samurai themselve's. 

Under Samurai rule at that time things like theft or even standing wrong could get you killed by a Samurai in a matter of seconds and without warning. I think that probably the best depiction of how the Samurai really were like during those times in film at least is in the movie 'Shogun' by James Clavell which was filmed and released in the 1980's. It however truly depict the ninja at all and that is a common theme is just about every Samurai movie ever made.

Watching movies is great and I just like everyone else likes and enjoys a good martial arts flick as that tends to be a guy thing, but unlike a lot of people out there I do not really believe what I see on the screen as being real as I know that most of that is just made up by Hollywood to satisfy their ego and their ignorance or is outright depicted the wrong way with absolutely no historical fact whatsoever just so that they can sell tickets.

Hollywood is nothing, but a business and if you believe everything that Hollywood tells you, then you are in for a very big let down. Sometimes however they do get things right though, but not very often as for them it is all about sales and marketing as well as money which does not necessarily translate into the truth.


----------



## Omar B

rdonovan1 said:


> I have taken Tae Kwon Do in the past, and I have not only read books about ninjutsu, but I have also been doing my best to actually study ninjutsu for real. Due to my previous interest in the martial arts and due to movies like the Karate Kid I have done what I could do to study things like Goju-Ryu Karate, Aikido, and Ninjutsu but I have also done what I could to read up about all of them both online and offline.



So what I gather from this you are not doing karate or "ninjutsu" or aikido but are "trying," "reading up" and "doing your best to study."  So your arguments against karate, kata's effectiveness or anything else is based on what, Karate Kid?  TV?

Whatever you may think you've learned or know of these arts I'm pretty sure you have the wrong impression considering it sounds like you've never stepped foot into a dojo but watch a bunch of movies and read a whole mess of magazines and web sites.


----------



## K-man

rdonovan1 said:


> I have taken Tae Kwon Do in the past, and I have not only read books about ninjutsu, but I have also been doing my best to actually study ninjutsu for real. Due to my previous interest in the martial arts and due to movies like the Karate Kid I have done what I could do to study things like Goju-Ryu Karate, Aikido, and Ninjutsu but I have also done what I could to read up about all of them both online and offline.
> 
> Hollywood is nothing, but a business and if you believe everything that Hollywood tells you, then you are in for a very big let down. Sometimes however they do get things right though, but not very often as for them it is all about sales and marketing as well as money which does not necessarily translate into the truth.


TKD is not a 'traditional' MA. It is a sports based MA first practised in the post WWII era, based on traditional Korean MAs and heavily influenced by Japanese karate, mainly I seem to recall Shotokan. How much TKD did you learn?


> Due to my previous interest in the martial arts and due to movies like the Karate Kid I have done what I could do to study things like Goju-Ryu Karate, Aikido, and Ninjutsu but I have also done what I could to read up about all of them both online and offline.


 How did you learn so much about Goju Ryu karate and how long did you train. I assume you reached dan grade to be able to tell us that it is not effective in the real would ... but how did you get to that level without the kata? Which kata do you find the most effective in grappling? Personally, I'd go for Seinchin .. but then Seisan has some cool moves too. Perhaps you would like to discuss a couple of the techniques in the kata that don't work for you. I know there are many people on the forum far more qualified than I who would be only too willing to help you if you were to ask nicely. As for Aikido, I get up early two mornings a week, drive for 45 mins each way, to train with some very dedicated, very highly qualified, martial artists in order to better understand my Goju Ryu. Maybe that would help you discern some of the more obscure techniques in the kata. Mind you the Aikido itself is pretty cool once you add the atemi. How did you cope with the hakama, personally I'm not to that level yet but it seems to get in the way for some people.
I'd love to hear more about your ninjitsu training as that is one area I have only read about, apart from throwing sand and stars. I know a few guys studying ninjutsu and they are very good. Actually some of the guys on this forum seem to know a thing or two about ninjutsu too, if you would like to chase them up.
And, the Karate Kid. Great stuff, even if it is only Hollywood. Mind you, a friend of mine has done quite a few movies with Chuck Norris and Jackie Chan. He started out as a personal bodyguard for performers like the Rolling Stones, Linda Rondstat, James Taylor etc and I would not like to be on the wrong side of him. I did a seminar with him a couple of weeks ago and have another booked for next month. Fast, he's like lightning! He teaches nasty things like eye gouges, collapsing the trachea, elbow breaks, shoulder dislocations, knee busts etc, but you're right, Hollywood is all glam. :asian:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

rdonovan1 said:


> What I am saying is that Karate has basically been stripped of all it's truly effective combative techniques over the years so that it could be turned into a sport and the vast majority of those techniques that were originally designed for combat have been lost.
> 
> They did that for a reason as many people initially thought that Karate the way it was orginally developed was way too violent for the competitive sports arena and as a result they decided that the best way to make it more friendly for the competitive sport arena was to take out all of the tactics and techniques that orginally made it a combat art.
> 
> All martial arts in Japan were once part of what was called budo which was the study of war and combat. Over the years though many of the martial arts were toned down and turned into the Do classification system.
> 
> Martial arts that end in the Do classification are meant for sport and spiritual refinement. Those that have the extension of ryu or jutsu are still designed for actual combat situations.
> 
> Ninjutsu is one of the martial arts from Japan that has not been converted over to the Do system at all and according to Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi who is the 34 generation grandmaster of Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu it never will be converted either and that is why you do not see anyone in the competitive sports arena using ninjutsu.
> 
> Bringing ninjutsu into the sports arena would be a lot like walking down main street with a fully automatic assault rifle, a rocket launcher, and a bag full of explosives. Ninjutsu was at least in feudal Japan the equivalant of our modern day special forces or SWAT as they were very unconventional in their tactics and techniques and saw everything in their environment as a possible weapon that they could use against the Samurai who were at that time the only people who could carry a sword legally and at that time that was the deadliest weapon of the time.
> 
> If you were to do your homework about the history of Japan and the martial arts of Japan and Okinawa, then you would already know this and you would also know that what I am saying is true.


Will you please answer the questions that I asked you earlier. Provide the technical reasons why karate will not work.

Saying that it has been stripped of its lethal techniques is a cop out. It has ample techniques that can be lethal. Which ryus are you talking about?

And saying that the ninjutsu was the equivalent of SWAT is just nonsense, so perhaps you should do *your *homework before posting such nonsense.  And I do crosstrain at a Jinenkan school, so I do have some exposure to legitimate ninjutsu.

I asked you numerous pointed and very specific questions. Answer them please. Support your statements with more than BB Magazine advertising fluff, which is essentially what the above quoted post amounts to.

Daniel


----------



## rdonovan1

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Will you please answer the questions that I asked you earlier. Provide the technical reasons why karate will not work.
> 
> Saying that it has been stripped of its lethal techniques is a cop out. It has ample techniques that can be lethal. Which ryus are you talking about?
> 
> And saying that the ninjutsu was the equivalent of SWAT is just nonsense, so perhaps you should do *your *homework before posting such nonsense. And I do crosstrain at a Jinenkan school, so I do have some exposure to legitimate ninjutsu.
> 
> I asked you numerous pointed and very specific questions. Answer them please. Support your statements with more than BB Magazine advertising fluff, which is essentially what the above quoted post amounts to.
> 
> Daniel


 
What kind of technical proof are you looking for? Be specific.


----------



## rdonovan1

I suggest that all of you check out the works of Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi and I would also suggest that you study up on the psychology of first impressions as your skills in those two areas seem to need some work.

If you understood as to how first impressions and as to how strategy and the human mind really worked then you would have a better understanding as to where I am coming from. 

Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi understood this stuff and so does the business and dating world. Why you can't understand it is totally beyond me as all of this stuff is nothing more than pure and simple common sense.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

rdonovan1 said:


> What kind of technical proof are you looking for? Be specific.


I asked you specific question on the last page.

As far as technical proof, you will need to be specific because you are the one that made the statement.  If I have to explain to you what I mean by that, then you probably do not have the technical knowledge base to make any assessment of karate at all.

By *technical* I mean:

1. What ryu or ryus?  Karate has been used as an umbrella term for empty hand fighting for over fifty years at this point and has a large number of recognized ryus.  Some are Okinawan, some are Japanese.    Some differ from others more so than they differ from arts not classified as karate, so you need to be specific.  The thread is titled traditional karate.  Some are ryus are modern, not traditional.  Which do you mean and do you know the difference?

2. What *techniques *are ineffective and more importantly, why?

3. What are the specific techniques that have been stripped away (as you claim)?

4. What *techniques* are you referring to in "things like ninjutsu, police and military tactics" that will enable one to successfully escape the scenario that you presented on the previous page.

5. I asked you very specific questions about the scenario that you posted on the previous page.  Please refer back to see them.

A technical answer means that you are evaluating the skill set and making a case to support that some or all of the skills within that set being either ineffective, inefficient, or inapplicable.  

If you are not referring to the skill set and instead are referring to various training methods, then you will need to specify said training methods and explain *why* they are not effective.

If your only karate exposure is taekwondo, then you really have no grounds to make these statements.  While taekwondo may be rooted in karate (and in my opinion, is a subset thereof), there is little in the way of boon hae (bunkai) that is published in that regard for taekwondo (Simon O'Niel's Taegeuk Cipher is the only one that comes to mind.  Most people that I talk to are retrofitting karate bunkai to taekwondo from sources such as Ian Abernathy) and within the largest TKD org, the KKD/WTF, so far as I know, there is no official boon hae.  If there is, few schools teach it.  There is a separate section regarding taekwondo on this site.  If 

Taekwondo is what you mean, then you should search that section for threads about the effectiveness of Taekwondo, as taekwondo is generally discussed distinctly from Karate and is really not traditional.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

rdonovan1 said:


> I suggest that all of you check out the works of Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi and I would also suggest that you study up on the psychology of first impressions as your skills in those two areas seem to need some work.
> 
> If you understood as to how first impressions and as to how strategy and the human mind really worked then you would have a better understanding as to where I am coming from.
> 
> Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi understood this stuff and so does the business and dating world. Why you can't understand it is totally beyond me as all of this stuff is nothing more than pure and simple common sense.


This post is both an ad-hom and complete non-answer and dodges the questions that you have been asked.  Please support the statements that you have made.  

Daniel


----------



## Grenadier

rdonovan1 said:


> I suggest that all of you check out the works of Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi and I would also suggest that you study up on the psychology of first impressions as your skills in those two areas seem to need some work.


 
I already have.  Even though their works have some wisdom behind them, in no way do they support your assertion that Karate is ineffective.  

Since you don't have any hands-on Karate experience, how can you honestly believe what you're saying, since you have not done any actual training?  Video and online correspondence may be better than no exposure at all, but nothing replaces live training under a competent instructor.  



> Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi understood this stuff and so does the business and dating world. Why you can't understand it is totally beyond me as all of this stuff is nothing more than pure and simple common sense.


 
The dating world has virtually nothing to directly do with Karate, other than the fact that dojo owners tend to have a rather high rate of divorce.  

As for this being common sense, your statements essentially lack any sense, since you have not the experience, nor the knowledge to put forth a good statement.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

K-man said:


> TKD is not a 'traditional' MA. It is a sports based MA first practised in the post WWII era, based on traditional Korean MAs and heavily influenced by Japanese karate, mainly I seem to recall Shotokan.


This is accurate, though it would be more accurate to say it this way:

_TKD is not a 'traditional' MA. It is a fighting system that has evolved into a sport first practised in the post WWII era, based on Japanese karate, mainly Shotokan and influenced by traditional Korean MAs._

The strongest influence is supposedly Taekyun, though there is little evidence to directly link Taekyun to Taekwondo.  The construction of the WTF sparring certainly makes it look more like Taekyun, and Gen Cho claimed to have studied Taekyun from his caligraphy instructor.  So far as I know, that is the strongest link to any prewar KMA that I know of.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Grenadier said:


> The dating world has virtually nothing to directly do with Karate, other than the fact that dojo owners tend to have a rather high rate of divorce.


More than likely, this is due to dojo ownership sharing all of the peculiarities of small bussiness ownership coupled with the peculiarities of martial arts practice.

Daniel


----------



## Omar B

rdonovan1 said:


> I suggest that all of you check out the works of Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi and I would also suggest that you study up on the psychology of first impressions as your skills in those two areas seem to need some work.
> If you understood as to how first impressions and as to how strategy and the human mind really worked then you would have a better understanding as to where I am coming from.
> Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi understood this stuff and so does the business and dating world. Why you can't understand it is totally beyond me as all of this stuff is nothing more than pure and simple common sense.



I've been reading The Art Of War and The Book Of 5 Rings since before you were born kid.  It's still not an answer to why you think karate is ineffective, and considering that from your posts you have no knowledge of karate, aikido, or pretty much anything else other than "reading up" I consider your opinion on the matter invalid.

A blind man cannot be an art critic.


----------



## rdonovan1

Grenadier said:


> I already have. Even though their works have some wisdom behind them, in no way do they support your assertion that Karate is ineffective.
> 
> Since you don't have any hands-on Karate experience, how can you honestly believe what you're saying, since you have not done any actual training? Video and online correspondence may be better than no exposure at all, but nothing replaces live training under a competent instructor.
> 
> 
> 
> The dating world has virtually nothing to directly do with Karate, other than the fact that dojo owners tend to have a rather high rate of divorce.
> 
> As for this being common sense, your statements essentially lack any sense, since you have not the experience, nor the knowledge to put forth a good statement.


 
I do have hands on training, but I am out of practice because of my financial situation at the moment and because of the fact that I spent over 5 years driving a truck over the road.

The dating world and the martial arts do relate to one another because many people especially guys tend to get very jealous and possessive of women that they are with. 

I know this because I have not only studied it, but because my ex-wife has also experienced it personally. The guy that she hooked up with is a black guy who claims that he is black belt in some form of Kung Fu.

Shortly after he moved to Minnesota to be with her from Pennsylvania I started chatting with him online one day and we were at first talking about women until he suddenly and for no reason started to tell me that he was a black belt in the martial arts.

Because of my own interest in the martial arts I thought that it would be a good topic that we could talk about, but when I questioned him on his alleged training he could not tell me anything at all. All that he could say was that he was a black belt in the martial arts.

Common sense says that if you have ever trained in the martial arts formally even for a short period of time then you will know what style of martial arts you studied, who your instructors were and approimately when and for how long you studied. This guy could not tell me any of that. 

If I were asked that question by someone I would certainly be able to answer those questions because I have had at least some formal training. 

I unlike a lot of people don't believe that what is around your waist matters very much because that is not and will not help you out on the street. It is not what is around your waist that matters, but what you know and as to how effective you are with it that matters the most.


----------



## Tez3

rdonovan1 said:


> I do have hands on training, but I am out of practice because of my financial situation at the moment and because of the fact that I spent over 5 years driving a truck over the road.
> 
> The dating world and the martial arts do relate to one another because many people especially guys tend to get very jealous and possessive of women that they are with.
> 
> I know this because I have not only studied it, but because my ex-wife has also experienced it personally. *The guy that she hooked up with is a black guy who claims that he is black belt in some form of Kung Fu.*
> 
> Shortly after he moved to Minnesota to be with her from Pennsylvania I started chatting with him online one day and we were at first talking about women until he suddenly and for no reason started to tell me that he was a black belt in the martial arts.
> 
> Because of my own interest in the martial arts I thought that it would be a good topic that we could talk about, but when I questioned him on his alleged training he could not tell me anything at all. All that he could say was that he was a black belt in the martial arts.
> 
> Common sense says that if you have ever trained in the martial arts formally even for a short period of time then you will know what style of martial arts you studied, who your instructors were and approimately when and for how long you studied. This guy could not tell me any of that.
> 
> If I were asked that question by someone I would certainly be able to answer those questions because I have had at least some formal training.
> 
> I unlike a lot of people don't believe that what is around your waist matters very much because that is not and will not help you out on the street. It is not what is around your waist that matters, but what you know and as to how effective you are with it that matters the most.


 
Aha! and here ladies and gentlemen is the root of the problem. :uhohh:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

rdonovan1 said:


> I do have hands on training, but I am out of practice because of my financial situation at the moment and because of the fact that I spent over 5 years driving a truck over the road.
> 
> The dating world and the martial arts do relate to one another because many people especially guys tend to get very jealous and possessive of women that they are with.
> 
> I know this because I have not only studied it, but because my ex-wife has also experienced it personally. The guy that she hooked up with is a black guy who claims that he is black belt in some form of Kung Fu.
> 
> Shortly after he moved to Minnesota to be with her from Pennsylvania I started chatting with him online one day and we were at first talking about women until he suddenly and for no reason started to tell me that he was a black belt in the martial arts.
> 
> Because of my own interest in the martial arts I thought that it would be a good topic that we could talk about, but when I questioned him on his alleged training he could not tell me anything at all. All that he could say was that he was a black belt in the martial arts.
> 
> Common sense says that if you have ever trained in the martial arts formally even for a short period of time then you will know what style of martial arts you studied, who your instructors were and approimately when and for how long you studied. This guy could not tell me any of that.
> 
> If I were asked that question by someone I would certainly be able to answer those questions because I have had at least some formal training.
> 
> I unlike a lot of people don't believe that what is around your waist matters very much because that is not and will not help you out on the street. It is not what is around your waist that matters, but what you know and as to how effective you are with it that matters the most.


This entire post is completely irrelevent.

Martial arts are skill sets.  Belts have nothing to do with it, and karate did not have belts until the first half of twentieth century.  

Please stop dodging the questions about why you maintain that the skill set is inadequate and how the skill set of "things like ninjutsu, police and military tactics" is in the scenario that you laid out earlier in this thread.

Daniel


----------



## blindsage

Folks, I think we're gonna have to let a lot of this go.  rdonovan strikes me a sincere, but confused individual.  Logic is not working.  He assumes that if others just read and studied what he did then everyone would agree with him because it's common sense.  There is no exchange of ideas just statements of fact with little backing and a lot of non-sequiturs added in.  

I think it's time to take the high road.


----------



## K-man

rdonovan1 said:


> I do have hands on training, but I am out of practice because of my financial situation at the moment and because of the fact that I spent over 5 years driving a truck over the road.
> 
> Common sense says that if you have ever trained in the martial arts formally even for a short period of time then you will know what style of martial arts you studied, who your instructors were and approimately when and for how long you studied. This guy could not tell me any of that.
> 
> If I were asked that question by someone I would certainly be able to answer those questions because I have had at least some formal training.
> 
> I unlike a lot of people don't believe that what is around your waist matters very much because that is not and will not help you out on the street. It is not what is around your waist that matters, but what you know and as to how effective you are with it that matters the most.


OK, I'll rise to the lure! 





> Common sense says that if you have ever trained in the martial arts formally even for a short period of time then you will know what style of martial arts you studied, who your instructors were and approimately when and for how long you studied.


What MAs did you study, how long did you study, where did you study and who was your teacher?

I also don't concern myself about what's around the waist, but it does give an indication of commitment and dedication.  It also gives me an indication of what that person should know and if it is a genuine BB in  a 'traditional' style of MA, it *will* help on the street.  Whether it is enough to save your *** is a different story but that has nothing to do with the belt!


----------



## TimoS

rdonovan1 said:


> Martial arts that end in the Do classification are meant for sport and spiritual refinement


Thanks for the laugh


> Those that have the extension of ryu or jutsu are still designed for actual combat situations.


Like, oh I don't know, maybe Shorin ryu Seibukan karate do? Hmmm, there's the "ryu" extension, but then there's also the do-extension. Do they cancel each other out? 


> If you were to do your homework about the history of Japan and the martial arts of Japan and Okinawa, then you would already know this and you would also know that what I am saying is true.


I think it is you who needs to do his homework about Okinawa.


----------



## Marginal

rdonovan1 said:


> I believe that Karate and many of the Chinese martial arts are good for internal development and overall health, but I don't believe that they should be relied upon only.


Are you really quoting from Fist of Legend?


----------



## rdonovan1

Marginal said:


> Are you really quoting from Fist of Legend?


 
I have no idea as to what you are talking about or even as to what you are smoking.


----------



## rdonovan1

K-man said:


> OK, I'll rise to the lure!
> What MAs did you study, how long did you study, where did you study and who was your teacher?
> 
> I also don't concern myself about what's around the waist, but it does give an indication of commitment and dedication. It also gives me an indication of what that person should know and if it is a genuine BB in a 'traditional' style of MA, it *will* help on the street. Whether it is enough to save your *** is a different story but that has nothing to do with the belt!


 
I studied at the Bloomington Karate Center in Bloomington, Minnesota under Dave Saum and C.B. Bunkholt. I started with them in 1992 and trained with them off and on when time permitted until I left Minnesota in 2006.

The school is owned by a guy by the name of Joe Mullins. They teach Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido.

I would have studied more Japanese styles if I could have, but in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area at that time there really was not much in the way of Japanese martial arts. Everything that was being taught was mostly of Korean origin there at that time.


----------



## rdonovan1

blindsage said:


> Folks, I think we're gonna have to let a lot of this go. rdonovan strikes me a sincere, but confused individual. Logic is not working. He assumes that if others just read and studied what he did then everyone would agree with him because it's common sense. There is no exchange of ideas just statements of fact with little backing and a lot of non-sequiturs added in.
> 
> I think it's time to take the high road.


 
It doesn't really matter what martial art you study or know at all. What matters is as to how well you know it and as to how well you can apply it in a real world situation. 

Whether people like it or not the martial arts were not meant for people to go out and learn how to be bullies. It was meant for self defense and for personal growth. 

Whether people like it or not all martial arts were designed differently and with different purposes in mind and that is what the author is getting at.

Stop and think about what he is saying long and hard because basically what he is saying is don't bring a knife to a gun fight as you will surely get killed if you do so. 

He is also stating that some martial arts are just better suited for the real world and for actual combat. He is also stating that military and police arts are geared more for actual combat than say karate as that stuff is geared more for the modern world than Karate ever was. 

It doesn't mean that Karate is bad at all. All that it means is that it is not geared for actual combat like military and police arts are.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hi rdonovan1,

Hmm, don't really know what to say about the last few pages here...

While I appreciate where you are coming from, I will reiterate my previous advice. You have not the understanding to be posting "facts" here, as many of your posts here contradict each other, and have some rather large errors in them. For example, stating that the Japanese arts were previously known as "Budo", then later added were changed into the "-do" systems contradicts itself. You also continually state that "military, police and ninjutsu" are better suited for street preparedness than karate simply shows a lack of understanding of each and every system you mention.

Military and police training is not actually geared to street violence, as in a street fight. Police training, when it comes to the violence side of things, the priority is not getting away, or coming out on top, or even surviving, it is taking the other person in to custody, and that requires specific techniques that are not necessarily useful in a street fight. Remember also that police rarely operate singly, and there are certain tools available (handcuffs, baton, spray, pistol depending on where you are), and that they are percieved in the public mind as the "good guys", therefore what they do will (almost) always be percieved by witnesses as the right thing, and they will not attempt to interfere. On the contrary, the public witnesses will comply with most requests the police make. The police training is also very limited, with only a small amount of time alloted to the training of each topic, based on the relative importance deemed. And hand-to-hand is not often seen as a high priority, when you send officers out with weapons.

Military, on the other hand, has a higher emphasis on combative training, but that all involves weaponry, and is designed with a lethal outcome in mind. Some armies in the world don't even have unarmed combat as part of their training, as it has little relevance when the majority of combat involves high power firearms. But those that do still include unarmed combat, it is a low priority, and has similar timing constraints to the police training. So neither of these are actually geared towards a street environment.

Then we get to ninjutsu. I'm sorry to say, but you have absolutely no experience, knowledge, or understanding when it comes to this subject. Simply getting a few of Richard Van Donk's Home Study tapes and some books give you nothing. Without an instructor, they really don't. And your views on Samurai and Ninja are quite skewed and incorrect. Ninja were in no way the "SWAT of their day", nor anything similar. They were simply a grouping of people who lived a particular life which involved an approach to martial arts (which in itself came from the various Samurai who influenced and originated a number of the Ninjutsu Ryu-ha). Without getting some experience, I would advise leaving posting about such topics. And experience is gained in a dojo, not from books, tapes, and certainly not from movies.

The Samurai were not simply "bullies" either, that is a gross oversimplification of a small number of the less-than reputable sort. The samurai were people, with the same strengths and weaknesses of character as any other group, studying psychology should help you there.

You often talk about the writings of Sun Tzu, Musashi, the study of psychology, the teachings of Erikson, Bandler, Grinder, the ideas of marketing, and other areas of study best left out of discussions here, but I am sorry to say that I have yet to see any evidence of understanding of any of them. Simply stating thatpeople here need to study these things as you have isn't really going to cut it, as I have, and I can't follow your thinking at all. 

Now, when it comes to the situation you described, that has no real weight at all. Nothing would help there. Not Ninjutsu, not Karate, not anything. And I note that you still, after a few days, have yet to answer the simple question of how, if Karate does not give you the answer to the situation (that you designed, by the way), then how do you propose solving your dilema? Obviously using Ninjutsu (which I don't believe you have the first understanding of), or Police or Military training (which is taken out of the equation by your set-up, unless we allow for them to be off-duty). I can't see a way out, you know.

But to get to the crux of it all, your comments that Karate is not geared up for a street confrontation are feeling quite out of place here. The arguments you have sited are non-existant, the idea of military or police training being "better suited" are not realistic, and it all comes down to how it is trained. Oh, and finally, the martial arts (in a true, historical sense) are MILITARY arts. Not for self development, not for self improvement, not for spiritual refinement, but to go out onto a battlefield, and make more of them dead than they make your side dead. And, if you possibly can, make sure you don't get dead in the process. That's it. Karate is just as well suited to that as any other. It's all in the way it's trained.

Okay, rant over. Back to your regular thread.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

R.Donovan,

I kindly obliged you in defining what I meant by 'technical' on the previous page.  You have continued to dodge the questions about specifics to substantiate your assertions and continue to make general statements about "things like ninjutsu, police and military tactics" without defining what it is about these that make the specifically effective in the scenario you described, while Karate would not be.

If you have the knowledge to substantiate your claims, please put it forth.  If not, then kindly withdraw from the discussion.  If you cannot substantiate your claims, then you are simply guessing and parrotting what you have seen in the advertisement section of BB magazine.  Your understanding of historical ninjutsu is severely lacking, as evidenced in your posts, and as you have indicated that you have never studied it, you have no basis to gauge its effectiveness.  

And no, reading books does not count as studying a martial art.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

blindsage said:


> Folks, I think we're gonna have to let a lot of this go. rdonovan strikes me a sincere, but confused individual. Logic is not working. He assumes that if others just read and studied what he did then everyone would agree with him because it's common sense. There is no exchange of ideas just statements of fact with little backing and a lot of non-sequiturs added in.
> 
> I think it's time to take the high road.


I do not feel that it is unreasonable, nor the low road to ask one to support assertions made on a public forum.  If his statements are factual in any way, he should be able to elaborate.  Thus far all he has done is dodge every quesiton and regurgitate ninjutsu/military comments, not to mention some outrageous scenario that he claims "things like ninjutsu, police, and military tactics" would supposedly get you out of.  

What I, and I believe others, would like to see is a concise arguement that involves specific strategies and techniques that one would find in "things like ninjutsu, police, and military tactics" that are not found in any ryu of Karate (or for him to specify which ryu/ryus he means) that make them more effective, both in general, and in the specific scenario that he described.

I also asked him pointed questions about what led to the scenario that he described.

These are not unreasonable things to ask of one who posts that "nothing out of a dojo" is effective on the mythical street, particularly when they go on to name Ninjutsu as a viable alternative, even though it happens to be taught in dojos.

If he can offer support for his statements, then perhaps exchange of ideas can take place.

Daniel


----------



## nelsonkari

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I don't have a dog in this fight or the time to wad through pages and pages of multiple posts to get the entire "flavor" of this thread.

I've always believed that it is not the art but the artist that determines how one is going to fair in a self defense situation? To give an example, not many of us do full reverse punches with the opposite hand on our hips anymore yet is it not true that getting struck with such a punch particularily in the solar plexus is more that adequite to subdue most attackers?

To quote a well known departed martial artist, "A punch is a punch and a kick is a kick" in the ultimate scenario.

Just my opinion.


----------



## rdonovan1

Daniel Sullivan said:


> R.Donovan,
> 
> I kindly obliged you in defining what I meant by 'technical' on the previous page. You have continued to dodge the questions about specifics to substantiate your assertions and continue to make general statements about "things like ninjutsu, police and military tactics" without defining what it is about these that make the specifically effective in the scenario you described, while Karate would not be.
> 
> If you have the knowledge to substantiate your claims, please put it forth. If not, then kindly withdraw from the discussion. If you cannot substantiate your claims, then you are simply guessing and parrotting what you have seen in the advertisement section of BB magazine. Your understanding of historical ninjutsu is severely lacking, as evidenced in your posts, and as you have indicated that you have never studied it, you have no basis to gauge its effectiveness.
> 
> And no, reading books does not count as studying a martial art.
> 
> Daniel


 
I'm not dodging anything. I just simply don't have the time to spend all of my waking hours on this or any other forum as I have an actual life outside of this forum and away from the computer.


----------



## rdonovan1

Chris Parker said:


> Hi rdonovan1,
> 
> Hmm, don't really know what to say about the last few pages here...
> 
> While I appreciate where you are coming from, I will reiterate my previous advice. You have not the understanding to be posting "facts" here, as many of your posts here contradict each other, and have some rather large errors in them. For example, stating that the Japanese arts were previously known as "Budo", then later added were changed into the "-do" systems contradicts itself. You also continually state that "military, police and ninjutsu" are better suited for street preparedness than karate simply shows a lack of understanding of each and every system you mention.
> 
> Military and police training is not actually geared to street violence, as in a street fight. Police training, when it comes to the violence side of things, the priority is not getting away, or coming out on top, or even surviving, it is taking the other person in to custody, and that requires specific techniques that are not necessarily useful in a street fight. Remember also that police rarely operate singly, and there are certain tools available (handcuffs, baton, spray, pistol depending on where you are), and that they are percieved in the public mind as the "good guys", therefore what they do will (almost) always be percieved by witnesses as the right thing, and they will not attempt to interfere. On the contrary, the public witnesses will comply with most requests the police make. The police training is also very limited, with only a small amount of time alloted to the training of each topic, based on the relative importance deemed. And hand-to-hand is not often seen as a high priority, when you send officers out with weapons.
> 
> Military, on the other hand, has a higher emphasis on combative training, but that all involves weaponry, and is designed with a lethal outcome in mind. Some armies in the world don't even have unarmed combat as part of their training, as it has little relevance when the majority of combat involves high power firearms. But those that do still include unarmed combat, it is a low priority, and has similar timing constraints to the police training. So neither of these are actually geared towards a street environment.
> 
> Then we get to ninjutsu. I'm sorry to say, but you have absolutely no experience, knowledge, or understanding when it comes to this subject. Simply getting a few of Richard Van Donk's Home Study tapes and some books give you nothing. Without an instructor, they really don't. And your views on Samurai and Ninja are quite skewed and incorrect. Ninja were in no way the "SWAT of their day", nor anything similar. They were simply a grouping of people who lived a particular life which involved an approach to martial arts (which in itself came from the various Samurai who influenced and originated a number of the Ninjutsu Ryu-ha). Without getting some experience, I would advise leaving posting about such topics. And experience is gained in a dojo, not from books, tapes, and certainly not from movies.
> 
> The Samurai were not simply "bullies" either, that is a gross oversimplification of a small number of the less-than reputable sort. The samurai were people, with the same strengths and weaknesses of character as any other group, studying psychology should help you there.
> 
> You often talk about the writings of Sun Tzu, Musashi, the study of psychology, the teachings of Erikson, Bandler, Grinder, the ideas of marketing, and other areas of study best left out of discussions here, but I am sorry to say that I have yet to see any evidence of understanding of any of them. Simply stating thatpeople here need to study these things as you have isn't really going to cut it, as I have, and I can't follow your thinking at all.
> 
> Now, when it comes to the situation you described, that has no real weight at all. Nothing would help there. Not Ninjutsu, not Karate, not anything. And I note that you still, after a few days, have yet to answer the simple question of how, if Karate does not give you the answer to the situation (that you designed, by the way), then how do you propose solving your dilema? Obviously using Ninjutsu (which I don't believe you have the first understanding of), or Police or Military training (which is taken out of the equation by your set-up, unless we allow for them to be off-duty). I can't see a way out, you know.
> 
> But to get to the crux of it all, your comments that Karate is not geared up for a street confrontation are feeling quite out of place here. The arguments you have sited are non-existant, the idea of military or police training being "better suited" are not realistic, and it all comes down to how it is trained. Oh, and finally, the martial arts (in a true, historical sense) are MILITARY arts. Not for self development, not for self improvement, not for spiritual refinement, but to go out onto a battlefield, and make more of them dead than they make your side dead. And, if you possibly can, make sure you don't get dead in the process. That's it. Karate is just as well suited to that as any other. It's all in the way it's trained.
> 
> Okay, rant over. Back to your regular thread.


 
I feel sorry for you if you believe all of that as it shows to me that you have not done enough study of any of it nor have you actually gone out to find out that in which you do not know. All that you are doing is assuming instead of finding out the real truth and in that sense I really feel sorry for you. 

From what you have described here and from what I have seen from other people it is very obvious that a lot of people tend to have a 'Chicken Little' mentality and are unwilling to find out the real truth because they are afraid that if they knew the real truth then it would damage their pride and their sense of ego.

I may not know everything and perhaps I am not even the brightest bulb in the barrel, but unlike a lot of other people that I have met both online and offline I at least take the time to go and find out that in which I do not know and to model myself after those people who truly know what they are talking about and/or who are doing something that I wish to do.

From a martial art perspective that would include people like Chuck Norris, Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, Dan Inosanto, Bruce Lee and others like them and that is only from a martial art perspective that is not including what you can learn from the worlds of business and psychology as well as through personal experience. 

Like most people I like watching movies relating to things like the martial arts, but unlike most people I generally do not believe everything that I see in the movies as I know that is all nothing but hollywood fiction created by writers and it is usually very poorly researched as well.

There are some things though that you will find in the media that are for real and that are properly researched. The trick is to know what is real and what is not and from what I have seen both online and offline there are a lot of people out there that have as of yet not been able to discern the fact from the fiction. 

I don't know about the rest of anyone else, but I personally don't care as to what the media says because 9 times out of ten it is so damn negative that it is not even funny and that is why I generally don't pay attention to it. To me it is nothing but fluff and is really no better than toilet paper as most of that stuff is and was created for the sole purpose of making a sale and making someone rich. Most of it has nothing to do with reality and when people start to learn that and is able to start differentiating that from reality then the sooner that things like economy will improve for the better.

If you have not read the book by Chuck Norris called 'The power within' then I suggest that you do because a lot of what is talking about is true and whether people realize it or not both zen and NLP both have something in common and that is that they both seek to expand your mind and to help you overcome your fears. 

Fear is the greatest enemy that you can have and if you allow that you control you and to get the better of you then you will always lose no matter what. 

Chuck Norris said it best that when you learn to conquer yourself then anything is possible and Bruce Lee proved that time and time again. Bruce did not care about whether he was popular or not. All that he cared about what the truth and that is something that people would do well to learn about and to implement in their lives as Bruce knew like Chuck Norris that you are your worst enemy and that you need to learn how to get out of your own way if you are going to improve and to be good at anything in life. 

If someone here wants to challenge the wisdom of people like Bruce Lee then go and dig him up, bring him back to life and challenge him to a fight. Somehow though I seriously doubt that is possible and even if it were possible I know that very few people on this forum would be able to beat Bruce Lee in a real fight.

Bruce like the ninja knew that each and every style had it's strengths and it's weaknesses and that why Bruce trained as much as he did trying to learn from every source that he could as he wanted to develop himself and to prove to himself that he could do anything that he put his mind to no matter what other people said or thought about him. For him nothing was impossible.


----------



## jks9199

rdonovan1 said:


> What I am saying is that Karate has basically been stripped of all it's truly effective combative techniques over the years so that it could be turned into a sport and the vast majority of those techniques that were originally designed for combat have been lost.
> 
> They did that for a reason as many people initially thought that Karate the way it was orginally developed was way too violent for the competitive sports arena and as a result they decided that the best way to make it more friendly for the competitive sport arena was to take out all of the tactics and techniques that orginally made it a combat art.
> 
> All martial arts in Japan were once part of what was called budo which was the study of war and combat. Over the years though many of the martial arts were toned down and turned into the Do classification system.
> 
> Martial arts that end in the Do classification are meant for sport and spiritual refinement. Those that have the extension of ryu or jutsu are still designed for actual combat situations.
> 
> Ninjutsu is one of the martial arts from Japan that has not been converted over to the Do system at all and according to Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi who is the 34 generation grandmaster of Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu it never will be converted either and that is why you do not see anyone in the competitive sports arena using ninjutsu.
> 
> Bringing ninjutsu into the sports arena would be a lot like walking down main street with a fully automatic assault rifle, a rocket launcher, and a bag full of explosives. Ninjutsu was at least in feudal Japan the equivalant of our modern day special forces or SWAT as they were very unconventional in their tactics and techniques and saw everything in their environment as a possible weapon that they could use against the Samurai who were at that time the only people who could carry a sword legally and at that time that was the deadliest weapon of the time.
> 
> If you were to do your homework about the history of Japan and the martial arts of Japan and Okinawa, then you would already know this and you would also know that what I am saying is true.


Dude...

You are in a bizarre place all your own, cobbled together apparently out of half-understood stories...  

Let me suggest that just maybe you should learn a little bit about the purpose and methodology you're deriding so fervently.  There's a huge range in "traditional" martial arts instruction, ranging from the "health benefits only" tai chi and New Ager aikidokas through to people who train for several hours a day, fighting bare knuckle, full contact in various forms of karate and kung fu.  The sporting aspect is somewhere in the middle.

Budo Taijutsu (which you keep referring to as ninjutsu; ninjutsu is only part of the systems Hatsumi teaches, and not the major emphasis of his teaching today) can be a very effective art... or it can be a bunch of useless motions.  It simply depends on the way it is taught.  By your own admissions, you've only learned from videos.  These freeze the understanding at the moment the instructor was filmed.  Hayes has gone on in his own path, which is separate and apart from Hatsumi's, and Van Donk's.  Relying on their videos from several years ago for accurate information about their training today is kind of like reading Galen's medical writing, and figuring that it will let you treat patients today.


----------



## jks9199

rdonovan1 said:


> I suggest that all of you check out the works of Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi and I would also suggest that you study up on the psychology of first impressions as your skills in those two areas seem to need some work.
> 
> If you understood as to how first impressions and as to how strategy and the human mind really worked then you would have a better understanding as to where I am coming from.
> 
> Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi understood this stuff and so does the business and dating world. Why you can't understand it is totally beyond me as all of this stuff is nothing more than pure and simple common sense.


Do you have a degree in psychology?  Do have any formal training... not scattered reading in one VERY misunderstood specialized discipline related to it?


----------



## rdonovan1

jks9199 said:


> Do you have a degree in psychology? Do have any formal training... not scattered reading in one VERY misunderstood specialized discipline related to it?


 
No, I don't have a degree in psychology and I don't need one either. Saying that you need a degree in psychology in order to learn and to improve yourself is like saying that you have to have a medical degree just to eat and use the restroom. 

If you can't trust yourself, then who can you trust?


----------



## jks9199

rdonovan1 said:


> No, I don't have a degree in psychology and I don't need one either. Saying that you need a degree in psychology in order to learn and to improve yourself is like saying that you have to have a medical degree just to eat and use the restroom.
> 
> If you can't trust yourself, then who can you trust?


I think I see the heart of a lot of issues here.

Very, very few people can be successful autodidacts.  Most of us, even the smartest and most able, need someone to lead us and guide us in our education if we want to develop something useful in learning.  That's the job and goal of being a teacher.  The Japanese term "sensei" is actually very instructive.  A literal translation, I'm informed, is "one who has gone before."  The job task of the sensei is to lead the students along the path... because, too often, left to ourselves, we'll absorb pieces without getting the supporting elements.  In a civil trial I'm aware of which involved some very complex technical issues, the judge would listen to one witness, who was laying a foundation for the next, and so on down a chain until the key point was reached.  Without the chain -- the last witness doesn't make sense.  But there was a lot of overlap at times, and the judge would stop a witness short...  then complain when he didn't understand the issue at the end.  You're striking me as very likely being in much the same position...


----------



## K-man

rdonovan1 said:


> *I may not know everything and perhaps I am not even the brightest bulb in the barrel*, but unlike a lot of other people that I have met both online and offline I at least take the time to go and find out that in which I do not know and to model myself after those people who truly know what they are talking about and/or who are doing something that I wish to do.
> 
> 
> There are some things though that you will find in the media that are for real and that are properly researched. The trick is to know what is real and what is not and from what I have seen both online and offline there are a lot of people out there that have as of yet not been able to discern the fact from the fiction.
> 
> I don't know about the rest of anyone else, but I personally don't care as to what the media says because 9 times out of ten it is so damn negative that it is not even funny and that is why I generally don't pay attention to it. To me it is nothing but fluff and is really no better than toilet paper as most of that stuff is and was created for the sole purpose of making a sale and making someone rich.* Most of it has nothing to do with reality and when people start to learn that and is able to start differentiating that from reality then the sooner that things like economy will improve for the better.*


I must be a bit slower than most in following your logic but you really have now posted something that I can understand and agree with completely. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I am surprised that you are in any doubt as to the validity of your claim.
Modelling yourself on someone who has achieved a great deal is admirable, but there are no short cuts to get there most times. Chuck Norris has been a great martial artist and like you I would aspire to get to his level. Unfortunately passing years have ensured that that will never happen. However, I still train 4 times a week in the dojo and attend any seminars that catch my eye. Perhaps by training with some of the top people a little of their magic might rub off (wishful thinking 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)!! But sitting on my **** in front of the video player wishing I could be another Bruce Lee is never going to work. Don't get me wrong, I have a library of SD DVDs. Earle Montaque, George Dillman, Russell Stutely, Geoff Thompson, Iain Abernathy, Richard Norton, Krav Maga, Systema etc etc. I will study one aspect of a dvd, a technique that I believe will work for me, then I take it to the dojo and train it until it can be tested at full speed under pressure. If it works, I may incorporate it in my teaching, but only if it is suited to a wide spectum of body types and abilities.
Your comment on the Newspapers says one of two things. Either the papers you read are not the quality ones or that you disagree with much of which is being written. In either case a reality check would be in order!! If most of the information in the papers has nothing to do with reality, in your opinion, it may be you with the problem, not the world press.


> quote=rdonovan1
> It doesn't really matter what martial art you study or know at all. What matters is as to how well you know it and as to how well you can apply it in a real world situation.


Sorry, you have now got me totally confused. I thought this was our side of the discussion!! :erg:


----------



## rdonovan1

I'm just curious as to how everyone might handle someone who is built like Andre the Giant and who is so doped up that he can't feel anything.

What techniques would you use to take down a guy that is built like that or worse and who is either so far out of their mind or so doped up that they can't feel anything and who really does not care about what happens to you. 

As far as he is concerned you are a worm and he wants to separate your head from your body using any tactic or technique that he can do so.


----------



## K-man

rdonovan1 said:


> I'm just curious as to how everyone might handle someone who is built like Andre the Giant and who is so doped up that he can't feel anything.
> 
> What techniques would you use to take down a guy that is built like that or worse and who is either so far out of their mind or so doped up that they can't feel anything and who really does not care about what happens to you.
> 
> As far as he is concerned you are a worm and he wants to separate your head from your body using any tactic or technique that he can do so.


I'd be first to throw the handful of sand (or pepper) in his eyes and run like hell.


----------



## Omar B

rdonovan1 said:


> I'm just curious as to how everyone might handle someone who is built like Andre the Giant and who is so doped up that he can't feel anything.
> 
> What techniques would you use to take down a guy that is built like that or worse and who is either so far out of their mind or so doped up that they can't feel anything and who really does not care about what happens to you.
> 
> As far as he is concerned you are a worm and he wants to separate your head from your body using any tactic or technique that he can do so.



I see you are trying to make some clever point about karate not being able to handle every opponent here.  But a person, large, small or minute still has the same anatomy and susceptible to the same things we all are.  Step into a dojo sometime and learn from a real teacher, these books and DVDs have you all turned around.  Size is most certainly not an issue if you know your art well.


----------



## rdonovan1

Omar B said:


> I see you are trying to make some clever point about karate not being able to handle every opponent here. But a person, large, small or minute still has the same anatomy and susceptible to the same things we all are. Step into a dojo sometime and learn from a real teacher, these books and DVDs have you all turned around. Size is most certainly not an issue if you know your art well.


 
Based upon what people have been saying here I think that would be difficult to do because so far all that I have heard are reasons as to why one should run away and to not fight at. 

The basic message that I have been getting is one based upon fear. 

Like everyone else I believe in trying to avoid a fight whenever possible, but unlike a lot of people I don't believe in running away from a fight. 

If someone is truly intent on hurting you, then you have no choice but to fight back and that applies not just to physical attacks, but also to psychological, emotional, and verbal attacks and that is why it is best to learn as much as you can so that you can protect and defend yourself.

If a guy does not stand up for himself and assert himself then he is basically reducing himself and making himself look like a complete wus as he apparently does not have the courage to stand up for himself and to defend himself at all. That is the kind of mentallity that muggers and terrorists are looking for as their whole purpose is to produce fear in you so that you will not stand up to them and fight back at all.


----------



## K-man

rdonovan1 said:


> Based upon what people have been saying here I think that would be difficult to do because so far all that I have heard are reasons as to why one should run away and to not fight at.
> 
> The basic message that I have been getting is one based upon fear.
> 
> Like everyone else I believe in trying to avoid a fight whenever possible, but unlike a lot of people I don't believe in running away from a fight.
> 
> If someone is truly intent on hurting you, then you have no choice but to fight back and that applies not just to physical attacks, but also to psychological, emotional, and verbal attacks and that is why it is best to learn as much as you can so that you can protect and defend yourself.
> 
> If a guy does not stand up for himself and assert himself then he is basically reducing himself and making himself look like a complete wus as he apparently does not have the courage to stand up for himself and to defend himself at all. That is the kind of mentallity that muggers and terrorists are looking for as their whole purpose is to produce fear in you so that you will not stand up to them and fight back at all.


OK. So we are now saying that we cannot escape. 





> The basic message that I have been getting is one based upon fear.


 That is total crap! If you would rather fight than leave, in almost any scenario, then as I have pointed out in previous posts, your judgement is not to be relied on. If we cannot get away, as Omar said "a person, large, small or minute still has the same anatomy and is susceptible to the same things we all are." A nice strong sune geri to the side of the knee should take care of that end and provide a pre-emptive entry to take him down and provide the opportunity to leave. If for some reason we need to continue, striking to the throat next should finish it.


> If a guy does not stand up for himself and assert himself then he is basically reducing himself and making himself look like a complete wus as he apparently does not have the courage to stand up for himself and to defend himself at all.


This is why you wouldn't be in my dojo. I would rather leave quietly, and have any of my friends leave, even if we did look like complete wus, rather than risk injury or even death, for a totally trivial reason. If someone wanted to pursue the matter, then that's the time to take action and that action probably would not involve defence.
One of the things you should have learnt, in the 14 odd years you claim to have studied karate, is the legal position. There are a number of LEOs on this forum and they must be cringing at the type of action you are proposing. 





> If someone is truly intent on hurting you, then you have no choice but to fight back and that applies not just to physical attacks, but also to psychological, emotional, and verbal attacks and that is why it is best to learn as much as you can so that you can protect and defend yourself.


 This is the type of thinking that will get you into trouble with the law. You do have a choice. If someone is truly intent on hurting you you should try to get out of the situation as a first line. If you can't escape then it is permissable to use the least amount of force necessary to guarantee your safety. If it is a verbal attack you had better be sure that a physical attack was imminent, otherwise, if you hit first, and there are witnesses, it will be you before the court.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hey rdonovan1,



rdonovan1 said:


> I feel sorry for you if you believe all of that as it shows to me that you have not done enough study of any of it nor have you actually gone out to find out that in which you do not know. All that you are doing is assuming instead of finding out the real truth and in that sense I really feel sorry for you.
> 
> Nope, sorry, not assumption on my part. We have police officers from every level, as well as Military personnel in our schools as Black Belts and Instructors, so the information comes from discussions with them. Which is as good as you can get without actually joining the army or police, which is not in my plans.
> 
> From what you have described here and from what I have seen from other people it is very obvious that a lot of people tend to have a 'Chicken Little' mentality and are unwilling to find out the real truth because they are afraid that if they knew the real truth then it would damage their pride and their sense of ego.
> 
> To many people, it would probably appear that you are discussing yourself here... Oh, and a "Chicken Little" mentality? If I remember my childhood well, that means we all run around being scared of non-existant events. You're the one being terrified of going to Mexico, terrorists, and inescapable gang assaults. Now Andre the Giant gets brought in? Very Chicken Little to me...
> 
> I may not know everything and perhaps I am not even the brightest bulb in the barrel, but unlike a lot of other people that I have met both online and offline I at least take the time to go and find out that in which I do not know and to model myself after those people who truly know what they are talking about and/or who are doing something that I wish to do.
> 
> Copying, parroting and modeling are different concepts. You appear to be stuck on the first two, my friend. That would back to the NLP. But get a coach, preferably Master Practitioner level, and that's gonna cost.
> 
> From a martial art perspective that would include people like Chuck Norris, Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, Dan Inosanto, Bruce Lee and others like them and that is only from a martial art perspective that is not including what you can learn from the worlds of business and psychology as well as through personal experience.
> 
> I teach arts that originated from the teachings of Hatsumi Sensei, and have read pretty much every book on or by Bruce. But I have never met them (maybe Hatsumi one day, but doubtful dueto the organisation I am part of), so I would not say that I have learnt from them directly. They have been an influence, certainly, but that's it. And at best, that is all they have been for you as well. As for the business/psychology side, if you have had no direct contact, the same applies. If you haven't met Bandler, Grinder etc, then they haven't taught you. And Erikson is probably completely out of the question (although you appear to have focussed on the arrow rather than the target there).
> 
> Like most people I like watching movies relating to things like the martial arts, but unlike most people I generally do not believe everything that I see in the movies as I know that is all nothing but hollywood fiction created by writers and it is usually very poorly researched as well.
> 
> The questoin then would be why do your osts about martial arts (particularly the history) read like they are straight out of a movie?
> 
> There are some things though that you will find in the media that are for real and that are properly researched. The trick is to know what is real and what is not and from what I have seen both online and offline there are a lot of people out there that have as of yet not been able to discern the fact from the fiction.
> 
> It would appear that they haven't... according to you, and your take. The problem is that many people who have spent years actually researching this don't agree with you. And there may be a reason for this.
> 
> I don't know about the rest of anyone else, but I personally don't care as to what the media says because 9 times out of ten it is so damn negative that it is not even funny and that is why I generally don't pay attention to it. To me it is nothing but fluff and is really no better than toilet paper as most of that stuff is and was created for the sole purpose of making a sale and making someone rich. Most of it has nothing to do with reality and when people start to learn that and is able to start differentiating that from reality then the sooner that things like economy will improve for the better.
> 
> If you have not read the book by Chuck Norris called 'The power within' then I suggest that you do because a lot of what is talking about is true and whether people realize it or not both zen and NLP both have something in common and that is that they both seek to expand your mind and to help you overcome your fears.
> 
> You know, NLP is something I have been dealing with for a long time now, longer than you have from our PM conversation. I will respectfully ask now that you try to refrain from educating me on such subjects until you gain a bit more understanding yourself. The first paragraph here reads as a delusional mind frame, only I can see it, no-one else can kind of thing. The second then contradicts the first. Media is all wrong, and should be ignored, but read this book (media) because it is real and true.
> 
> And dude, my fears, and the expansion of my mind, are not something you really need to worry about. Really. Got that under control.
> 
> Fear is the greatest enemy that you can have and if you allow that you control you and to get the better of you then you will always lose no matter what.
> 
> Chuck Norris said it best that when you learn to conquer yourself then anything is possible and Bruce Lee proved that time and time again. Bruce did not care about whether he was popular or not. All that he cared about what the truth and that is something that people would do well to learn about and to implement in their lives as Bruce knew like Chuck Norris that you are your worst enemy and that you need to learn how to get out of your own way if you are going to improve and to be good at anything in life.
> 
> This is what I meant about parroting. Bruce wanted success as an actor first and foremost. He started as a child actor, in a show business family in Hong Kong. He definately wanted to be popular! That's his reality, you seem to want to read something different, that's cool, but it doesn't make it real.
> 
> If someone here wants to challenge the wisdom of people like Bruce Lee then go and dig him up, bring him back to life and challenge him to a fight. Somehow though I seriously doubt that is possible and even if it were possible I know that very few people on this forum would be able to beat Bruce Lee in a real fight.
> 
> Based on his movies, I guess... But seriously, you are honestly suggesing we "dig him up and bring him back to life"? And you "seriously doubt that it is possible"? Dude, how far into your delusions are you?
> 
> Bruce like the ninja knew that each and every style had it's strengths and it's weaknesses and that why Bruce trained as much as he did trying to learn from every source that he could as he wanted to develop himself and to prove to himself that he could do anything that he put his mind to no matter what other people said or thought about him. For him nothing was impossible.
> 
> Okay, that is completely wrong. Bruce was interested in finding his own way. Ninjutsu is a singular system, not a collection of bits and pieces from other arts. Not the same thing at all. That just shows that you have no real knowledge or understanding of what the ninja were/are, or what ninjutsu was/is.
> 
> Finally, you may want to choose a better target than someone who spent time when you go here attempting to help you, as you are not coming off well. Those here who have studied, trained, learnt, traveled, bled, and sweat this life have pointed out that you have a long way to go. A classic strategy of Sun Tzu was to choose your battles and your battleground, you may have missed that one.


----------



## Bruno@MT

rdonovan1 said:


> If a guy does not stand up for himself and assert himself then he is basically reducing himself and making himself look like a complete wus as he apparently does not have the courage to stand up for himself and to defend himself at all.



Ooh. ooh.

Yep that's me. Whenever it looks like there is going to trouble, or whenever people make me uncomfortable, I quietly leave. The least likely thing I am to do is to 'assert myself' aka being a dumbass. And so far, that strategy has worked and I have never been in a fight outside of MA context. It doesn't happen often, but if it does I have no problem swallowing my pride.

Fighting is a good solution if there is no other option left. Pride and ego are among the stupidest, most dumbass reasons to fight. Survival is all that matters. If there is no other option left, I'll fight for my life and we'll have to see if I survive. However, if I can survive by walking away, I am more than happy enough to take that option instead. I prefer to be the wuss who got home to continue being a father and husband.


----------



## Bruno@MT

rdonovan1 said:


> If someone here wants to challenge the wisdom of people like Bruce Lee then go and dig him up, bring him back to life and challenge him to a fight. Somehow though I seriously doubt that is possible and even if it were possible I know that very few people on this forum would be able to beat Bruce Lee in a real fight.



Dunno. After all that time underground he is bound to be a bit rusty and out of practise.


----------



## Grenadier

rdonovan1 said:


> No, I don't have a degree in psychology and I don't need one either. Saying that you need a degree in psychology in order to learn and to improve yourself is like saying that you have to have a medical degree just to eat and use the restroom.


 
You are comparing apples and oranges here. 

If someone wanted to practice psychology in a professional sense, then it only makes sense that he should have a degree in such. If someone wants to practice medicine in a professional sense, then he should have a medical degree from some accredited institution, else no board is going to certify him. 

The same holds true for martial arts. I would hope that you would at least have a significant level of formal training, in order to be making such statements, since there is _*nothing* _in this world that will replace formal training under a competent instructor. 

Now, maybe for someone with an exceptionally high IQ, and a natural gift for the martial arts, perhaps he can "figure it out" on his own, or with videos to help, but let's face it; very few of us (using "us" to define the whole population of martial artists) are capable of such learning. Even if we were, we would still learn much more quickly by having live instruction.


----------



## Omar B

rdonovan1 said:


> Based upon what people have been saying here I think that would be difficult to do because so far all that I have heard are reasons as to why one should run away and to not fight at.
> 
> The basic message that I have been getting is one based upon fear.
> 
> Like everyone else I believe in trying to avoid a fight whenever possible, but unlike a lot of people I don't believe in running away from a fight.
> 
> If someone is truly intent on hurting you, then you have no choice but to fight back and that applies not just to physical attacks, but also to psychological, emotional, and verbal attacks and that is why it is best to learn as much as you can so that you can protect and defend yourself.
> 
> If a guy does not stand up for himself and assert himself then he is basically reducing himself and making himself look like a complete wus as he apparently does not have the courage to stand up for himself and to defend himself at all. That is the kind of mentallity that muggers and terrorists are looking for as their whole purpose is to produce fear in you so that you will not stand up to them and fight back at all.



Why do you think leaving the situation would be difficult to do?  Can't walk?

_If someone is truly intent on hurting you, then you have no choice but to fight back and that applies not just to physical attacks, but also to psychological, emotional, and verbal attacks and that is why it is best to learn as much as you can so that you can protect and defend yourself._  This comes off as quite childish and dangerous.  Are we to go out there and beat up everyone who does not like us, speaks ill of us or has a low opinion of us?  If that were true we would be locked in never ending battle.  If it does not attack your physical person it should be like water off a duck's back, you've gotta be made of sterner stuff and be able to not fly off in an emotional rage anytime someone calls your an a-hole.  This is a very teenaged attitude thinking what someone else says about you should affect you to that level and shows a deep flaw in character if you are an adult or immaturity if you are still young.  I'm a journalist and a New Yorker, jeeze, if I were to live by your rules I would live with hands constantly damp from blood.

_If a guy does not stand up for himself and assert himself then he is basically reducing himself and making himself look like a complete wus as he apparently does not have the courage to stand up for himself and to defend himself at all. That is the kind of mentallity that muggers and terrorists are looking for as their whole purpose is to produce fear in you so that you will not stand up to them and fight back at all._  Actually, you are the one coming across as if he's wuss and ruled by fear if you need to back respond to every ill word, look or thought with violence.  This is the same mentality that betrays a deep seated weakness and insecurity that will get you robbed.

As I've said before, your every post seems to betray your utter lack of knowledge on the subject of karate and martial arts as a whole.  Digesting magazines, DVDs and websites and being able to babbit quotes don't make you knowledgable, they make you a parrot.


----------



## celtic_crippler

rdonovan1 said:


> I'm just curious as to how everyone might handle someone who is built like Andre the Giant and who is so doped up that he can't feel anything.
> 
> What techniques would you use to take down a guy that is built like that or worse and who is either so far out of their mind or so doped up that they can't feel anything and who really does not care about what happens to you.
> 
> As far as he is concerned you are a worm and he wants to separate your head from your body using any tactic or technique that he can do so.


 
Are we assuming that I don't have my gun on me for some reason? 

Break his collar bone. Shatter his knee. Hit him in the throat. Doesn't matter if he feels pain from it or not, physiologically he will no longer be a threat.


----------



## CoryKS

rdonovan1 said:


> If someone is truly intent on hurting you, then you have no choice but to fight back and that applies not just to physical attacks, *but also to psychological, emotional, and verbal attacks* and that is why it is best to learn as much as you can so that you can protect and defend yourself.
> 
> If a guy does not stand up for himself and assert himself then he is basically reducing himself and making himself look like a complete wus as he apparently does not have the courage to stand up for himself and to defend himself at all. That is the kind of mentallity that muggers and terrorists are looking for as their whole purpose is to produce fear in you so that you will not stand up to them and fight back at all.


 
It sounds to me like you have elevated monkeydancing to the status of self defense.  This is a troubling viewpoint, as it virtually guarantees that you will respond disproportionately to any perceived affront.


----------



## celtic_crippler

CoryKS said:


> It sounds to me like you have elevated monkeydancing to the status of self defense. This is a troubling viewpoint, as it virtually guarantees that you will respond disproportionately to any perceived affront.


 
Hey! I happen to like dancing like a monkey. :headbangin:


----------



## Omar B

Hey, if we are gonna start dancing all fancy let me know!  Let me just say I consider myself to be the greatest dancer on this planet, and at least 3 others.


----------



## CoryKS

celtic_crippler said:


> Hey! I happen to like dancing like a monkey. :headbangin:


 
It's only self defense for the people dancing _around_ you.


----------



## CoryKS

FYI for anyone who hasn't read "Meditations on Violence" yet.

Monkey Dance


----------



## jks9199

CoryKS said:


> FYI for anyone who hasn't read "Meditations on Violence" yet.
> 
> Monkey Dance


That's a great link, with a lot of really good information and very well worth taking the time to read it.

But, for those who (like me) often don't click links...  The Monkey Dance refers to the large number of "fights" that aren't really about hurting and being hurt; they're about protecting ego, showing dominance, and proving manhood.  They're posturing, not really fighting, in other words.  A Monkey Dance only happens when both parties feel like they've got something to prove.  And Monkey Dances end when the parties don't have anything left to prove...  

A real fight isn't about proving status; it's about destroying an enemy before they can destroy you.  Rory Miller describes it well with his 4 truths: real violence happens closer, more suddenly, faster, and a more powerfully than we are conditioned to expect.

It's the difference between a mob assault/gang beat down and a "friendly bar fight."


----------



## celtic_crippler

CoryKS said:


> It's only self defense for the people dancing _around_ you.


 
You must've observed me in the mosh pit.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

rdonovan1 said:


> I'm not dodging anything. I just simply don't have the time to spend all of my waking hours on this or any other forum as I have an actual life outside of this forum and away from the computer.


Apparently not, as you went on to post a multiple paragraph response to someone else after you made this non-response, and numerous lengthy responses to others here.  In fact, your posts on this thread far outnumber my own.

You obviously have no answer because you have no knowledge base from which to formulate one.  Otherwise, you would have answered me by now.  

Good day.

Daniel


----------



## Omar B

celtic_crippler said:


> You must've observed me in the mosh pit.



We moshing now!  Let me go change my shirt, I don't wanna get blood on this one.
*
Slayer!*


----------



## Shotokan_

I do agree with the fact that sometimes karate thought in karate schools that practice soft competition style karate can be uneffective, but, we do have to separate these terms here: Modern and Original Karate.
They are two different worlds.
I've seen and as the matter of fact, I have some videos that are probably 4 or more decades old. Those videos show TRUE karate masters in their fifties fighting FOR REAL. I am telling you, I've been in karate for more than 17 years, but I've never seen stances to perfect and pure, or the punches and kicks so fast, accurate and powerful, and this was a real fight, not kata. This was original, true karate in a real combat situation.

People today want to learn how to be some supehuman martial artist over night. It takes years and years, and some even never get there. Take KUJI KIRI for example... Ninjas pracite this technique to perfect their mind and gain abilities that are considered to be superpowers, something that can only be seen on a movie. I know that those abilities are true, but when you tell somebody that he has to practice these techniques that are exremely dangerous to practice, and that he has to practice them for decades before he gains results, he will probably say, DUDE, YOU ARE A FOOL... 
Same thing is with karate... It has to be practiced EVERY DAY, for a long time, until those movements become the part of your body, your mind. Only then, they will become effective. That is why all these martial arts are called DO, The way, Path,.... You have to follow it. Karate in it's origins is a perfect weapon...


----------



## blindsage

Shotokan_ said:


> Karate in it's origins is a perfect weapon...


So not Shotokan then.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

One of the problems with this discussion and the sales pitch disguised as an article is that nobody ever names any particular ryus of karate.  They just say, 'karate' with no qualifications.  When asked, the question is dodged.

Daniel


----------



## K-man

Shotokan_ said:


> I do agree with the fact that sometimes karate thought in karate schools that practice soft competition style karate can be uneffective, but, we do have to separate these terms here: Modern and Original Karate.
> They are two different worlds.
> I've seen and as the matter of fact, I have some videos that are probably 4 or more decades old. Those videos show TRUE karate masters in their fifties fighting FOR REAL. I am telling you, I've been in karate for more than 17 years, but I've never seen stances to perfect and pure, or the punches and kicks so fast, accurate and powerful, and this was a real fight, not kata. This was original, true karate in a real combat situation.
> 
> People today want to learn how to be some supehuman martial artist over night. It takes years and years, and some even never get there. Take KUJI KIRI for example... Ninjas pracite this technique to perfect their mind and gain abilities that are considered to be superpowers, something that can only be seen on a movie. I know that those abilities are true, but when you tell somebody that he has to practice these techniques that are exremely dangerous to practice, and that he has to practice them for decades before he gains results, he will probably say, DUDE, YOU ARE A FOOL...
> Same thing is with karate... It has to be practiced EVERY DAY, for a long time, until those movements become the part of your body, your mind. Only then, they will become effective. That is why all these martial arts are called DO, The way, Path,.... You have to follow it. Karate in it's origins is a perfect weapon...


Unfortunately a number of excellent posts were lost when the website was upgraded a week or two ago. Discussion included what is traditional karate.

So I will put my neck on the block.

Traditional karate to me is karate that was practised on Okinawa prior to 1900. After that time karate was introduced into Japanese schools and was sanitised. Any advanced techniques that were taught in Japan were never passed on to Westerners. 
I do not dispute that you may have some interesting video of some people using hard karate techniques some 40 or so years ago but I would suggest that they were NOT True karate masters. There is some film of some masters performing some techniques but the masters were very selective as to whom they even taught the real meanings of their art. My mind cannot even contemplate true karate masters being filmed in a real combat situation.

Now you may have been training your karate for 17 years but I would doubt you have seen much traditional karate. What you are calling original is the stuff many of us cut our teeth on 20, 30 or 40 years ago and although it may have been hard, it was not traditional and was largely aimed at the sport market. That is the karate that the article is quite right in saying may not be effective in the street scenario. 




> Those videos show TRUE karate masters in their fifties fighting FOR REAL. I am telling you, I've been in karate for more than 17 years, but I've never seen stances to perfect and pure, or the punches and kicks so fast, accurate and powerful, and this was a real fight, not kata. This was original, true karate in a real combat situation.


Kata was never designed to use in a real fight. It is a number of techniques in a sequence to preserve the essence of a fighting system. Each technique is to be used separately as the situation demands. The kata reminds us of the technique and how we should apply it. Any real fight will include multiple strikes or kicks, most of which will be found in kata. 



> That is why all these martial arts are called DO, The way, Path,.... You have to follow it. Karate in it's origins is a perfect weapon...


Karate DO is not the original karate. Karate JUTSU was the original and traditional karate and thanks to many people like Patrick McCarthy, Iain Abernethy, Earle Montaque, Evan Pantazi, Geoff Thompson and others, we are slowly learning something about traditional karate.

Now just a quick comment on KUJI KIRI. 



> People today want to learn how to be some supehuman martial artist over night. It takes years and years, and some even never get there. Take KUJI KIRI for example... Ninjas pracite this technique to perfect their mind and gain abilities that are considered to be superpowers, something that can only be seen on a movie. I know that those abilities are true, but when you tell somebody that he has to practice these techniques that are exremely dangerous to practice, and that he has to practice them for decades before he gains results, he will probably say, DUDE, YOU ARE A FOOL...


Dude .. not even I believe in magic!!


----------



## TimoS

K-man said:


> Traditional karate to me is karate that was practised on Okinawa prior to 1900. After that time karate was introduced into Japanese schools and was sanitised. Any advanced techniques that were taught in Japan were never passed on to Westerners


IMO, you need to distinguish between japanese karate and okinawan karate. Many okinawan styles haven't changed that much. The japanese karate, on the other hand, quite soon after the introduction, started focusing on competitions, thus making the study of kata "unnecessary". The kata became, as one of my friends calls it, "ugly dances", i.e. series of movements without any function. This was not so on Okinawa. There the kata remained the central element of the systems (probably not all, I'll give you that). Now as for westerners never learning any "advanced techniques", well, maybe that was because a) they were also more focused on competition karate and b) they weren't studying all that long, maybe a few years at most (and some of them never came back to Japan/Okinawa). I was just a couple of weeks ago in Okinawa for the Okinawa traditional karatedo world tournament and attended some seminars there. When I was in Joen Nakazato's seminar and there they demonstrated kata Passai and some of the applications to it. While it looks somewhat different than what we do in Seibukan, it was interesting to note that the bunkai was still the same. Coincidence? Of course not! After all, Zenryo Shimabukuro and Joen Nakazato shared a teacher: Chotoku Kyan. Of course you can say that, well Kyan started his karate training before this magical 1900, which is true, but why would he not teach his students what he knew? And why would they not pass it on to others? At least to those who stuck around long enough to learn something. 
Or are you saying that people like Morio Higaonna, Zenpo Shimabukuro, Shuguro Nakazato, Ryoko Tomoyose etc. etc. don't know a thing about real karate?


----------



## Makalakumu

TimoS said:


> IMO, you need to distinguish between japanese karate and okinawan karate. Many okinawan styles haven't changed that much. The japanese karate, on the other hand, quite soon after the introduction, started focusing on competitions, thus making the study of kata "unnecessary". The kata became, as one of my friends calls it, "ugly dances", i.e. series of movements without any function. This was not so on Okinawa. There the kata remained the central element of the systems (probably not all, I'll give you that). Now as for westerners never learning any "advanced techniques", well, maybe that was because a) they were also more focused on competition karate and b) they weren't studying all that long, maybe a few years at most (and some of them never came back to Japan/Okinawa). I was just a couple of weeks ago in Okinawa for the Okinawa traditional karatedo world tournament and attended some seminars there. When I was in Joen Nakazato's seminar and there they demonstrated kata Passai and some of the applications to it. While it looks somewhat different than what we do in Seibukan, it was interesting to note that the bunkai was still the same. Coincidence? Of course not! After all, Zenryo Shimabukuro and Joen Nakazato shared a teacher: Chotoku Kyan. Of course you can say that, well Kyan started his karate training before this magical 1900, which is true, but why would he not teach his students what he knew? And why would they not pass it on to others? At least to those who stuck around long enough to learn something.
> Or are you saying that people like Morio Higaonna, Zenpo Shimabukuro, Shuguro Nakazato, Ryoko Tomoyose etc. etc. don't know a thing about real karate?



While it may be true in some cases for Okinawan Karate, it's not true in all.  In fact, I very much agree with Patrick McCarthy on this, from what I've seen and studied, there seems to have been quite a bit of back flow of Japanese Karate elements into Okinawa.  I think many of the dojos may have changed things to placate the JKA and other organizations for nationalistic and economic reasons.


----------



## TimoS

maunakumu said:


> While it may be true in some cases for Okinawan Karate, it's not true in all.  In fact, I very much agree with Patrick McCarthy on this, from what I've seen and studied, there seems to have been quite a bit of back flow of Japanese Karate elements into Okinawa.  I think many of the dojos may have changed things to placate the JKA and other organizations for nationalistic and economic reasons.


Based on what I've heard, it is sad but true. In Okinawa, there are some excellent instructors, but also some that aren't worth anything and who will basically sell you a new higher rank. 
Mind you, some things that have come from Japan to Okinawa aren't necessarily bad things. The way I see it, one thing that has come from there is the standardization of techniques, which makes it easier to teach larger classes, e.g. beginners. Of course I don't mean any "global" standard, that all the styles do things the same way, but within a school.


----------



## K-man

TimoS said:


> IMO, you need to distinguish between japanese karate and okinawan karate. Many okinawan styles haven't changed that much. The japanese karate, on the other hand, quite soon after the introduction, started focusing on competitions, thus making the study of kata "unnecessary". The kata became, as one of my friends calls it, "ugly dances", i.e. series of movements without any function. This was not so on Okinawa. There the kata remained the central element of the systems (probably not all, I'll give you that). Now as for westerners never learning any "advanced techniques", well, maybe that was because a) they were also more focused on competition karate and b) they weren't studying all that long, maybe a few years at most (and some of them never came back to Japan/Okinawa). I was just a couple of weeks ago in Okinawa for the Okinawa traditional karatedo world tournament and attended some seminars there. When I was in Joen Nakazato's seminar and there they demonstrated kata Passai and some of the applications to it. While it looks somewhat different than what we do in Seibukan, it was interesting to note that the bunkai was still the same. Coincidence? Of course not! After all, Zenryo Shimabukuro and Joen Nakazato shared a teacher: Chotoku Kyan. Of course you can say that, well Kyan started his karate training before this magical 1900, which is true, but why would he not teach his students what he knew? And why would they not pass it on to others? At least to those who stuck around long enough to learn something.
> Or are you saying that people like Morio Higaonna, Zenpo Shimabukuro, Shuguro Nakazato, Ryoko Tomoyose etc. etc. don't know a thing about real karate?


 
As you rightly point out, I should have differentiated between Japanese Karate and Okinawan Karate. I believe the Okinawan karate IS the traditional karate and I question whether the Okinawans taught the Japanese everything they knew, especially regarding the applications of the kata.

Now the men you mentioned:

Chotoku Kyan obviously was a master and studied under Ankoh Itosu, Kosaku Matsumora and Kokan Oyadomori. His student was Zenryo Shimabukuro and he obviously passed on his knowledge to his son, Zenpo Shimabukuro. As Kyan died prematurely we do not know if he had had time to pass on all his knowledge to Zenryo but lets say that he did. 

Morio Higaonna is Okinawan and has obviously been in the right place to train with the right people and develop into the highly respected karateka he is today.

Shugoro Nakazato is also Okinawan, trained under Choshin Chibana, a student of Anko Itosu. He too obviously is one of the worlds top karateka.

Im not familiar with Ryoko Tomoyose except to note that his lineage is directly to Okinawa and China.

Nothing here is to say that there are no top Japanese Karateka, there obviously are. But, were they handed the knowledge in their initial training? I have my doubts. I think men like Gogen Yamaguchi, even thought he trained for a short time under Chojun Miyagi, were not taught all the secrets and achieved most of their knowledge by diligently studying other MAs.

I believe there is now a general movement around the world to gain more knowledge of the traditional karate and many like you are training in Okinawa. I dont believe it is coincidence that the pilgrimage is to Okinawa and not Japan.

Now, I cant speak for other countries, in Australia there are many schools teaching the same karate that we learnt years ago. The explanations are the same and as a result many people believe karate is not relevant as a SD mechanism. It is totally different to the karate you are training in Okinawa.

As to whether teachers teach all they know. I think most probably do, but is that an indication of the lack of knowledge passed on to them?

Personally, as you will have seen in my posts, I believe that karate, studied properly, has every tool we need for SD. :asian:


----------



## TimoS

K-man said:


> Chotoku Kyan obviously was a master and studied under Ankoh Itosu


Sorry, my pet peeve, but Kyan most certainly did not study with Itosu. His teachers were: Chofu Kyan (his father), Sokon Matsumura, Chiku Maeda, Kokan Oyadomari, Kosaku Matsumora, Yara and whoever he learned Tokumine-no-kun from (apparently not Tokumine himself, since he was dead by the time Kyan came there)


----------



## K-man

TimoS said:


> Sorry, my pet peeve, but Kyan most certainly did not study with Itosu. His teachers were: Chofu Kyan (his father), Sokon Matsumura, Chiku Maeda, Kokan Oyadomari, Kosaku Matsumora, Yara and whoever he learned Tokumine-no-kun from (apparently not Tokumine himself, since he was dead by the time Kyan came there)



Sorry but my reference says that he studied under Ankoh Itosu when he began training in about 1890, along with Kosaku Matsumora and Kokan Oyadomari.

http://ejmas.com/jks/jcsart_noble_0800.htm


----------



## K-man

K-man said:


> Sorry but my reference says that he studied under Ankoh Itosu when he began training in about 1890, along with Kosaku Matsumora and Kokan Oyadomari.
> 
> http://ejmas.com/jks/jcsart_noble_0800.htm



Sorry typo:   http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_noble_0800.htm


----------



## TimoS

K-man said:


> Sorry but my reference says that he studied under Ankoh Itosu when he began training in about 1890, along with Kosaku Matsumora and Kokan Oyadomari.
> 
> http://ejmas.com/jks/jcsart_noble_0800.htm


OK, in that case, where in Kyan's karate can we see the influence of Itosu? Kyan taught these kata: Seisan, Ananku, Wansu, Passai, Gojushiho, Chinto, Kusanku and Tokumine no kun. As you can see, no Pinan, no e.g. Kusanku Sho and Dai, only one version of each kata. We know where each kata came from: Seisan and Gojushiho from Matsumura, Ananku was his own creation, Wansu from Maeda, Chinto from Matsumora, Kusanku from Yara and Tokumine-no-kun from someone who learned it from Tokumine. Also, keep in mind that the only Kyan's student to make this connection was Shoshin Nagamine. E.g. Zenryo Shimabukuro and Joen Nakazato both deny the connection. Also Itosu's own student, Chibana, said that Kyan did not study karate with Itosu. Coming back to Pinan kata, while they are in e.g. Seibukan now, they did not come from Kyan. They were taught to Zenpo Shimabukuro, along with Naihanci 1-3, Passai Guwa and Jion kata by Chozo Nakama, who was, I believe, Chibana's student.
Also, if you read the article you linked further, it says:


> Kyan is usually given in karate genealogies as a student of Itosu but generally his kata are quite different from the Itosu versions so I don't think the teaching here can have been very extensive. It is notable that Choshin Chibana, in listing Itosu's students, did not name Kyan. Instead Chibana referred to Kyan as a student of Oyadomari.


So again, if Kyan's karate is very different from Itosu's karate, where is Itosu's influence to be seen?


----------



## blackxpress

These threads are so dumb.  Every MA forum on the internet is covered up with posts about how this that or the other art is ineffective on the street.  And, every time it comes up the standard reply is that it depends on the instructor, the student and how they train, etc., which is true of course.  In my case, I was a good fighter before I ever started training in MA.  I've trained in Shito Ryu, Wadoryu, Ryu Kyu Kempo, JJJ, BJJ and a little (just a little mind you) Judo.  These days I train strictly in Shito Ryu and love every minute of it.  I'm a whole lot better fighter now than before I started training.  I'm stronger, faster, more flexible.  But I didn't start training so I could be a better fighter so much as because I've always been interested in karate.  I took up karate as a way to improve myself physically and mentally and I'm happy to say I haven't been disappointed.  I'm 52 yrs. old and in better shape than a lot of guys half my age.  

As for self-defense, I haven't had to use my karate in a real situation.  I'm 6'5" tall and a little skinny at 210 lbs.  There aren't very many people who would choose to attack a guy my size one on one.  If it ever does happen I feel relatively confident in my ability to make him wish to God he'd picked someone else.  But then, I could've done that before I started training.  I'm not really all that worried about self defense.  If I was, I'd buy a gun!


----------



## Makalakumu

TimoS said:


> Based on what I've heard, it is sad but true. In Okinawa, there are some excellent instructors, but also some that aren't worth anything and who will basically sell you a new higher rank.
> 
> Mind you, some things that have come from Japan to Okinawa aren't necessarily bad things. The way I see it, one thing that has come from there is the standardization of techniques, which makes it easier to teach larger classes, e.g. beginners. Of course I don't mean any "global" standard, that all the styles do things the same way, but within a school.



One of the strongest bits of Japanese influence that made its way into Okinawan Karate was the system of teach: the kihon, kata, and kumite model was a method that originated in Kendo and was incorporated into Shotokan by Gigo Funakoshi.

The model isn't necessarily bad as long as all of the elements truly connect.  The problem is that in many karate-based arts, they don't.  Thus, the substance of this thread, the primary criticism that "karate is not effective"  is true in some cases.  

The overarching teaching model can be effective if all of its elements are directed toward an objective of self defense.


----------



## TimoS

maunakumu said:


> The model isn't necessarily bad as long as all of the elements truly connect


Exactly, which is why some of my friends don't talk so much about kihon, kata, kumite. Rather it's kata, kata, kata, meaning that everything is or let's say should be connected to kata.


----------



## K-man

TimoS said:


> OK, in that case, where in Kyan's karate can we see the influence of Itosu? Kyan taught these kata: Seisan, Ananku, Wansu, Passai, Gojushiho, Chinto, Kusanku and Tokumine no kun. As you can see, no Pinan, no e.g. Kusanku Sho and Dai, only one version of each kata. We know where each kata came from: Seisan and Gojushiho from Matsumura, Ananku was his own creation, Wansu from Maeda, Chinto from Matsumora, Kusanku from Yara and Tokumine-no-kun from someone who learned it from Tokumine. Also, keep in mind that the only Kyan's student to make this connection was Shoshin Nagamine. E.g. Zenryo Shimabukuro and Joen Nakazato both deny the connection. Also Itosu's own student, Chibana, said that Kyan did not study karate with Itosu. Coming back to Pinan kata, while they are in e.g. Seibukan now, they did not come from Kyan. They were taught to Zenpo Shimabukuro, along with Naihanci 1-3, Passai Guwa and Jion kata by Chozo Nakama, who was, I believe, Chibana's student.
> Also, if you read the article you linked further, it says:
> 
> So again, if Kyan's karate is very different from Itosu's karate, where is Itosu's influence to be seen?


Peace brother. I have no issue here. I am happy to accept what you say. I am just passing mention of what I have read. Another article says he _started_ with Itosu. That would make sense as how many kata would you be taught in a short time with a master? The reason I mentioned Itosu on the first place was purely to establish the man's credibility. 
My initial experience is with Goju from Japan and it has suffered a great deal in the process of 'sanitising'. That is why my interest is in the Okinawan teaching.
The thread relates to 'traditional' karate and my opinion is that, in the main, Japanese karate is not 'traditional'. Basically it moved into the schools early in the 1900s and many of the more advanced applications were never taught. That is not to say there were not practitioners in Japan practising 'traditional' karate but they were few and far between. This, I believe, was when the big change from karate-jutsu to karate-do occurred. Much of the karate imported to the West came via Japan and had an intense competitive flavour as is the Western way of having to prove ourselves better than the next person. :asian:


----------



## TimoS

K-man said:


> Peace brother. I have no issue here. I am happy to accept what you say. I am just passing mention of what I have read. Another article says he _started_ with Itosu. That would make sense as how many kata would you be taught in a short time with a master?


But you see, that's the thing: he didn't start with Itosu, he started with his father, Kyan Chofu, who was, to the best of my knowledge, Matsumura's student. Itosu is often mentioned as his teacher, but there is no evidence to support it. Like I said, if Chibana and with the exception of Nagamine, all of Kyan's students said that Kyan didn't study with Itosu, I just have to wonder why it is still so often quoted as a fact that Itosu was (one of) Kyan's sensei. They were both Shorin stylists, but from different lineage.


----------



## K-man

TimoS said:


> But you see, that's the thing: he didn't start with Itosu, he started with his father, Kyan Chofu, who was, to the best of my knowledge, Matsumura's student. Itosu is often mentioned as his teacher, but there is no evidence to support it. Like I said, if Chibana and with the exception of Nagamine, all of Kyan's students said that Kyan didn't study with Itosu, I just have to wonder why it is still so often quoted as a fact that Itosu was (one of) Kyan's sensei. They were both Shorin stylists, but from different lineage.


 


> Wikipedia (Not that I believe all I read here)
> Kyan's father is noted as possibly having a background in karate and even teaching Kyan tegumi in his early years. When Kyan was 20 years old, he began his karate training under Ankoh Itosu, Kosaku Matsumora and Kokan Oyadomori. While at 30 years of age, he was considered a master of the karate styles known as Shuri-te and Tomari-te. The most long time student of Kyan was Zenryo Shimabukuro, who studied with Kyan for over 10 years. Kyan is also noted for encouraging his students to visit brothels and to engage in alcohil consumption at various times.
> Kyan was a participant in the 1936 meeting of Okinawan masters, where the term "karate" was standardized, and other far-reaching decisions were made regarding martial arts of the island at the time.





> By Graham Noble
> _Editor's note: An earlier version of this article appeared in Fighting Arts International and is reprinted by permission of Graham Noble. For additional information about Kyan and his methods, _see _Mark Bishop, Okinawan Karate: Teachers, Styles, and Secret Techniques (London: A. & C. Black, 1989), 79-82, and "The Karate of Chotoku Kyan: We Interview the Seibukan's Zenpo Shimabukuro Sensei," Dragon Times, 16 (2000), 13._
> Chofu Kyan, a cultivated man with knowledge of both Chinese and Japanese literature, had been opposed to Japan's takeover of Okinawa. Hoshu Ikeda has in his possession a petition against the Japanese measures, and one of the seven signatories is Kyan. He was a traditionalist who did not want the old ways to die out, and it seems that it was he who kindled Chotoku Kyan's enthusiasm for karate. According to Gichin Funakoshi in _Karate-do Nyumon_, Chofu Kyan himself had some knowledge of _te_, but although he trained his young son in wrestling (probably Okinawan sumo) to toughen him up, he entrusted the teaching of karate forms to others. Shoshin Nagamine believes that this was because he was too fond of Chotoku to train him the correct, severe way. Anyway, at age 20, Chotoku Kyan was put under the tutelage of famous experts: Kokan Oyadomari, Kosaku Matsumora, and Ankoh Itosu.
> http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_noble_0800.htm





> Mississippi Isshinryu Karate
> Kyan was known in Okinawa as 'Chan mig-wa' or 'small-eyed Kyan', and was known by this nickname because his eyes were small and weak. Despite this handicap, he went on to become a great master. In fact, he was one of the most knowledgeable masters of his time, as he studied both the Shuri-te and the Tomari-te styles of karate. He studied Shuri-te from Sokon Matsumura and Anko Itosu and studied Tomari-te from Oyadomari _Pechin_, Maeda _Pechin_ and Kosaku Matsumora. Kyan's teaching combined the elements of both of these styles of karate, with his students originally calling his system 'migwa-te', but later it became known as 'Sukunaihayashi-ryu'.
> 
> http://www.msisshinryu.com/masters/kyan/





> Okinawan Karate Research Centre
> Having the recommendations from his father (who as many members of the King family took much time in practicing martial arts and had good connections with many Okinawan karate masters) Chotoku Kyan took lessons from the most prominent Masters of that time: Sokon Matsumura, Anko Itosu, Yara Chatan, Kosaku Matsumura, and also Maeda and Tokumine.
> http://www.edbis.com/ekyan.htm





> The International Budo Institute
> It is known that Chofu Kyan (Chotoku's father) was a cultivated man having studied both Chinese and Japanese literature. It is also believed that he was the one who interested Chotoku Kyan's in karate. However, Chofu Kyan felt that his love for his son would prevent him from adequately teaching Chotoku and so left the training up to other masters. When Chotoku turned 20 years old he became a student of Kokan Oyadomari, Kosaku Matsumora and Ankoh Itosu.
> http://i-budo.org/content/view/265/127/





> Munndialarts
> Master _Chotoku Kyan_ (1870-1945) was born in a noble family of the island of _Okinawa_, Japan. Very early, his father, _Chofu Kyan_, who was a karate adept, imposed re-enforcement exercises on him to fortify his body and mind. Thereafter, thanks in part to the social position of his family, he received the instruction of several great masters of the time like _Sokon Matsumura_ (1809-1899), _Anko itosu_ (1830-1915) _and K. Oyatomari_ (1831-1905). Master _Kyan_ was very small in size but very effective in combat. He received the name _chan mi gua_ (small-eyed Kyan).
> http://munndialarts.com/english/?p=89





> Brattleboro School of Budo
> Chotoku Kyan was born in December 1870 (Meiji 3) at Shun Gihomura as the third son of Chofu Kyan the eleventh generation of King ShoSei under the fourth period of King ShoSei at Ryukyu. &nbspHis father was the important retainer of the Lord Shotai who lived in Tokyo as the final King of the Ryukyus. His father was well trained in the art of Okinawa te and was an authority of both the Chinese and Japanese classics. Choto Kyan was taken to Tokyo by his father at the age of 13. &nbspThere he studied the Chinese Classics at the Nisho School until he was 16 years old. He was small and weak compared to his father. Chofu Kyan worried about his sons physical condition so he trained his son in the art of Sumo Wrestling.
> After Chofu Kyans tour of service in Japan ended, he and his son Chotoku went back to Okinawa and lived in a small house at Hoko between Shun and Mawashi. When Chotoku became 20 years old, his father asked the great Shuri-te masters Sobi Matsumura and Ankoh Itosu of Shuri Yamakura-mura to teach his son Shuri-te. Chofu also sought the guidance of the great Tomari-te master Koken Oyadomari to help round off Chotokus training and physical conditioning.
> http://www.brattleboroschoolofbudo.com/budohistory.htm


As I said before, I am happy to take your word for it as I have no great knowledge in this area. Some sites mention Itosu as his teacher, some don't. The ones that don't seem to say he trained under every great teacher available so what is to say he didn't train under Itosu for a short period, even if Itosu had no great influence. Why would his students know all the men he studied under? I'm sorry, this is all just a diversion from the thread on 'traditional' karate. Can we at least agree that 'traditional' karate, as practised by these gentlemen, is effective for self defence? :asian:


----------



## IncanKa

Sounds like somebody has an axe to grind with karate.

It's hard to start pointing out what is wrong with this analysis of the sport, since he demonstrates a very poor understanding of traditional karate practice. I make no excuses for black belt mills created by split-off schools of karate that don't practice full contact sparring, but from somebody who trains in traditional Okinawan karate and has done for several years, here are some pointers:

1. Stance - the wide stances used in karate kata are not intended for use as fighting stances. Many of these stances were adapted from yoga and are used to condition the muscles in the legs, building a stronger lower body, improving balance and economy of movement and building core strength. During kumite karate practitioners only occasionally adopt wide leg stances, for the rest the emphasis is on speed of movement in and out of range of the opponents body. Sorry pal, if you don't know this then you're not qualified to talk about karate.

2. Kata - kata is where stances are primarily employed. The point of kata is to increase efficiency of movement, balance and strength. Kata is also used to refine technique, ensuring that blocks, kicks and punches do not unbalance the practitioner or result in injury. Most dojos emphasise that students need to be *relaxed* to punch and block with maximum effectiveness, and the most frequent correction I see during kata is for tense, rigid posture. An effective kata practitioner will demonstrate fluid, liquid movements during kata, building a lightning fast, focused technique that is extremely effective in ending fights with a single blow.

3. One strike kill - A karate punch performed at full force by a skilled practitioner is easily capable of killing an individual. Kyokushin practitioners can punch through layers of tiles, bricks and ice and are perfectly capable of crushing the human skull - the main reason head punches are not allowed during sparring in this sport. Strikers to the upper neck can also be lethal. One of the reasons why karate does not always fare well in bouts between different styles is that a number of its strikes are lethal - for instance when being rushed by a brazilian jujitsu black belt, a strike to the neck would most likely end the fight, and the bjj student's life. Furthermore, in traditional karate students would often grow their toenails, allowing them to sever arteries with kicks.

4. Karate does not apply to real world situations - karate can be used to defend against knife and blunt object attacks. Knives and blunt objects have not changed in nature during the last hundred years. A quality dojo will ensure that students are prepared to deal with blocking weapon attacks.

5. Karate takes too long to learn and you still can't fight - full contact dojos encourage sparring from day one, and students are forced to take on higher graded students. I can't think of better way to learn how to fight. An experienced practitioner will do better in a fight - as is the case with any martial art.

Full contact schools also do body conditioning that prepares students to take a punch. The abs, chest, forearms, upper arms, outer leg, inner thighs, instep, shoulders are just some areas that are conditioned so that pain is not a factor during a fight.

Developing and manifesting the incredible elegance of this sport can indeed take a lifetimes study, and this is what makes it a martial _art_. The viper speed, economy of movement and elegance shown by the experienced practitioner is virtually unparalleled in martial arts. (



)

The key to learning karate as both an art and a viable self defence technique is finding a quality dojo rather than a black belt mill. Look out for kyokushin, full contact shotokan and goju kai dojos if you wish to have a taste of traditional karate.


----------



## Tez3

The point of kata is the Bunkai. The point of Bunkai is to have the techniques to defend yourself. That's real life. Anything else is just fooling yourself.


----------



## Bruno@MT

The year 2009 called.
It wants its thread back.


----------



## Tez3

Bruno@MT said:


> The year 2009 called.
> It wants its thread back.


 


LOL, you're right, I was short because I'm tired of the kata is for strengthening your legs, and stances aren't used rubbish.  I'm off for a cuppa.


----------



## K-man

IncanKa said:


> Sounds like somebody has an axe to grind with karate.
> 
> It's hard to start pointing out what is wrong with this analysis of the sport, since he demonstrates a very poor understanding of traditional karate practice. I make no excuses for black belt mills created by split-off schools of karate that don't practice full contact sparring, but from somebody who trains in traditional Okinawan karate and has done for several years, here are some pointers:
> 
> 1. Stance - the wide stances used in karate kata are not intended for use as fighting stances. Many of these stances were adapted from yoga and are used to condition the muscles in the legs, building a stronger lower body, improving balance and economy of movement and building core strength. During kumite karate practitioners only occasionally adopt wide leg stances, for the rest the emphasis is on speed of movement in and out of range of the opponents body. Sorry pal, if you don't know this then you're not qualified to talk about karate.
> 
> 2. Kata - kata is where stances are primarily employed. The point of kata is to increase efficiency of movement, balance and strength. Kata is also used to refine technique, ensuring that blocks, kicks and punches do not unbalance the practitioner or result in injury. Most dojos emphasise that students need to be *relaxed* to punch and block with maximum effectiveness, and the most frequent correction I see during kata is for tense, rigid posture. An effective kata practitioner will demonstrate fluid, liquid movements during kata, building a lightning fast, focused technique that is extremely effective in ending fights with a single blow.
> 
> 3. One strike kill - A karate punch performed at full force by a skilled practitioner is easily capable of killing an individual. Kyokushin practitioners can punch through layers of tiles, bricks and ice and are perfectly capable of crushing the human skull - the main reason head punches are not allowed during sparring in this sport. Strikers to the upper neck can also be lethal. One of the reasons why karate does not always fare well in bouts between different styles is that a number of its strikes are lethal - for instance when being rushed by a brazilian jujitsu black belt, a strike to the neck would most likely end the fight, and the bjj student's life. Furthermore, in traditional karate students would often grow their toenails, allowing them to sever arteries with kicks.
> 
> 4. Karate does not apply to real world situations - karate can be used to defend against knife and blunt object attacks. Knives and blunt objects have not changed in nature during the last hundred years. A quality dojo will ensure that students are prepared to deal with blocking weapon attacks.
> 
> 5. Karate takes too long to learn and you still can't fight - full contact dojos encourage sparring from day one, and students are forced to take on higher graded students. I can't think of better way to learn how to fight. An experienced practitioner will do better in a fight - as is the case with any martial art.
> 
> Full contact schools also do body conditioning that prepares students to take a punch. The abs, chest, forearms, upper arms, outer leg, inner thighs, instep, shoulders are just some areas that are conditioned so that pain is not a factor during a fight.
> 
> Developing and manifesting the incredible elegance of this sport can indeed take a lifetimes study, and this is what makes it a martial _art_. The viper speed, economy of movement and elegance shown by the experienced practitioner is virtually unparalleled in martial arts. (
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> The key to learning karate as both an art and a viable self defence technique is finding a quality dojo rather than a black belt mill. Look out for kyokushin, full contact shotokan and goju kai dojos if you wish to have a taste of traditional karate.


I'm not sure of your background but most of what you have said I probably would have agreed with 30 years ago. 

The OP states ... _"Why *Traditional* Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense"._ 
You say:


> Look out for kyokushin, full contact shotokan and goju kai dojos if you wish to have a taste of *traditional* karate.


 Not one of these is IMO '_traditional_'. Shotokan is probably closest because Funakoshi studied Shorin ryu and Shorei ryu before establishing Shotokan in 1939. Kyokushin was developed by Oyama, a Korean who moved to Japan, studied under Funakoshi and established his style of karate in 1964. Goju Kai, which was my original background, was established by Gogen Yamaguchi in 1929. It is based on Okinawan Goju but like the others developed primarily as sport. None of them practise 'traditional' karate. 
If you read the OP it says "There are two major but disparate approaches to karate, i.e., Okinawan and Japanese styles." The Japanese styles are quite different from Okinawan. 


> It's hard to start pointing out what is wrong with this analysis of the *sport*, since he demonstrates a very poor understanding of *traditional karate practice*. I make no excuses for black belt mills created by split-off schools of karate that don't practice full contact sparring, but *from somebody who trains in traditional Okinawan karate* and has done for several years, here are some pointers:


You say you study Okinawan karate but hold up Japanese karate as the example. What Okinawan karate do you study? Traditional karate was never sport and the Okinawans will be only too happy to point that out to anyone who will listen.

Thank you for the pointers. 
Lets look at number 1.
Maybe I should ask, why do you thing the masters made up all those wacky stances? As you say, you wouldn't use them in a fight. 





> Sorry pal, if you don't know this then you're not qualified to talk about karate.


 Ouch! Those stances are for use in fights. They can be used in the pub brawl but you need a teacher that can show you how they are applied. You see, traditional karate never had tournament sparring. It was always close range. If you were at sparring distance you didn't have to fight. And Okinawan karate doesn't move in and out of range. Once you engage you maintain contact until the fight is over. One technique if it is not blocked, one or two more if it is or if you didn't get it right. Either way the stances are all employed at the appropriate time.

Pointer number 2.
Boy those masters really knew how to waste time. All that time spent on kata when they could have been practising full contact sparring. The fact that each kata was a complete fighting system in itself may have been the reason they thought they were so important.
And as to one punch finishing the fight, look at some of the strikes in MMA. Easier said than done.

Pointer number 3. 
In traditional karate the masters spent hours conditioning the hands an forearms, but toenails to sever arteries in traditional karate? Where did you read about the toenails?
One strike kill. Yes possible but not as easy as you might have thought against an opponent who has other ideas.

Pointer number 4.
Belief that you can use karate against a skilled attacker with a knife will get you killed. Unless you can't escape, don't even try. Just get away. The odds are too high.

Pointer number 5.
Most karate doesn't teach you how to fight. It teaches you how to win a tournament. In the clip you posted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgMNL0GNGT0) the karate guy was dead twice. It took him four attempts to connect with the kick. The first two put him on the ground at his opponent's feet. It won him the tournament but in a real fight against that big bruiser, he would have died.

When you read through the article, it is not about _traditional_ karate. He is talking about sport karate and the way most karate is taught today or as it has been over the past 80 years or so. A lot of what he has to say is unfortunately true, but I still think that he has never seen traditional karate. :asian:


----------



## Tez3

K-man you are a star! Excellent post, it said everything that was bumbling about in my brain but couldn't put down in words. It was also far more polite than was floating around in my head. 

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/what-traditional-karate

I lovethat Iain decribes kata is the DNA of karate.


----------



## Benevolentbob

I find it funny that he bashes Jujutsu only to turn around and somewhat praise the "sport art" of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu when in reality it came from Judo which came from Jujutsu, it's all the same idea really with different interpretations. Also a lot of his history and spelling are horribly wrong. When talking about the traditional Japanese art it's "Jujutsu" not "Jujitsu" or "Jiu-Jitsu". This doesn't help the author's case in coming across as an authority with a background in these arts. I won't argue that it takes a decent amount of time to become competent in something like Karate, but neither will most instructors if you bother to ask. That's why you often hear that attaining Shodan is only the start of your journey in so many traditional schools. 

The author also complains about things such as philosophy and kata. Without aspects such as those you might as well throw the word art right out the window. It sounds like he didn't want to learn a martial art in the first place, but was more looking for a way to go kick some a**. He mentions how people get wrapped up in the concepts of what movies portray which is probably exactly what happened to the author and then his dreams were crushed when he was shown reality. Yes Karate won't turn you into Superman and allow you to take on hundreds of attackers while rescuing that cute girl, nobody ever said that it would. Get over it! 

I will say however, that at least here in the states, that most Karate schools will not teach you to defend yourself. There are many imitations and frauds out there who simply want your money and have no idea what they're doing. Even many of the "legitimate" schools simply teach you how to be good at point sparring and successful in tournaments with hardly any focus on actual self defense. It's an unfortunate state of affairs but this just means that you have to look harder and know exactly what you're getting into when you sign up.


----------



## Steve

Benevolentbob said:


> I find it funny that he bashes Jujutsu only to turn around and somewhat praise the "sport art" of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu when in reality it came from Judo which came from Jujutsu, it's all the same idea really with different interpretations. Also a lot of his history and spelling are horribly wrong. When talking about the traditional Japanese art it's "Jujutsu" not "Jujitsu" or "Jiu-Jitsu". This doesn't help the author's case in coming across as an authority with a background in these arts. I won't argue that it takes a decent amount of time to become competent in something like Karate, but neither will most instructors if you bother to ask. That's why you often hear that attaining Shodan is only the start of your journey in so many traditional schools.


I think it's worth noting that Judo and Jiu Jitsu are still relatively close, but there are significant cultural and technical differences between the two arts.  While they may be derived from a common root, they are more like cousins at this point.  And any resemblance between Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and almost any jujutsu is incidental.  Writing it off as just differences of interpretation is a gross understatement.  The arts differ philosophically, culturally and technically despite common roots.

What irritates me about threads like this is that over and over someone will complain about someone else misrepresenting their art, even as they feel free to misrepresent another art.  If you're an expert on karate, I'd recommend you avoid commenting overly much about other arts.

In return, I will be careful to avoid commenting on the relationship between TKD and Shotokan Karate, or Okinawan Karate and anything else.  Deal?


----------



## Benevolentbob

stevebjj said:


> I think it's worth noting that Judo and Jiu Jitsu are still relatively close, but there are significant cultural and technical differences between the two arts.  While they may be derived from a common root, they are more like cousins at this point.  And any resemblance between Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and almost any jujutsu is incidental.  Writing it off as just differences of interpretation is a gross understatement.  The arts differ philosophically, culturally and technically despite common roots.
> 
> What irritates me about threads like this is that over and over someone will complain about someone else misrepresenting their art, even as they feel free to misrepresent another art.  If you're an expert on karate, I'd recommend you avoid commenting overly much about other arts.
> 
> In return, I will be careful to avoid commenting on the relationship between TKD and Shotokan Karate, or Okinawan Karate and anything else.  Deal?



I'm not an expert on Karate or any other art, nor did I ever claim to be. I participate in a Kempo system that integrates Danzan Ryu Jiu-Jitsu, I also go to a Judo class twice a week, and I love reading about the history and philosophy behind all arts, that's about as close to "expert" as I get. If anything I guess I would call myself an enthusiast. I replied because the author, while focusing on karate, was aiming his point of view on pretty much all traditional arts and I felt his analysis was highly biased and unfair. I never once attacked BJJ in any fashion so I don't understand the hostility here. All I said is that it came from Judo, which came from Jujutsu which is a fact. I think it's ignorant to put aside this lineage and anyone who watches the separate systems closely can easily see the similarities. See how you lumped in Tae Kwon Do, Shotokan Karate, and Okinawan Karate all together? That's exactly what I did with Jujutsu, Judo, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. I don't even understand why we're arguing or why you're behaving so hostile. I wasn't "writing off" anything, I was saying that differences in systems are results from different ideas or interpretations being introduced which is exactly how it happened other it would all still be called Jujutsu. Granted there have been changes made over the years but as you yourself stated, they were all derived from the same root. Do you for whatever reason not like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu being associated with the arts it came from? Or is it because I called it a "sport art"? In which case I was merely using the language that the author used and i feel that Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is just as effective as any other art. Again, I don't see the point in arguing on this.


----------



## K-man

If you had an athlete like Mohammed Ali starting out looking for a martial art. I really can't see him studying Aikido or Taijiquan, but Kyokushin, Wing Chun, Shotokan, Goju, TKD, BJJ, etc, etc, perhaps. Regardless of his choice I'm sure he would be more than able to look after himself on the street. On the other hand, take 20yo Little Billy Meek (5'7" and 120lb wet) from the downtown 7/11 and train him for 10 years in any of our karate schools that are still teaching 'traditional' 60s & 70s stuff and he is likely to be around third dan. (My reference to 'traditional' here refers to the OP definition, not mine.) I would not back him against a 17 yo punk on the street because he wouldn't have a chance. Put Billy into a truly traditional Okinawan school and give him the same 10 years of training and he would be looking to change his surname for a start. He may not be able to beat a top MMA fighter but that's beside the point. (For what it's worth, you wouldn't find me in the Octagon either, even if you gave me back 40 years.  ) In the main he has been training to defend against thugs. He would have the knowledge that, if he needed to protect himself, he probably could.

All martial arts should give us self defence skills but the reality is, unfortunately, most don't. :asian:


----------



## K-man

Tez3 said:


> http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/what-traditional-karate
> 
> I love that Iain describes kata as the DNA of karate.


Great article Tez. Why didn't someone cut and paste it years ago?

I'll just say .... what he said!!


----------



## Nicholas82555

With all this said about "Traditional Karate". Do we consider Kyokushin traditional? Points of consideration:

1- What the founder had in mind in developing Kyokushin?
and
2- The mindset, dedication and training in Kyokushin between the Japanese and the rest of the world.

Thanks


----------



## K-man

Nicholas82555 said:


> With all this said about "Traditional Karate". Do we consider Kyokushin traditional? Points of consideration:
> 
> 1- What the founder had in mind in developing Kyokushin?
> and
> 2- The mindset, dedication and training in Kyokushin between the Japanese and the rest of the world.
> 
> Thanks


Short answer ... it depends.

How far back do you go before something is traditional? If you have an original form and then you change it substantially but retain enough that is recognisable as the original, can the new form ever be traditional?

If you answer "Yes", then Kyokushin is traditional. So would TKD be traditional, although you could disregard the Shotokan element of TKD and say it is a new traditional system based on the quans.

If your answer is "No", then they are not. Simple. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I will say why I believe the answer is "No". Karate originated in Okinawa as a basic method of self defence. Some of the Okinawans such as Higaonna went to China and learnt Kung fu to a very high level. They brought this knowledge back including a number of kata, added this knowledge to the original base, and devised new kata, based on the Chinese forms. These systems were designed to use lethal techniques to kill people if required. What we had for the first time was what was called "kara-te".

Enter Funakoshi. He is now one of the Master's and sees the future of the art is not training in secret but out in the open. He changes (sanitises) the original karate (or 'traditional' if you like) to make it suitable to teach to school children. The authorities love it because it is great to get the kids fit, especially when you have a war with China on the horizon. This takes off like wildfire in Japan. After the war, they add a sport element that wasn't in the original and we have a new system that now is based on long range techniques and point scoring. The kata evolve to look more spectacular and the original meanings were lost. These were the systems that Westerners learned and took away after the war. Many had only trained for a couple of years. Imagine now if you were a Green or Brown belt starting off your own school. How much knowledge do you have to pass on?

Meanwhile, back in Okinawa, the old masters are not happy. They are not part of the new and they don't want to change. They keep plugging away and 60 years later some far sighted Western individuals decided that what they were being told didn't make sense. They went back to Okinawa and surprise, surprise, there were still people training the old way, including the locks, throws and grappling. No distance sparring, only close in work. Eventually, they were happy to show us the traditional ways and some of the applications.
People like Iain Abernethy and Kris Wilder showed us how to interpret the kata, and I know a lot of people won't like me for mentioning him, but credit where credit is due. George Dillman also brought a lot of knowledge to the table.

To me, "Traditional Karate" is any of the original Okinawan forms, or derived from these forms, retaining the same essential elements including kata and bunkai. I should include Kyusho here as well.

Nothing here is to say one form is better than another, just that now they are different animals. For those who want to compete, go Japanese. For those who are interested in how the style was developed and the little details that made the systems work for close combat, go "Traditional", go Okinawan. :asian:


----------



## Steve

Benevolentbob said:


> I'm not an expert on Karate or any other art, nor did I ever claim to be. I participate in a Kempo system that integrates Danzan Ryu Jiu-Jitsu, I also go to a Judo class twice a week, and I love reading about the history and philosophy behind all arts, that's about as close to "expert" as I get. If anything I guess I would call myself an enthusiast. I replied because the author, while focusing on karate, was aiming his point of view on pretty much all traditional arts and I felt his analysis was highly biased and unfair. I never once attacked BJJ in any fashion so I don't understand the hostility here. All I said is that it came from Judo, which came from Jujutsu which is a fact. I think it's ignorant to put aside this lineage and anyone who watches the separate systems closely can easily see the similarities. *See how you lumped in Tae Kwon Do, Shotokan Karate, and Okinawan Karate all together? That's exactly what I did with Jujutsu, Judo, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.*


I did that on purpose, specifically because people commonly lump them together, and I've been around enough people who ARE informed about these arts to know that it would be ignorant of me to do the same myself.  Once again, I didn't lump them together.  What I did was promise that I wouldn't do so.  

I still believe that even modern Judo and BJJ are culturally and technically different enough that lumping them together is misleading.  





> I don't even understand why we're arguing or why you're behaving so hostile.


Not trying to be hostile.  I tend to be pretty blunt, but I'm not angry or trying to be overly hostile.  I disagree, but if I came off as hostile, I apologize.   





> I wasn't "writing off" anything, I was saying that differences in systems are results from different ideas or interpretations being introduced which is exactly how it happened other it would all still be called Jujutsu. Granted there have been changes made over the years but as you yourself stated, they were all derived from the same root.


Okay.  I guess we'll have to just disagree on this.  Chalking up the cultural, philosophical and technical differences between jujutsu, modern judo and BJJ to "differences of interpretation" is, IMO, writing it off.  It's a matter of scope, sort of like saying that the difference between classical music and rap is just a difference of interpretation.  





> Do you for whatever reason not like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu being associated with the arts it came from?


I have no problem with the association, and in fact often describe BJJ to laymen as being a close cousin to Judo.   In a conversation with other martial artists, however, I have higher expectations.  

Again, to a laymen, I've heard people from the bujinkan tell people they study jujutsu or even karate.  That doesn't mean it's true... it's simply a matter of convenience.  Gets the point across at a very cursory level.  But I'd presume that most people here understand that there is a much more pronounced difference between budo taijutsu and jujutsu, even if we don't understand fully what those differences are.  





> Or is it because I called it a "sport art"? In which case I was merely using the language that the author used and i feel that Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is just as effective as any other art. Again, I don't see the point in arguing on this.


don't have a problem with that at all.  The sport is what makes it awesome!


----------



## Benevolentbob

stevebjj said:


> I did that on purpose, specifically because people commonly lump them together, and I've been around enough people who ARE informed about these arts to know that it would be ignorant of me to do the same myself.  Once again, I didn't lump them together.  What I did was promise that I wouldn't do so.
> 
> I still believe that even modern Judo and BJJ are culturally and technically different enough that lumping them together is misleading.  Not trying to be hostile.  I tend to be pretty blunt, but I'm not angry or trying to be overly hostile.  I disagree, but if I came off as hostile, I apologize.   Okay.  I guess we'll have to just disagree on this.  Chalking up the cultural, philosophical and technical differences between jujutsu, modern judo and BJJ to "differences of interpretation" is, IMO, writing it off.  It's a matter of scope, sort of like saying that the difference between classical music and rap is just a difference of interpretation.  I have no problem with the association, and in fact often describe BJJ to laymen as being a close cousin to Judo.   In a conversation with other martial artists, however, I have higher expectations.
> 
> Again, to a laymen, I've heard people from the bujinkan tell people they study jujutsu or even karate.  That doesn't mean it's true... it's simply a matter of convenience.  Gets the point across at a very cursory level.  But I'd presume that most people here understand that there is a much more pronounced difference between budo taijutsu and jujutsu, even if we don't understand fully what those differences are.  don't have a problem with that at all.  The sport is what makes it awesome!



Ah thanks for that reply it clarifies a lot. I can understand your stances, I think we just have different ways of viewing things and certainly assign entirely different values for words like interpretation. I think this easily made for a mis-communication of sorts. As for lumping arts together, I acknowledge that arts such as Tae Kwon Do and Shotokan Karate can be noticeably different, but maybe as a result from my love of the history I always look for the linking concepts.


----------



## Martin h

K-man said:


> Kyokushin was developed by Oyama, a Korean who moved to Japan, studied under Funakoshi and established his style of karate in 1964.



Just a narrowminded factual correction.
Kyokushin as a style was formally named&founded 1957. It was created but still unnamed in 1953, back then it was just called "Oyama dojo karate-jutsu". 
What was founded in 1964 was the international kyokushin organization, and that was becauase the style had spread so much that a formal international organization was needed.

Also Oyama began his karate study under Funakoshi (in 1938 when he was 15/16 years old), and got 2´d dan from him. But some time during the War he switched to Gojuryu under Gogen Yamaguchi (initially training under SoNei Chu, but later under Gogen himself) and got 8th Dan under him. This was before Gogen split out with goju kai


----------



## K-man

Martin h said:


> Just a narrowminded factual correction.
> Kyokushin as a style was formally named&founded 1957. It was created but still unnamed in 1953, back then it was just called "Oyama dojo karate-jutsu".
> What was founded in 1964 was the international kyokushin organization, and that was becauase the style had spread so much that a formal international organization was needed.
> 
> Also Oyama began his karate study under Funakoshi (in 1938 when he was 15/16 years old), and got 2´d dan from him. But some time during the War he switched to Gojuryu under Gogen Yamaguchi (initially training under SoNei Chu, but later under Gogen himself) and got 8th Dan under him. This was before Gogen split out with goju kai


Yamaguchi set up Goju Kai in 1935 (he registered it with the Butoku-kai after the war) and had already introduced Jiyu kumite earlier, something you don't have in Okinawan Goju. Oyama would never have seen 'traditional' Goju Ryu karate as the karate that was introduced to Japan by Funakoshi and others was modified to make it suitable for the schools and universities. 

Yamaguchi really put karate on the international map by introducing competion but this is totally at odds with traditional training. Kyokushin took this competition to a new level with full contact.   :asian:


----------



## chinto

Errant108 said:


> Then by your own definition, there is no traditional karate.
> 
> Every karate school claims to perform their kata in the traditional manner. Yet very few know the combative applications to this kata.  If this is the case, they are not traditional, since they have lost the original intent of their kata.
> 
> Every karate school claims to be a traditional school because they have the traditional kata.  Yet each school performs it completely differently.  A different performance would seem to reflect a diverging application to the kata's motions, yet if the variation is not applicable through combat, then it is not traditional.
> 
> Further, the farther back we go, we find that kata were often tailored to each individual student to meet their training needs.  Thus, the only traditional would seem to be the change of karate, its ability to adapt & grow.
> 
> Thus, the stagnancy you advocate of kata performance, as if they were a dance, is not traditional karate, but rather a symptom of the ossification of training methods, the development of slavish worship of a "master", rather than an ownership & continued development of the art.



LOL have you ever even trained at a karate dojo?


----------



## chinto

Errant108 said:


> This is a huge fallacy.
> 
> It does not matter what karate was or where it was used.
> 
> Your training is what matters.
> 
> If you are not training for the battlefield yourself, utilizing the methods that karate's forebears were, you cannot say that YOUR KARATE is effective for battlefield combat.  The same goes for "the street".
> 
> 
> 
> All martial arts are not the same.
> 
> Either your training is applicable in a live environment, or it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> Once removed from the necessity of live combat, it is actually very easy for martial arts to survive.  They become stagnant & traditional, and exist for reasons other than combat.  The Koryu of Japan are a perfect example of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Kano's Judo took on all comers in open, unregulated combat & defeated the so-called "self-defense" schools of jujutsu of the time, *because of the emphasis on randori & live training, rather than the dead, static training you are referring to.*
> 
> 
> 
> Completely incorrect, and why the US Army bases much of its hand-to-hand curriculum off of Brazilian JJ.




LOL  the army is doing the stupid politically correct thing in its use of BJJ.  hell they were told to tone down the old LINE and other systems they had taught! it was "to violent and merciless" sheesh. combat has nothing to do with the UFC or sport matches with good lighting and a ref. they never come in singles and while your doing BJJ his buddy will kick your head, ribs and kidneys in killing you.

have you ever been in combat? ever had a fight where to loose was to die?
I unfortunately have. Karate saved my life then, and I didnt know hardly anything compared to now. ( I still know very little really compared to what I can learn in the future.)


----------



## Em MacIntosh

I only really make use of stances like seisan-dachi (similar to zenkutsu-dachi) or shigo-dachi (similar to kiba-dachi) as part of a dedicated strike.  Remember that you hit them with your body, your limb is just a lever to make contact.  You're all aware of oi-zuki, the equivalent with shigo-dachi is shigo-zuki.  The name of the technique implies the stance as a fundamental part of the technique (though I've never heard of shigo-empi, which works on the same principal so...).  Choko-zuki certainly isn't the same as oi-zuki.  Unless it's part of a strike, I normally wouldn't adopt a "traditional" stance.  I wouldn't adopt a forward leaning stance or a back stance.  I might adopt something similar but it will be flexible to meet my opponent's energy (depending on circumstance), probably somewhere in the middle, fluctuating with my sensitivity to my opponent.


----------



## Leon026

Apologies for resurrecting this thread -  I came across this while searching google, and felt the need to register on the forums and reply.

A bit about myself - I was born in Tokyo and grew up there until I was 18 years old. I started Shotokan Karate when I was 8. I am currently 2nd dan, and my father is 3rd dan (and has been for the past 20+ years), and this October I'll be entering my first official amateur MMA fight. I have been practicing Shotokan Karate for 20 years now, of which I can safely say that the last 4 years of Karate has been more of my own evolved style, Maeda-ryu Sogo Karate rather than pure traditional shotokan karate. I am also in the French army, and am a part-time assistant instructor of hand-to-hand combat at the infantry/artillery school in Draguignan, France. To me, while I have a 2nd dan according to both the Japanese Karate Federation and Japan Karate Association, it has little meaning to me - but I'll talk more about his throughout the post.

One of the arguments I come across often, is that traditional karate is "a joke", a "waste of time", and "doesnt work". But I think we forget multiple aspects of the martial art.

We forget that karate is an old art, and Shotokan itself dating to the 1900s, and we shall not even mention how old Ryukyu Karate is. But the main difference that we conveniently forget between today and 1900, is the difference in communication and training. Today, with a click of my finger and some typing, I can search google for Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and instantly see an MMA video of BJJ used in UFC. I can go to a Muay Thai gym, go learn Kung-fu, all the while reading an article on Pencak Silat on my iPad, and watch "how to" videos on how to do a Gogoplata for MMA. Back in those days, the transfer of knowledge was person to person. Back in those days, according to Miyamoto Musashi's biography, kenjutsu schools would train once a MONTH. Today, I train 2-4 times a week. I can go see a nutritionist, and I know that physically, I am in better shape than people living in the 1800s. If we look at history of the Bakufu and the Meiji Restoration, we know that after the unification of Japan by Tokugawa Ieyasu, the numbers of real ronin and samurai that were trained in the old ways of kenjutsu were very slim, and the majority of so-called ronin were nothing more than thugs with swords who had little practical training. Karate, much like the other Japanese martial arts were in a similar position. Meaning - people that were moderately trained in karate were deadly efficient against common thugs who had *zero* training nor knowledge of the art. Against a person who is *completely* ignorant (this nowadays is no longer possible due to all the movies and video games featuring martial arts), even a simple Jodan Gyaku-zuki is going work incredibly well. And it did, hence the concept of sen-no-sen, tying of breaking the enemy's attack with a simultaneous strike. Against someone with no training, it worked.

We also notice people claim that karate has not evolved. I would ask, is this the fault of the martial art, or the fault of the people training in the art? I feel that most people that practice karate, are only engaged in copy-cat karate. They copy the movements and kata that their teacher tells them to do, who in turn was taught to copy his master's kata. How is that possibly adapted and going to work? Teach a person to do mawashi-geri, and tell that it's effective because a high kick to the head works, just means you'll end up wit ha 5 foot tall person attempt to use a mawashi geri in a fight. A 5 foot tall person, no matter how trained, is not going to do a powerful mawashi geri against a 6 foot tall fighter and come out successful. Just because the person chose (or was not taught) to adapt karate to their physique, does not put Karate at fault for being "non-adapted".

People are also very obsessed with belt color, but that is a trend I've noticed in both Japan and in Europe where I live now. I think we all forget that a black belt means little - a black  belt merely states that one has mastered the BASICS of karate to an acceptable level. This is part of the business model for dojos - telling people that it is only after having trained for 5 years and finally acquired a black belt that they can now really learn karate, is not going to make them happy and keep paying. No, by telling them that a black belt signifies you are a "great fighter", will people keep paying each month. That is the fault of the modern world and modern teaching practices where people's ego must be fulfilled, hence why there are so many black belt factories. They can wear a black belt, but it means nothing if they can't display a minimum understanding of the concept of the art.

But there is a fundamental difference between modern day teachers, and then-grand masters. The main difference is the willingness to explore and innovate. Take Oyama Masatatsu as example - started first with traditional Shotokan and Goju-ryu karate, he left to explore, and returned with Kyokushin. To some, kyokushin is the ultimate form of karate. To me, kyokushin is a logical expansion of Shotokan, but unfortunately modern Kyokushin has turned into a form of karate that has thrown away the precision and speed of traditional karate and replaced it with brute force, along with bad habits in the form of lack of upper defense. 

It is my belief however, that a martial art is not "strong" because the art is passed down, but because the person has mastered its basics, went off to test his art against others, and went off to expand his art into something that is adapted to his physique.

Some will claim that the cost-benefit ration in terms of time, karate is very low, compared to perhaps "MMA" that can be "learned" in a matter of months. Indeed, army combative hand-to-hand technique follows the train of thought of rendering it as easy as possible to learn and being the most effective. I have had the chance to meet the person that invented the french army's special forces CQC - the C4 (Combat corps a corps adapté aux combattant), and after much discussion, we both agreed that the CQC level of the basic soldier was poor, but at least it was "better" than the average enemy they might encounter. Army CQC technique teaching isnt to make soldiers hand to hand combat machines, but to make the overall level of army soldiers better than average. Similarly, if you look at MMA, while there are the odd geniuses of technique (Ernesto Hoost comes into mind), the vast majority seem very average. This is of course assuming that MMA and UFC is an accurate representation to the real deal, when we know it isnt. Real life does not have rules. In real life, I am free to strike the throat and gouge the eyes, or burst ear drums. I am also free to kick a downed opponent and strike behind the head with an elbow. These are examples that are part of the MMA "rules". MMA is a sport, and I think we should observe that. 

Sports karate has no chance in UFC. An MMA fighter has no chance in a Judo competition, and neither can claim to be 'better' in real life, unless the practitioner has experienced a real life encounter. We can train for it, but claiming that one style is better than the other is absurd - the concept of equal level on equal person does not exist. Would this equal comparison result in a short 60kg Pencak Silat practitioner matched up against a 100kg Judoka? It is fruitless, and I think that rather than worrying about which style is best, one should be more devoted into becoming the best he can be in his style, and exploring other styles to see how he can incorporate techniques that may be deficient in his base style.

Kata, which many people see as an obligation, and I have had a young (3-4 years of karate young) practitioner tell me that my form of karate was wrong, because with Kata he could defeat the enemy, is a double edged sword. Kata can perhaps be "unnecessary" to some, and I would agree that practicing kata does not make one better in a fight. However, kata is the expression of perfectionism, which ties into karate : the perfection of the art to kill. Kata therefore, is about body conditioning and training towards the goal of perfection. Doing kata for the sake of doing kata, is just copy-cat karate, and will never get you anywhere.

I also find the "one strike one kill" to be amusing. Because the claim its existence and non-existence, is akin to completely missing the point of karate. Besides the debate of whether it is possible or not to kill in one hit, of which I find largely uninteresting and besides the point, the essence of karate is not one strike one kill, but each strike being heavy and precise. That, is karate. Karate is not Jeet Kune Do. Karate is not Wing Chun. Karate is not Capoeira nor Pecak Silat. Karate is, essentially, a low SPM (strikes per minute) art. The idea is that there are no wasted movements. Each movement is precise, weighted, and has a purpose. It is because each strike is weighted and precise, that the concept of "one strike one kill" came into fruition, but we should not be taking that literally.

So why study karate at all? *shrug*, who knows. I started it because my father forced me to start it. Why not study BJJ, Muay Thai? No reason not to, and nothing stopping from people to explore other styles. The only true ultimate style, is the style that is adapted to the student's physiology, technique and mindset. Claiming there is one ultimate style is pure ignorance. I have no intention in claiming that karate is the be all and end all, but after 20 years of karate, my body has grown and has adapted to karate. Thus karate is MY ultimate style. 

It is however the student's role to explore the martial art, and the role of the teacher to assist in the student's exploration of the art. Even if this means sparring against other styles and learning from them. This is essentially why I have started learning BJJ to incorporate simple and efficient Ne Waza ground technique into my karate to make more adapted. It is why I have spent years mastering the Gedan Mawashi-geri that is not taught in traditional Shotokan. Karate means empty hand, it does not have to be literally translated into "empty hand while standing, following certain rulesets". If a martial art is to be used for self defense, no matter which art and style, the trainee must understand and be prepared to take into account his art will never be the answer to the definite hand to hand combat. The answer? 42. "42" is just as valid as an answer to claiming which art is superior. Unless one tests his art against others, claiming it because so and so on TV fought someone else in UFC is hardly a good answer. A person's body should be adapted to his martial art, and vice versa should the martial art be adapted to the person.

Yes, it may take years to find out that you're not adapted to your current art, but claiming that karate takes too long just shows impatience, or a non-understanding, or a non-adapted body. Could always just go and learn Krav Maga I suppose.

Karate is an efficient and effective fighting technique if the person who uses karate, is an efficient and effective fighter.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Leon026 said:


> People are also very obsessed with belt color, but that is a trend I've noticed in both Japan and in Europe where I live now. I think we all forget that a black belt means little - a black  belt merely states that one has mastered the BASICS of karate to an acceptable level. This is part of the business model for dojos - telling people that it is only after having trained for 5 years and finally acquired a black belt that they can now really learn karate, is not going to make them happy and keep paying. No, by telling them that a black belt signifies you are a "great fighter", will people keep paying each month. That is the fault of the modern world and modern teaching practices where people's ego must be fulfilled, hence why there are so many black belt factories. They can wear a black belt, but it means nothing if they can't display a minimum understanding of the concept of the art.


Glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks this way.


----------



## ETinCYQX

Written by someone with very little understanding of the martial arts. One of those people who never bothered to learn a system in its entirety, instead relying on the UFC to tell him what works. Muay Thai, boxing, BJJ is the canned answer for this type of person. And for the most part anyone deriding the use of katas/forms in training doesn't understand the art enough. 

I say this as a huge MMA and kickboxing fan who went through exactly the same phase as the article's author.


----------



## Cayuga Karate

ETinCYQX wrote:



> And for the most part anyone deriding the use of katas/forms in training doesn't understand the art enough.



Vast numbers of karate students learn kata with no application. 

Is the training in kata good conditioning, whether or not specific sequences can be used in fighting? I believe it is. 

Are there specific instances in kata where even jaded MMA students can look at some applications and concur that they could be used in a number of fighting scenarios, (maybe not in the ring against a skilled attacker, but in the street against someone less skilled)? I believe this is true. 

Those two statements do not, IMO, mean that quite a number of movements in kata don't really translate all that well into actual empty hand fighting. Until posters take the effort to prove otherwise, I, like so many students of other arts remain unconvinced that much of kata maps to actual fighting. 

There are certainly many karateka that are able to use small snippets of kata and often come up with pretty good ideas, and to make them effective, they have to add movements not found in the kata. But the sequences from which many movements are extracted still don't appear to make any sense in actual fighting.

Most challenging to those who believe there are good fighting applications for all kata movements are the numerous instances of sequences of 3 or 4 steps forward. For example the initial forward sequences in the Pinans/Heians. Can anyone point to any online example of these being used in realistic fighting examples. When I ask this question online in forums such as MT, I get silence. 

One can find numerous online examples of these kata sequences that are done in a way that in no way resembles actual fighting. But when one asks posters for applications for kata sequences that do map to actual fighting, one typically gets the quite common reply of "We have good realistic fighting concepts in my system/dojo but we can't show it online because it is not allowed. You see, our applications are still a big secret."

Another common reply is "go do a youtube search, and you'll find good fighting". Another common answer is "so and so trained in Jiujitsu (or Aikido, or Chi Na, or Wing Chun...) and he has DVDs you can buy that shows these movements with good applications." Another answer is "I trained at Master ...'s seminar, and he taught some bunkai for a half dozen kata sequences, so I have concluded that he must have good applications for all his movements."

When I try to engage karate posters, I find it useful to post video of the applications that are out there on youtube, and ask if they are representative of the great fighting that they are referring to. A common answer is: "no, that is not what I am talking about."

There is an old expression, "seeing is believing." If karateka want the world to believe that the movements in kata (the full sequences, not just tiny snippets) have real world application, then they should be prepared to defend that position. It is just all too easy to say "kata is a textbook, an encyclopedia of fighting" or "in my system, if the basics are taught correctly, then the yudanshu are able to figure out how to use the movements," or "so and so's website has all the answers."

It would be so much more helpful if those arguing that the long sequences in kata can provide for good fighting would be willing to provide some links of specific kata application. Not just tiny pieces of kata taken out of their sequences with all manner of additional strikes/locks/takedowns not found in the kata added to make them useful.

It would be interesting if karate posters didn't hide behind secrecy and old tired phrases such as "anyone deriding the use of katas/forms in training doesn't understand the art enough". I have a simple response. Prove it. Provide evidence. Where's the bunkai.

One group that gets particularly incensed by my requests for examples are the students of Goju. Now I will argue that the structure of many Goju forms do lend a number of concepts to be used for good fighting. But again there are broad sections of kata that do not appear to map to fighting. 

Do we look to Morio Higaonna's fighting examples where, in good karate fashion, he uses a single counter strike on almost every technique, and in good karate fashion is typically attacked by a single right lunge punch, something so uncommon in actual fighting. Karateka can denigrate MMA all they like, but the cage has proven again and again, this whole concept of single counterstrikes, especially to the torso, is a simply rotten fighting strategy. Or shall we look to the more modern Goju interpretations where the arm movements of kata are divorced from their stances and movements in different directions, and applied in a continuous stream forward against a single attacker. Is it efffective?. It appears to be. Do these movements truly map to the kata? No, plain and simple, no. The kata are modified beyond all recognition to redirect all arm movements in one forward flowing sequence. 

One might think I am critical of this kind of effort. Absolutely not. I do commend the effort. Trying to make some of these patterns useful requires some real creativity. The more the better. But the extremes that are taken in modifying the kata for useful fighting helps to demonstrate the point that many kata sequences appear not to be all that well designed for empty hand fighting.

Would any kata enthusiast like to post links to 5 popular Okinawan kata, and I will request examples of what three specific sequences mean. Then the kata enthusiast would point to online examples, or put something online? Just three sequences. This shouldn't be all that hard for posters here to video something quickly with a friend and post it to youtube.

I expect silence. Why? Partially due to my experience on these forums. But primary because as much as karateka like to say otherwise, much of kata does not map to actual fighting. Saying over and over again that the emperor has a beautiful gold robe doesn't change the fact that he is indeed buck naked.

I am fine with that. I am a kata enthusiast, and I enjoy greatly working on a few examples of kata that do map reasonably well to actual fighting. And I enjoy practicing kata for other benefits that it brings. Strength, speed, balance. It makes me a better fighter, even if I can't use much of sequences in empty hand fighting. That's fine with me. 

As I age, kata helps keep me strong, fast, rooted, yet agile at the same time. It helps to keep my core strong so that my upper body and legs can work in unison to deliver energy to a target. It allows me to approach training with a meditative quality. It makes the journey of my martial arts training a more rewarding and enjoyable one. 

But my passion for kata does not blind me to the obvious realities of many of the movements I practice. They just don't map all that well to empty hand fighting. And to get that kind of training, I find it necessary to mix in standard Muay Thai/boxing combinations, as well as common BJJ ground-fighting training. 

Regarding kata application, tt would surprise me if someone would accept my offer above (links to 5 common kata online.) But I don't expect any surprises here. 

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Cayuga Karate said:


> I am fine with that. I am a kata enthusiast, and I enjoy greatly working on a few examples of kata that do map reasonably well to actual fighting. And I enjoy practicing kata for other benefits that it brings. Strength, speed, balance.It makes me a better fighter, even if I can't use much of sequences in empty hand fighting. That's fine with me.
> 
> As I age, kata helps keep me strong, fast, rooted, yet agile at the same time. It helps to keep my core strong so that my upper body and legs can work in unison to deliver energy to a target. It allows me to approach training with a meditative quality. It makes the journey of my martial arts training a more rewarding and enjoyable one.


I think that this part of your post sums up the benefits of forms, regardless of the art practiced.


----------



## Tez3

Leon026 said:


> Apologies for resurrecting this thread - I came across this while searching google, and felt the need to register on the forums and reply.
> 
> A bit about myself - I was born in Tokyo and grew up there until I was 18 years old. I started Shotokan Karate when I was 8. I am currently 2nd dan, and my father is 3rd dan (and has been for the past 20+ years), and this October I'll be entering my first official amateur MMA fight. I have been practicing Shotokan Karate for 20 years now, of which I can safely say that the last 4 years of Karate has been more of my own evolved style, Maeda-ryu Sogo Karate rather than pure traditional shotokan karate. I am also in the French army, and am a part-time assistant instructor of hand-to-hand combat at the infantry/artillery school in Draguignan, France. To me, while I have a 2nd dan according to both the Japanese Karate Federation and Japan Karate Association, it has little meaning to me - but I'll talk more about his throughout the post.
> 
> One of the arguments I come across often, is that traditional karate is "a joke", a "waste of time", and "doesnt work". But I think we forget multiple aspects of the martial art.
> 
> We forget that karate is an old art, and Shotokan itself dating to the 1900s, and we shall not even mention how old Ryukyu Karate is. But the main difference that we conveniently forget between today and 1900, is the difference in communication and training. Today, with a click of my finger and some typing, I can search google for Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and instantly see an MMA video of BJJ used in UFC. I can go to a Muay Thai gym, go learn Kung-fu, all the while reading an article on Pencak Silat on my iPad, and watch "how to" videos on how to do a Gogoplata for MMA. Back in those days, the transfer of knowledge was person to person. Back in those days, according to Miyamoto Musashi's biography, kenjutsu schools would train once a MONTH. Today, I train 2-4 times a week. I can go see a nutritionist, and I know that physically, I am in better shape than people living in the 1800s. If we look at history of the Bakufu and the Meiji Restoration, we know that after the unification of Japan by Tokugawa Ieyasu, the numbers of real ronin and samurai that were trained in the old ways of kenjutsu were very slim, and the majority of so-called ronin were nothing more than thugs with swords who had little practical training. Karate, much like the other Japanese martial arts were in a similar position. Meaning - people that were moderately trained in karate were deadly efficient against common thugs who had *zero* training nor knowledge of the art. Against a person who is *completely* ignorant (this nowadays is no longer possible due to all the movies and video games featuring martial arts), even a simple Jodan Gyaku-zuki is going work incredibly well. And it did, hence the concept of sen-no-sen, tying of breaking the enemy's attack with a simultaneous strike. Against someone with no training, it worked.
> 
> We also notice people claim that karate has not evolved. I would ask, is this the fault of the martial art, or the fault of the people training in the art? I feel that most people that practice karate, are only engaged in copy-cat karate. They copy the movements and kata that their teacher tells them to do, who in turn was taught to copy his master's kata. How is that possibly adapted and going to work? Teach a person to do mawashi-geri, and tell that it's effective because a high kick to the head works, just means you'll end up wit ha 5 foot tall person attempt to use a mawashi geri in a fight. A 5 foot tall person, no matter how trained, is not going to do a powerful mawashi geri against a 6 foot tall fighter and come out successful. Just because the person chose (or was not taught) to adapt karate to their physique, does not put Karate at fault for being "non-adapted".
> 
> People are also very obsessed with belt color, but that is a trend I've noticed in both Japan and in Europe where I live now. I think we all forget that a black belt means little - a black belt merely states that one has mastered the BASICS of karate to an acceptable level. This is part of the business model for dojos - telling people that it is only after having trained for 5 years and finally acquired a black belt that they can now really learn karate, is not going to make them happy and keep paying. No, by telling them that a black belt signifies you are a "great fighter", will people keep paying each month. That is the fault of the modern world and modern teaching practices where people's ego must be fulfilled, hence why there are so many black belt factories. They can wear a black belt, but it means nothing if they can't display a minimum understanding of the concept of the art.
> 
> But there is a fundamental difference between modern day teachers, and then-grand masters. The main difference is the willingness to explore and innovate. Take Oyama Masatatsu as example - started first with traditional Shotokan and Goju-ryu karate, he left to explore, and returned with Kyokushin. To some, kyokushin is the ultimate form of karate. To me, kyokushin is a logical expansion of Shotokan, but unfortunately modern Kyokushin has turned into a form of karate that has thrown away the precision and speed of traditional karate and replaced it with brute force, along with bad habits in the form of lack of upper defense.
> 
> It is my belief however, that a martial art is not "strong" because the art is passed down, but because the person has mastered its basics, went off to test his art against others, and went off to expand his art into something that is adapted to his physique.
> 
> Some will claim that the cost-benefit ration in terms of time, karate is very low, compared to perhaps "MMA" that can be "learned" in a matter of months. Indeed, army combative hand-to-hand technique follows the train of thought of rendering it as easy as possible to learn and being the most effective. I have had the chance to meet the person that invented the french army's special forces CQC - the C4 (Combat corps a corps adapté aux combattant), and after much discussion, we both agreed that the CQC level of the basic soldier was poor, but at least it was "better" than the average enemy they might encounter. Army CQC technique teaching isnt to make soldiers hand to hand combat machines, but to make the overall level of army soldiers better than average. Similarly, if you look at MMA, while there are the odd geniuses of technique (Ernesto Hoost comes into mind), the vast majority seem very average. This is of course assuming that MMA and UFC is an accurate representation to the real deal, when we know it isnt. Real life does not have rules. In real life, I am free to strike the throat and gouge the eyes, or burst ear drums. I am also free to kick a downed opponent and strike behind the head with an elbow. These are examples that are part of the MMA "rules". MMA is a sport, and I think we should observe that.
> 
> Sports karate has no chance in UFC. An MMA fighter has no chance in a Judo competition, and neither can claim to be 'better' in real life, unless the practitioner has experienced a real life encounter. We can train for it, but claiming that one style is better than the other is absurd - the concept of equal level on equal person does not exist. Would this equal comparison result in a short 60kg Pencak Silat practitioner matched up against a 100kg Judoka? It is fruitless, and I think that rather than worrying about which style is best, one should be more devoted into becoming the best he can be in his style, and exploring other styles to see how he can incorporate techniques that may be deficient in his base style.
> 
> Kata, which many people see as an obligation, and I have had a young (3-4 years of karate young) practitioner tell me that my form of karate was wrong, because with Kata he could defeat the enemy, is a double edged sword. Kata can perhaps be "unnecessary" to some, and I would agree that practicing kata does not make one better in a fight. However, kata is the expression of perfectionism, which ties into karate : the perfection of the art to kill. Kata therefore, is about body conditioning and training towards the goal of perfection. Doing kata for the sake of doing kata, is just copy-cat karate, and will never get you anywhere.
> 
> I also find the "one strike one kill" to be amusing. Because the claim its existence and non-existence, is akin to completely missing the point of karate. Besides the debate of whether it is possible or not to kill in one hit, of which I find largely uninteresting and besides the point, the essence of karate is not one strike one kill, but each strike being heavy and precise. That, is karate. Karate is not Jeet Kune Do. Karate is not Wing Chun. Karate is not Capoeira nor Pecak Silat. Karate is, essentially, a low SPM (strikes per minute) art. The idea is that there are no wasted movements. Each movement is precise, weighted, and has a purpose. It is because each strike is weighted and precise, that the concept of "one strike one kill" came into fruition, but we should not be taking that literally.
> 
> So why study karate at all? *shrug*, who knows. I started it because my father forced me to start it. Why not study BJJ, Muay Thai? No reason not to, and nothing stopping from people to explore other styles. The only true ultimate style, is the style that is adapted to the student's physiology, technique and mindset. Claiming there is one ultimate style is pure ignorance. I have no intention in claiming that karate is the be all and end all, but after 20 years of karate, my body has grown and has adapted to karate. Thus karate is MY ultimate style.
> 
> It is however the student's role to explore the martial art, and the role of the teacher to assist in the student's exploration of the art. Even if this means sparring against other styles and learning from them. This is essentially why I have started learning BJJ to incorporate simple and efficient Ne Waza ground technique into my karate to make more adapted. It is why I have spent years mastering the Gedan Mawashi-geri that is not taught in traditional Shotokan. Karate means empty hand, it does not have to be literally translated into "empty hand while standing, following certain rulesets". If a martial art is to be used for self defense, no matter which art and style, the trainee must understand and be prepared to take into account his art will never be the answer to the definite hand to hand combat. The answer? 42. "42" is just as valid as an answer to claiming which art is superior. Unless one tests his art against others, claiming it because so and so on TV fought someone else in UFC is hardly a good answer. A person's body should be adapted to his martial art, and vice versa should the martial art be adapted to the person.
> 
> Yes, it may take years to find out that you're not adapted to your current art, but claiming that karate takes too long just shows impatience, or a non-understanding, or a non-adapted body. Could always just go and learn Krav Maga I suppose.
> 
> Karate is an efficient and effective fighting technique if the person who uses karate, is an efficient and effective fighter.




Good post Leon. You are staying in a very beautiful place, I've gone past it often as we stay either in Grimaud or La Garde Freinet. Who do you train MMA with? I know the Schiavo brothers aren't too far away and I assume Karl Amoussou is in America?


----------



## K-man

Cayuga Karate said:


> Those two statements do not, IMO, mean that quite a number of movements in kata don't really translate all that well into actual empty hand fighting. Until posters take the effort to prove otherwise, I, like so many students of other arts remain unconvinced that much of kata maps to actual fighting.
> 
> That is exactly how they can be used.
> 
> There are certainly many karateka that are able to use small snippets of kata and often come up with pretty good ideas, and to make them effective, they have to add movements not found in the kata. But the sequences from which many movements are extracted still don't appear to make any sense in actual fighting.
> 
> No additional moves are required with the exception that after a low strike hands may return to kamae.
> 
> Most challenging to those who believe there are good fighting applications for all kata movements are the numerous instances of sequences of 3 or 4 steps forward. For example the initial forward sequences in the Pinans/Heians. Can anyone point to any online example of these being used in realistic fighting examples. When I ask this question online in forums such as MT, I get silence.
> 
> Short answer ... Yes. I'll give details below.
> 
> One can find numerous online examples of these kata sequences that are done in a way that in no way resembles actual fighting. But when one asks posters for applications for kata sequences that do map to actual fighting, one typically gets the quite common reply of "We have good realistic fighting concepts in my system/dojo but we can't show it online because it is not allowed. You see, our applications are still a big secret."
> 
> I am not at liberty to post my material because I had special permission to video for my own use.  However detailed video is available on line.
> 
> Another common reply is "go do a youtube search, and you'll find good fighting". Another common answer is "so and so trained in Jiujitsu (or Aikido, or Chi Na, or Wing Chun...) and he has DVDs you can buy that shows these movements with good applications." Another answer is "I trained at Master ...'s seminar, and he taught some bunkai for a half dozen kata sequences, so I have concluded that he must have good applications for all his movements."
> 
> What I am referring to is not available on YouTube.
> 
> There is an old expression, "seeing is believing." If karateka want the world to believe that the movements in kata (the full sequences, not just tiny snippets) have real world application, then they should be prepared to defend that position. It is just all too easy to say "kata is a textbook, an encyclopedia of fighting" or "in my system, if the basics are taught correctly, then the yudanshu are able to figure out how to use the movements," or "so and so's website has all the answers."
> 
> To a certain extent that is true, but unless someone has been shown how the sequence works, regardless of rank you will find it difficult to work out a sequence by yourself.
> 
> It would be so much more helpful if those arguing that the long sequences in kata can provide for good fighting would be willing to provide some links of specific kata application. Not just tiny pieces of kata taken out of their sequences with all manner of additional strikes/locks/takedowns not found in the kata added to make them useful.
> 
> Even the material available on line is a basic form. The way the material is presented lends itself to interpret techniques in different ways, if you have the knowledge to do so. Nothing is added to the kata.
> 
> It would be interesting if karate posters didn't hide behind secrecy and old tired phrases such as "anyone deriding the use of katas/forms in training doesn't understand the art enough". I have a simple response. Prove it. Provide evidence. Where's the bunkai.
> 
> There is no secrecy.  I teach ths from white belt.
> 
> One group that gets particularly incensed by my requests for examples are the students of Goju. Now I will argue that the structure of many Goju forms do lend a number of concepts to be used for good fighting. But again there are broad sections of kata that do not appear to map to fighting.
> 
> Tell me what part and I'll see if I can provide an explanation.
> 
> Do we look to Morio Higaonna's fighting examples where, in good karate fashion, he uses a single counter strike on almost every technique, and in good karate fashion is typically attacked by a single right lunge punch, something so uncommon in actual fighting. Karateka can denigrate MMA all they like, but the cage has proven again and again, this whole concept of single counterstrikes, especially to the torso, is a simply rotten fighting strategy. Or shall we look to the more modern Goju interpretations where the arm movements of kata are divorced from their stances and movements in different directions, and applied in a continuous stream forward against a single attacker. Is it efffective?. It appears to be. Do these movements truly map to the kata? No, plain and simple, no. The kata are modified beyond all recognition to redirect all arm movements in one forward flowing sequence.
> 
> Morio Higaonna doesn't teach contiguous bunkai.   His bunkai is similar to that that we started doing about 30 years ago. All it is is a simple explanation for individual techniques.
> 
> One might think I am critical of this kind of effort. Absolutely not. I do commend the effort. Trying to make some of these patterns useful requires some real creativity. The more the better. But the extremes that are taken in modifying the kata for useful fighting helps to demonstrate the point that many kata sequences appear not to be all that well designed for empty hand fighting.
> 
> Yes, it really creative, but when you actually see it, it all falls into place.
> 
> Would any kata enthusiast like to post links to 5 popular Okinawan kata, and I will request examples of what three specific sequences mean. Then the kata enthusiast would point to online examples, or put something online? Just three sequences. This shouldn't be all that hard for posters here to video something quickly with a friend and post it to youtube.
> 
> I'll give you the choice.  Gekisei, Saifa, Seyunchin, Shisoshin or Sanseru.
> 
> I expect silence. Why? Partially due to my experience on these forums. But primary because as much as karateka like to say otherwise, much of kata does not map to actual fighting. Saying over and over again that the emperor has a beautiful gold robe doesn't change the fact that he is indeed buck naked.
> 
> Ball's in your court.
> 
> Regarding kata application, tt would surprise me if someone would accept my offer above (links to 5 common kata online.) But I don't expect any surprises here.
> 
> -Cayuga Karate


I think it is against forum rules to promote other sites but the site I am referring to above has an annaul subscription and I am happy to give the information via PM.

*Cayuga, *I leave for a three week holiday today so won't be able to respond quickly.  I will have my IPad so I will try to keep in contact.


----------



## K-man

Don't you just hate it when you rush, then find misspelled words or words that spellcheck has changed.  Sorry folks for the bad spelling in the above post.


----------



## Flying Crane

I'm not a karate guy, but I do practice a very traditional kung fu method that relies heavily on forms practice to develop the skills and principles of our system. Hope that's close enough for some comments...




Cayuga Karate said:


> Vast numbers of karate students learn kata with no application.



this may be true, but it doesn't mean application doesn't exist in the kata. It just means that, as you stated and I point out the obvious, Vast numbers of karate students learn kata with no application. that's all it means. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a shame, they are missing out. Their instructors, or their instructor's instructors, failed to teach them. Or they were incapable of learning it. Whatever the case.



> Those two statements do not, IMO, mean that quite a number of movements in kata don't really translate all that well into actual empty hand fighting. Until posters take the effort to prove otherwise, I, like so many students of other arts remain unconvinced that much of kata maps to actual fighting.



honestly, as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to remain unconvinced. It's not an obligation that any of us carry, to convince you. It doesn't matter what you think and it doesn't matter if you think that forever. It doesn't change anything for us nor for the methods that we practice, whether you are convinced or not.



> There are certainly many karateka that are able to use small snippets of kata and often come up with pretty good ideas, *and to make them effective, they have to add movements not found in the kata*. But the sequences from which many movements are extracted still don't appear to make any sense in actual fighting.



Regarding the bolded portion, this is true but that doesn't mean it isn't from the kata. This mean seem a paradox to you, but that's OK. You don't need to be convinced and we are not obligated to convince you nor explain this to your satisfaction. I will simply say that often movements are suggestive of several different useful options, and you need to be insightful enough as well as properly educated, to be able to understand and recognize those options. And they often do require some alteration or adjustment to capitalize on those option. Knowledge within kata is usually not served to you on a silver platter. If you are accustomed to silver platter treatment, then kata will remain frustrating for you. Again, you don't need to be convinced, and neither do you need to do kata. Yo are welcome to train with other methods.

Regarding the last sentence in the above quote: just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it's not there.



> One can find numerous online examples of these kata sequences that are *done in a way that in no way resembles actual fighting*. But when one asks posters for applications for kata sequences that do map to actual fighting, one typically gets the quite common reply of "We have good realistic fighting concepts in my system/dojo but we can't show it online because it is not allowed. You see, our applications are still a big secret."



And what does "actual fighting" look like? Again, just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Just because you don't think it looks like "actual fighting" doesn't mean it's not useful in fighting.



> There is an old expression, "seeing is believing." If karateka want the world to believe that the movements in kata (the full sequences, not just tiny snippets) have real world application, then they should be prepared to defend that position. It is just all too easy to say "kata is a textbook, an encyclopedia of fighting" or "in my system, if the basics are taught correctly, then the yudanshu are able to figure out how to use the movements," or "so and so's website has all the answers."



I might be getting repetitous, but there's an older expression that goes: "I don't give a rat's *** what you think about it, one way or the other, and I don't need to convince you." I suspect the vast majority of karateka (and kung fu people) don't care what the uneducated "world" may think of what they do. In fact, I prefer to let people underestimate what I do. Let people like yourself think it's no good. Go ahead, perpetuate that belief. It works for me.



> It would be so much more helpful if those arguing that the long sequences in kata can provide for good fighting would be willing to provide some links of specific kata application. Not just tiny pieces of kata taken out of their sequences with all manner of additional strikes/locks/takedowns not found in the kata added to make them useful.



ah, "if it doesn't exist on the internet, or on Youtube, it doesn't exist in the world..." Sorry, some of these things just don't get across in the written form nor on video, nor in a quick discussion without a fair bit of background understanding and familiarity with the system. That's not the same as saying "it's too secret to share". Rather it's just saying, "you lack the background to understand what I'm telling you, and I cannot give you that background in the quick and easy format that you seem to be looking for, so you are gonna have to settle with...you just won't get it". Either that or you need to train with a knowledgeable instructor for a couple years, and then you might get it.



> It would be interesting if karate posters didn't hide behind secrecy and old tired phrases such as "anyone deriding the use of katas/forms in training doesn't understand the art enough".* I have a simple response. Prove it. Provide evidence*. Where's the bunkai.



what! for YOU? Nah, I don't feel like it.

The rest of what you wrote doesn't merit comment.


----------



## K-man

*Cayuga, *I know how much research and thought that you have put into your martial arts so I have to disagree with some of the sentiment directed at you. I have often considered kata as a system that includes weapons but have not had time to follow that line. In light of your research into kata and the short spear I have difficulty understanding your opposition to considering that kata might be a total fighting system. However, I am looking forward to seeing your response to my earlier post.   Don't expect video because I don't 'do' video but I will give you an explanation.  (The other thing to bear in mind is that it has cost us considerably to learn what we have learned and I doubt anyone would appreciate me putting it all out for everyone to use.)


----------



## Leon026

Tez3 said:


> Good post Leon. You are staying in a very beautiful place, I've gone past it often as we stay either in Grimaud or La Garde Freinet. Who do you train MMA with? I know the Schiavo brothers aren't too far away and I assume Karl Amoussou is in America?



I train MMA with Sebastien Guiet, and the people from HB Academy - more so working on my ground technique and submission defense.






I think that the way we look at kata is perhaps... the reverse of how it was intended. The idea many of us have, is that kata is based off of real combat, thus naturally, kata should be applicable to real combat. However, if you bear in mind my first post above about the level of karate and how kenjutsu (as example) was taught in the 1800s, we would have an idea that karate (or any martial art for that matter) was taught once a month or so. Perhaps more often closer to the 1930s, but nevertheless it wouldnt be hyper regulated and information on training technique and all sorts of training support (nutritionists, books, youtube, internet) didn't exist. My natural conclusion therefore, was that kata should be viewed as a textbook/exercise book. Homework, if you will. You don't learn how to apply calculus in every day life, and I for one, have never calculated anything in the line of x^2 + x + 1 = y in my life. Ever. But, we still did it because it made us work our maths.... and because the course dictated that you do the homework. I believe Kata in Karate is similar. You *can* have real-life application if the correct situation crops up where you can directly apply Kata; just as much as I'm sure a real-life situation helped create the kata in the first place. But Kata imo, is essentially training material. Tekki-shodan, for example, should be viewed as prime training material foor kiba dachi and therefore thigh strengthening.

Its a textbook / exercise book, where you repeat kata ad infinitum when the teacher isn't there to teach you new techniques or guide you. Kata, is something you can repeat and work on on your own - and with a little self discipline such as lowering your overall height, increasing snap, having the feet properly angled etc, are all ways of "working" without the teacher being physically there in person to smack you if your feet arent properly aligned. Kata is useful as training material, as an exercise that should be repeated to perfection, naturally, but as a way to continue training when the teacher is not present. But I think obsessing in trying to find the direct and "true" application of kata, or the *need* to apply bunkai to real life, is akin to trying to apply the x^2 + x + 1 = y function in a history class, and claiming its ******** because it doesnt apply. Yes, it doesnt apply, but it certainly played an important part in math class, and perhaps indirectly assisted you in being able to manage your budget through Excel.


----------



## TimoS

Leon026 said:


> Tekki-shodan, for example, should be viewed as prime training material foor kiba dachi and therefore thigh strengthening.


No, it is good training material for self defence situations. Just an example, the first combination for Tekki/Naifanchi shodan: imagine some one attacking you with haymaker punch. You step in, block the punch and then respond with an elbow strike (or three). Doesn't sound like material for thigh strenghtening to me.
Strengthening exercises are totally different.


----------



## seasoned

The stances are relevant for self defense within the kata, and the thighs just happen to get a strengthening workout as a by product............


----------



## chinto

perhaps I have just been lucky, but in both systems of Karate I study the Sensei's have insisted on Bunkai sessions where  first at lower ranks the kihon applications are looked at, and at higher ranks you find the others hidden there.  Karate is a very efficent and effective art!  Most of your older arts are, as they were developed not for sport, but survival!  

there are in most of the older arts,  strikes, blocks, locks, brakes, throws and take downs, and this is not just Karate, but Jujitsu, Kung Fu, Silat, and on and on.


----------



## lonewolfofmibu

I say it's not so black and white as "karate is or isn't effective" because I've seen and trained in both ends of the spectrum, I've had traditional matial arts instuctors that claimed they were deadly weapons but had never been in real fights and I've had soft spoken teachers that I would never fight not even with a hand gun. 
I truely believe you can take any martial art from Aikido to Taekwondo to karate to Brazilian Jiujitsu and adapt it to any situation if you train it right, yeah if you train half heartedly and only train for very specific matches chances are you'll be embarrassed in a real fight but if you take your training seriously and train to against many different opponents from many different styles you'll be ready for what life throws at you


----------



## SacredCoconut

It probely has been pointed out alredy, but i think the writer has wrong meaning of self defense.

Best self defense is not to get into fight, in the case you do have to defend, i would not do it unless must (someone hits you with out much warning, most likely some drunk guy). If it realy would be against experinced fighter or group, running awey or giving them money or something is most likely better option for SD. I don't see the kata training karateka starting fight unless must, but i can see the reality based (edit) guy wanting to show his skills inte the streets. hardest part here is to have the right mind set, which karate probely helps with.

If you want skills to FIGHT then yeah some reality based art may be better, but in self defense i see that as less important factor. I know every school is not same and this may be different at some places.


----------



## Tez3

SacredCoconut said:


> It probely has been pointed out alredy, but i think the writer has wrong meaning of self defense.
> 
> Best self defense is not to get into fight, in the case you do have to defend, i would not do it unless must (someone hits you with out much warning, most likely some drunk guy). If it realy would be against experinced fighter or group, running awey or giving them money or something is most likely better option for SD. I don't see the kata training karateka starting fight unless must, but i can see the MMA guy wanting to show his skills inte the streets. hardest part here is to have the right mind set, which karate probely helps with.
> 
> If you want skills to FIGHT then yeah some reality based art may be better, but in self defense i see that as less important factor. I know every school is not same and this may be different at some places.



MMA people don't want to 'show their techniques on the street' anymore than anyone else. Many MMA are also karateka as well as Judokas,TKDists etc. so much for mindset. MMA people aren't anymore aggressive than anyone else, in fact they are liable to be less so outside competition, they spend their aggression up in training and comps leaving them quite mellow actually!


----------



## SacredCoconut

Yeah i know its not everyone, it was just example, probely bad one at that. If we take it in the contects of first post, MMA guy should not train in traditional arts, which i feel like help with the mind set.


----------



## chinto

SacredCoconut said:


> It probely has been pointed out alredy, but i think the writer has wrong meaning of self defense.
> 
> Best self defense is not to get into fight, in the case you do have to defend, i would not do it unless must (someone hits you with out much warning, most likely some drunk guy). If it realy would be against experinced fighter or group, running awey or giving them money or something is most likely better option for SD. I don't see the kata training karateka starting fight unless must, but i can see the reality based (edit) guy wanting to show his skills inte the streets. hardest part here is to have the right mind set, which karate probely helps with.
> 
> If you want skills to FIGHT then yeah some reality based art may be better, but in self defense i see that as less important factor. I know every school is not same and this may be different at some places.



I do not agree that some how the so called "reality based" schools are any better in general.  In fact most teach a modified troop style which is not intended to face a trained fighter any way.  all that said, it is more about the man then the art in many ways.


----------



## Em MacIntosh

Situational awareness, dealing with the adrenaline dump and making/taking an escape rout are not a part of the curriculum of any traditional style of karate I've ever had experience with.  Karate teaches you muscle memory through technique so that during the aforementioned and unaddressed adrenaline dump you'll move instinctively the way you've practised (unless you become catatonic or prone).  Karate can't give you real life experience.  Karate can't teach you to deal with panic and can only teach you a little about pain.  It won't address the psychology of courage, of being assaulted or coping with maliciousness.  While you may think some of these things are covered in class, application is a shock to any sane person.

To defend yourself you have to be able to _use_ your karate and that's 4/5ths of the struggle.  Also keep in mind an assailant will have some kind of force multiplier, be it a knife, an ambush, friends or all of the above.  There's a time for viciousness and you won't learn that in karate either.  Being assaulted causes a traumatic paradigm shift and this injury takes a lot more to heal than bruises and broken bones.

Just like karate isn't responsible for teaching ethics to your children, it isn't responsible for traumatising you to prepare you for the dark parts of humanity.  Keep fit and stay out of bad situations (assess a room when you walk into it and know where the exits are).  Maintain a healthy level of prejudice on the street and listen to your gut.


----------



## SacredCoconut

I don't know if you understood my post little wrong, but i just pointed out that the skill to win fight does not make you good in self defense, in this case MMA. If your in good shape, right mind set and information how to deal with it, you probely can have good SD, knowing how to evade it in advance belongs here to. From these karate at least in my mind helps with shape, mind set and depending on school information.

Oh yeah my MMA example was realy bad, as someone who compeats, most likely does everything he can do to avoid trouble.


----------



## Tez3

MMA fighters are perfectly able to defend themselves if need be even on a stag night ( hence the 'drag'), I know these lads, good fighters both of them and it goes to show that 'what you train is how you defend yourself 'on the street' isn't such a truism after all. Enjoy.


----------



## SacredCoconut

Yeah MMA will be able to defend him self, but in my opinion that dosen't make him good in "self defense". Yes MMA will give you things that will help with self defense as well as karate, and my post was just about, how karate is useless in self defense and MMA is not. Ofc it does helps as it is Mixed Martial Arts, if it did not, most MA would not help. Am i realy that bad at writing it, or do people jump in to conlusions too fast?

And my point about avoiding, was that it may bring problems with competing. I'm not sure, but coudn't that get you ban in some events?


----------



## Tez3

SacredCoconut said:


> Yeah MMA will be able to defend him self, but in my opinion that dosen't make him good in "self defense". Yes MMA will give you things that will help with self defense as well as karate, and my post was just about, how karate is useless in self defense and MMA is not. Ofc it does helps as it is Mixed Martial Arts, if it did not, most MA would not help. Am i realy that bad at writing it, or do people jump in to conlusions too fast?
> 
> And my point about avoiding, was that it may bring problems with competing. I'm not sure, but coudn't that get you ban in some events?



What makes you 'good' at self defence is the will to survive. 

When the OP says 'traditional karate' it's meaningless, there are many styles and many ways of teaching karate, you cannot dismiss them all as useless for self defence. It's like saying food is bad for you, it raises too many questions.

What was karate originally designed for? Have a think about this, it wasn't designed for dancing around and/or philosophical thinking.
It can work very well for self defence but then many people defend themselves perfectly well without knowing any martial arts at all.


----------



## SacredCoconut

I think so too, but the one who wrote this dosen't seem to think so. When i read it, i thought he makes it seem like MMA is better, because you can beat someone up. Did i understand the opening wrong?

Well arguing about karate vs MMA in SD is prety pointless, as alredy stated depends on school. I was in impression that you missunterstood me, and i was trying to straight it up.


----------



## K-man

I've just gone back and re-read the OP and also my posts of over three years ago.  At the time I thought, from my experience, that the OP was wrong in many areas and that the reality based SD I was teaching was vastly different from the karate he was describing. Three years down the track and I have changed from a Japanese based style to an Okinawan style. The difference between the two in application, understanding and practice is substantial. 

Now when I read the OP I am reading an article written by someone who has very little understanding of the real martial arts and more particularly, karate.  I can agree that it may take longer to be proficient in traditional MAs, but even that is not necessarily the case.  When I read the part regarding kata I see he has absolutely no idea of the application of kata, and when he talks of fine motor skills being part of karate, I can't think of any techniques I teach that rely on fine motor movement. He talks about rigidity and unrealistic stances but has obviously never seen the fluidity of Okinawan Goju, or the application of the foot work involved in the stances.

I've recently returned from my third overseas trip in as many years, purely for training RBSD. That training is all gross motor, all close contact and all brutal. It does not rely on being attacked first although it could be used where the attack was unexpected. (That introduces a whole new area of situational awareness.) It is all kata based and kata alone.

i suppose what I'm restating is that 'traditional' karate should contain everything you need to defend or survive. If you think is doesn't, then either that style or more likely the instructors are at fault. What I was taught thirty years ago was good basics but very limited understanding. The article in the OP is talking about the type of karate I was exposed to then, not what I teach now.
:asian:


----------



## OldKarateGuy

There's so much open to interpretation, when one says "self-defense". If you've trained in, say, sparring or serious kata, then you would be expected to breathe under pressure - rather than, say, like all new karate students, holding your breath under stress. Didn't we all do that the first time testing or competing? You would also hope someone trained in the classic MA would move about, and not stand still. These are lessons hopefully learned in most martial art training. Then there are the specific block and strike techniques, or take downs, probably pretty similar but certainly with variation (in efficiency) by style and/or instructor. How about some non-specific feeling of how to think and act during a fight? For instance, in boxing, you might be accepting of getting hit, albeit with a good blocking and protective technique. The same might be true of some traditional martial arts, perhaps deriving from how each point sparring philosophy works. Stupid, maybe, but true. So, in some styles, point fighting to a time limit with no limit of points scored, and maybe, little or no emphasis on defending oneself. However, in real world fights, I always - emphasize always - expected and attempted to avoid getting hit at all costs. I was not willing to trade techniques. (I got hit enough even with this attitude) So, analogous to the Japanese centric "one punch, one kill" feeling, of say, shotokan sparring with an Ippon win of a single strike. Certainly we have all seen point sparring which rewards stances, techniques and strategy which would be disastrous in real life.
I see some comments about avoiding a fight being some kind of MA trained response. Probably true, I think, but very limited in application. We hope our students would walk away from a senseless ego-based fight, but of course, in real life, walking away is not usually an option if you didn't instigate the issue in the first place. Also, there are those for whom avoidance is simply not an option, law enforcement or the military, for instance. Personal violence in such is not just unavoidable, it's part of the job description. 
I was on a police department in a major urban area, with a high crime rate and a poor inner city. For the first 20 years or so, I did Judo. I picked just a few techniques which seemed to work for me, and practiced them all the time, from different positions, etc. Rarely, I might do something different from the Judo playbook, instinctively, and I used to surprise myself when I did. I had two or three strikes (palm heel and ridge hand my favorites), two or three takedowns, wrist-bars, sweeps, and they made up 90% of my fighting. But I also think the intangibles, breathing, movement, clarity of thought, learned on the dojo floor were invaluable too. Toward the end of my career, I switched to karate, but can't really say I used much of it in a real-world sense, because I was older and not in a position to encounter personal violence very often. I should also qualify this as admitting I used a blunt instrument rather than my fist whenever I could. So, nightstick or flashlight to the head or body...not really a traditional martial art.
Last, you can't train for martial spirit. One has heart, or not, However, students can - and do - learn that getting punched in the nose is not the end of the world, that a little blood won't kill you, and that usually, mental toughness can be the defining factor in a fight. Well, some fights anyway. 
So, I agree that traditional martial arts can lead to an ability to defend oneself. Some styles may lend themselves to more efficiency than others, and certainly, there may be a few styles - or more likely, some instructors - whose training could lead to a disaster in the real world. But, if the question is, does traditional martial arts training make you better at defending yourself, how could the answer be anything but "of course."


----------



## SenseiRuss

I beg to differ:

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/


----------



## K-man

SenseiRuss said:


> I beg to differ:
> 
> http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/


I'd just like to say two things.

1. I wish he was Goju.

2. I wish he would visit Australia more often.

:asian:


----------



## seasoned

K-man said:


> I'd just like to say two things.
> 
> 1. I wish he was Goju.
> 
> 2. I wish he would visit Australia more often.
> 
> :asian:



He's built like some of the Okinawa's.


----------



## Tez3

seasoned said:


> He's built like some of the Okinawa's.



Roflmao! he's one of my favourite people.


----------



## Curlykarateka

Karate was built to defend peasants from armed samurai, arguably knife fighters fight very differently but karate can adapt. I mean sure, a guy isn't gonna walk up and perform a lunging stab or clear cut slash. He's gonna get in close and stab me in short, quick movements. I have no idea how to deal with that kind of attack other than "can't see his hands, punch him in the throat" BTW the one hit kill does exist. Ushirogeri to the solar-plexus, a powerful hand technique to the throat. any of those would end a fight. Also, best self defense against an armed attacker, just give him the bleeding wallet. Kata is a training exercise to the best of my knowledge, a way of developing technique and breathing and showing us principles of fighting. Also, it is not  religion, but a common philosophy all TMA practitioners should share, one of perpetual self improvement and using Martial arts for the good. Martial arts ought to teach us so much more than how to fight, but also how to not fight. Also, karate fighters are not stiff or rigid, and the stances are very effective at harnessing the power of the body, protecting vital areas and mobility. I can doge from nikoashi dachi as quick if not quicker than I can from a standard boxing stance. Some senseis may only stick to the traditional, in my dojo one the main things we do is develop our own self defense methods. "curlykarateka-ryu" rather than Goju-Ryu, developing and honing a natural response to any attack. I could go on, but I'll finish by saying that you should not dismiss a way of fighting without having studied it deeply first, with a decent sensei.


----------



## TimoS

Curlykarateka said:


> Karate was built to defend peasants from armed samurai



No it wasn't


----------



## Curlykarateka

TimoS said:


> No it wasn't


Alright, it wasn't originally developed for that but I'm sure the need to defend daughters from oppressive samurai overlords forced karate to accomodate that and evolve.


----------



## TimoS

Curlykarateka said:


> Alright, it wasn't originally developed for that but I'm sure the need to defend daughters from oppressive samurai overlords forced karate to accomodate that and evolve.


  :BSmeter:
Please read up on the actual history of karate before you make even more of a fool of yourself. Here's a helpful hint: check out the history of Bushi Matsumura


----------



## Curlykarateka

TimoS said:


> :BSmeter:
> Please read up on the actual history of karate before you make even more of a fool of yourself. Here's a helpful hint: check out the history of Bushi Matsumura


sigh, I'll admit defeat now. thank you.


----------



## K-man

Curlykarateka said:


> Karate was built to defend peasants from armed samurai, arguably knife fighters fight very differently but karate can adapt.
> 
> &#8203;What *TimoS* said!
> 
> I mean sure, a guy isn't gonna walk up and perform a lunging stab or clear cut slash. He's gonna get in close and stab me in short, quick movements. I have no idea how to deal with that kind of attack other than "can't see his hands, punch him in the throat"
> 
> Nothing to do with this thread but good luck with that theory.
> 
> BTW the one hit kill does exist.
> 
> Mmmm!
> 
> Ushirogeri to the solar-plexus, a powerful hand technique to the throat. any of those would end a fight.
> 
> Possibly.
> 
> Also, best self defense against an armed attacker, just give him the bleeding wallet.
> 
> Can't argue with that.
> 
> Kata is a training exercise to the best of my knowledge, a way of developing technique and breathing and showing us principles of fighting.
> 
> And, here you are demonstrating a total lack of knowledge.  Go and read some history of the martial arts in China. Find out where the kata came from and what they mean.
> 
> You are right in saying they help develop technique and they do show us principles of fighting but they are much much more than that.
> 
> Also, it is not  religion, but a common philosophy all TMA practitioners should share, one of perpetual self improvement and using Martial arts for the good.
> 
> Admirable sentiment.
> 
> Martial arts ought to teach us so much more than how to fight, but also how to not fight.
> 
> ????       I can go with the first but try telling the second part to most MAs and their eyes will glaze.
> 
> Also, karate fighters are not stiff or rigid, and the stances are very effective at harnessing the power of the body, protecting vital areas and mobility.
> 
> That is not the purpose of stances.
> 
> I can doge from nikoashi dachi as quick if not quicker than I can from a standard boxing stance.
> 
> Only in 'sport' karate.  I used it successfully in tournament sparring but it is totally different in a SD situation.
> 
> Some senseis may only stick to the traditional, in my dojo one the main things we do is develop our own self defense methods. "curlykarateka-ryu" rather than Goju-Ryu, developing and honing a natural response to any attack.
> 
> Natural response is good. Systema works on that principle.  But 'curlykarateka-ryu"?  I might respectfully suggest you look at some other Goju schools.  (Check *Tez*'s thread on English for the meaning.)  I'll happily stick with 'traditional because it is well proven.
> 
> I could go on, but I'll finish by saying that you should not dismiss a way of fighting without having studied it deeply first, with a decent sensei.
> 
> That is exactly what I am saying!!!  That is exactly why traditional karate needs to be studied deeply with a Sensei who understands 'traditional' karate.


I think you might have a lot of study ahead if these sentiments represent your understanding of Goju Ryu.   :asian:


----------



## Curlykarateka

K-man said:


> I think you might have a lot of study ahead if these sentiments represent your understanding of Goju Ryu.   :asian:


thank you for that. I think I should leave this forum and come back in a few years. I desire only to learn.


----------



## K-man

Curlykarateka said:


> thank you for that. I think I should leave this forum and come back in a few years. I desire only to learn.


Mate. Don't leave because people disagree with you. There are some really good folk on this forum. If you make a statement that people disagree with, you will attract spirited replies.  If you raise the same topic as a genuine question you will get a fantastic range of responses from right across the martial art spectrum.   :asian:


----------



## Cyriacus

Curlykarateka said:


> thank you for that. I think I should leave this forum and come back in a few years. I desire only to learn.



Did it never occur to you that you can only learn if you know what you need to learn about?
Being told your wrong is not a bad thing to be avoided, its an opportunity to refresh your information. Would you have questioned what you 'knew' if someone hadnt contradicted you? You came in declaring it as fact because you likely believed it was. Your willingness to acknowledge that you were wrong is more than alot of people can say. If you dont want to stick around you dont have to, but you can only stand to gain by doing so


----------



## mook jong man

Hey Curly , don't worry about it mate.
Wait till you get married , you'll get told your wrong everyday by a bloody professional.
Just water off a ducks back mate , water off a ducks back.


----------



## sopraisso

mook jong man said:


> Hey Curly , don't worry about it mate.
> Wait till you get married , you'll get told your wrong everyday by a bloody professional.
> Just water off a ducks back mate , water off a ducks back.



Hehehe.
This is wisdom, forget the rest.


----------



## sopraisso

Seriously, why is this thread still alive? I read the op just a few weeks ago and I feel sick only by remembering about it! The knowledgeable people that are in this forum deserve better. Die thread, die! :shooter:


----------



## K-man

sopraisso said:


> Seriously, why is this thread still alive? I read the op just a few weeks ago and I feel sick only by remembering about it! The knowledgeable people that are in this forum deserve better. Die thread, die! :shooter:


I suppose the thread is alive because W R Mann wrote articles, from his perspective as a reality based martial artist, arguing that the traditional martial arts were not effective for self defence. It is a view expressed by many people so the question has validity, now as much as ten years ago.  Whether Mann actually saw 'traditional' martial arts let alone studied any of them comprehensively is open to conjecture. I have no question that Mann is teaching very sound reality based self defence and I have no doubt there he is right in asserting there are many martial arts schools that are not. The truth lies somewher in between. I have no doubt that a good 'traditional' school can teach RBSD.   :asian:


----------



## sopraisso

K-man said:


> I suppose the thread is alive because W R Mann wrote articles, from his perspective as a reality based martial artist, arguing that the traditional martial arts were not effective for self defence. It is a view expressed by many people so the question has validity, now as much as ten years ago.  Whether Mann actually saw 'traditional' martial arts let alone studied any of them comprehensively is open to conjecture. I have no question that Mann is teaching very sound reality based self defence and I have no doubt there he is right in asserting there are many martial arts schools that are not. The truth lies somewher in between. I have no doubt that a good 'traditional' school can teach RBSD.   :asian:



There was a time when I even thought about giving up traditional martial arts (karate and taekwondo), because I didn't understand how they worked, and they just seemed worthless in a self-defense perspective (it was never my main reason for practising, but it always mattered to me). The point is really most practitioners don't understand karate (sadly). The art has been through a lot of changes and misinterpretations since it was introduced in Okinawa's education system and later when going to Japan, and this, added with other factors, has lead to a massive lack of comprehension of how it functions. The consequence is that today some people claim that karate "doesn't work for self-defense", just because in reality they don't have a clue on what's karate really like. It's a delicate situation because even senior practitioners sometimes don't comprehend applied karate.

At a certain point I was fortunate to begin to understand the relation between forms and actual fighting, and that formal movements in karate represented principles and templates of movements that should be applied in a fight according to the situation (loosely speaking, it's hard to describe completely what forms are with few words).

Today when I think of the most effective methods I could use in a fight, I just think of karate. But I don't think of things like using a full down block motion to "block" a kick or a "low punch" -- like many experienced practitioners I know would suggest. A full "down block" to me represents a great variety of movements that can be used in a fight, and every part of the "down block" means highly effective and practical techniques that are able to finish or achieve great advantage over an opponent. The sole turning to the side in the most basic Pinnan/Heian has important lessons in it (moving off line when the attacker goes towards you, and going to the side/back of the attacker, for example -- and this is not half of the lessons I know in that movement -- and other practitioners surely understand it better).

*I've talked to krav maga practitioners who thought that karate was worthless as a fighting system. I showed them how I would use simple techniques and principles contained in karate forms, and they agreed that they were sound techniques -- those guys would never have a reason to talk down upon karate anymore.*

What really has to be questioned is the way most schools teach karate today, and the consequences of such teaching to the art a whole -- what is absolutely not fault of the teachers: they have been teached just like that. *This can be a delicate discussion because sometimes the pride of some instructors will prevent them from admiting they have not learned karate in a deeper and practical way* (I've experienced this with a few taekwondo instructors), but I believe today we are in a very good moment for having a better understanding, because the internet has made it much easier to access good knowledge about it, and there are great works from Okinawa masters that are being translated to English -- some of those works show clearly how today's teaching of karate is full of misconceptions.

But as for the text highlighted in the OP... It's like a caveman saying a firearm is useless for hunting because he doesn't know how to use a firearm.

I know there'll be a time when this discussion will be pointless: knowledge is spreading fast, and soon most schools will have a reasonable grasp on practical applications of karate. I don't agree with every word said by Iain Abernethy (cited for other people here) in his works, but he's absolutely a great beginning for this process and he himself was partially responsible for my "awakening". Others are showing up, even in very different styles. I highly recommend Masaji Taira's studies on Goju-Ryu bunkai: he has a slightly different approach to bunkai and bases his works in different sets of kata compared to Mr. Abernethy, but he surely can absolutely kick *** with his karate. These guys are unveiling karate and showing that it is, indeed, a spectacular art of self-defense (not a war/combat art, by the way, as opposed to the various Japanese jujutsu styles, for example). :asian:


----------



## sopraisso

K-man said:


> I'd just like to say two things.
> 
> 1. I wish he was Goju.
> 
> 2. I wish he would visit Australia more often.
> 
> :asian:



K-man, I have already mentioned in my previous post, but have you heard of Masaji Taira's works on Goju-ryu bunkai? Maybe you'd enjoy his approach, although it's not exactly like Abernethy's.
Here's a small clip that shows some good illustration about his work:


----------



## Omar B

Sopa covered it prett well above, that whole post was full of win.  Yeah I also doubted karate growing up doing Seido and Kyokushin I thought my view short and narrow, got into Choi Kwang Do, learned a lot.  Got into Bujinkan for about a summer. Turns out, I am perfectly happy with karate and it works for me.


----------



## K-man

sopraisso said:


> K-man, I have already mentioned in my previous post, but have you heard of Masaji Taira's works on Goju-ryu bunkai? Maybe you'd enjoy his approach, although it's not exactly like Abernethy's.
> Here's a small clip that shows some good illustration about his work:


I have had the privilege to train with Taira Sensei on numerous occasions. In fact he will be here again in a fortnight. I have been teaching his bunkai for the past three years. He is an outstanding martial artist and a humble man as well.  :asian:

P.S.  If you look carefully at some of his videos you'll see a guy with grey hair watching intently. That could well be me.


----------



## chinto

not sure why this thread even still exists. but its really simple. if Traditional Martial arts, that have literally Centuries of hard work, effort and experience involved in their development did not work then: one they would have died out many many years ago!  Two: no one would have put that much time, effort and blood literally into developing them would they?  and three: they would have never ever spread they way they did would they have??!

So please some one shut this stupid, ridiculous thread down......


----------



## sopraisso

K-man said:


> I have had the privilege to train with Taira Sensei on numerous occasions. In fact he will be here again in a fortnight. I have been teaching his bunkai for the past three years. He is an outstanding martial artist and a humble man as well.  :asian:
> 
> P.S.  If you look carefully at some of his videos you'll see a guy with grey hair watching intently. That could well be me.



This... is... absolutely... awesome! 
See... I'm pretty much a beginner in Goju-ryu (I practice both goju and shotokan), so I'm not completely in a rush to have a better understanding of its forms and methods... but Taira-sensei's method looks incredible, and I've been thinking a lot about finding a way to learn it -- but I could hardly do it with a live teacher, not in the place where I live (let's say here they teach the old regular Japanese goju classes -- the good stuff on karate I usually learn in forums, books, articles, videos and in bunkai studies by myself). So I've been looking for references on his work... but I don't find any! Doesn't he (or other good instructors on his method) have any books/instructional vids? Aren't there any books I could use to understand his method? You know, there are good vids on YouTube, but it'd be great to have more student-oriented sources. I've been planning to join his Okinawa Goju-ryu Karate-do Kenkyukai, but the fact that I'm a beginner at goju-ryu has made postpone that plan. Could you give me some ideas about this (maybe via PM)?
Thanks in advance!


----------



## Sensei Tom O'Brien

There are tenniques in every style of martial arts that are useful in SD.  MMA, MT, BJJ, ju-jitsu, boxing, kick-boxing, krav mega, reality based, Arnis & so on & so forth.  No one method has all the answers all the time.  Try to learn from as many of them as you can.


----------



## Jackthekarateguy

Well obviously he went to a bleedin' useless karate school. Btw, he mentions legal considerations but then said "allow techniques on fallen opponents". If there's anything these reality based guys are notorious for it's over reacting and hospitalising a guy who was showing off in front of mates/trying to get money for food/drugs/clothing etc. (sweeping generalisation, don't pick me up on that)


----------



## chinto

I have been taught bunkai from the start in both Shobayashi Shorin Ryu and Matsumura Seito Shorin Ryu.  I think there was a time in the 1960's and part of the 70's that many Karate instructors were not taught about bunkai. that has changed.  I have had to use Karate for self defense, and it worked very very well when to loose was to die. 

So once again, why is this stupid thread still here??


----------



## TimoS

chinto said:


> I
> So once again, why is this stupid thread still here??



Because people like you (and me) keep replying to it


----------



## MaxRob

Original Karate was a true self defense art, combined with pain conditioning and if brought back in its original form still would be an effective martial art.
problem is many of thee martial arts have been subject to change,due to our legal system, ethics etc and this has weakened their self defense effectiveness.
ok we have guns today and machine pistols, so our self defense awareness  and avoidance techniques need to be A1
Yes I agree combination martial arts as in Kajukenbo have an advantage in street fighting situations, but it should  to be more effective the hard line Kajukembo that was taught by Sijo Adriano Directo Emperado.
in a street fight you take pain and dish it out, if one is afraid of pain or getting hit where it hurts, you are a looser.
self defense is aimed at getting out of a life threatening situation, the more cards you have to play the better, pain conditioning is an Ace in the sleeve!


----------



## RTKDCMB

There are so many things wrong with that article it is hard to know where to start commenting on it so I'm not going to.


----------



## Koshiki

Ceicei said:


> 1. The One-Strike Kill
> 
> Do any Kareteka YOU know actually buy into the literal, "one-strike, one kill" thing? I can't say I've heard that outside of film, and non-martial artist friends who watch too much film...
> 
> 2. Waiting for The Attack
> 
> I can't tell you how many times I've heard and said, "hit 'im while he's talking." But if you actually train Karate and know what you're doing, letting them really commit to a motion is, as I'm sure we all agree among the swiftest ways to end it.
> 
> 3. On Stances
> 
> Apparently their experience of stance work consisted of sitting in horse-stance drilling hand strikes for 10 minutes at the start of every class? I doubt there is an experienced, well trained practitioner out there who advocates static stances in combat...
> 
> 4. Karate as a Way Of Life
> 
> Has less to do with Karate as a way of life (And why the Heck NOT???), and more to do with, apparently no understanding of the interaction between kata, bunkai, and application. But really, why take the time to LEARN about something before you dismiss it?
> 
> 5. Spirituality and Meditation
> 
> For starters, I don't have a religion or spirituality for Japanese spirituality to affront, beyond trying really hard to be good to people and animals. I'm not much of a meditator, but I've never heard of anyone meditating and then finding their own belief system compromised as a result. Golly, who'd a thunk that relaxing and de-stressing could be so harmful to your values?
> 
> 6. Breaking Objects can Break You!
> 
> Oh good, I can agree with something. Yeah, breaking poorly is dangerous. Also, I've seen some pretty lousy technique break effect some pretty decent breaks. But again, if you're dedicating large segments of time to breaking, you're probably, I think, not learning karate in a traditional, self-defense-is-our-goal system...
> 
> 7. The Kata Crutch
> 
> Again, they could have taken five minutes to google, "why do karateka do kata?" or even, "what is kata?" before writing this thing.
> 
> 8. Karate Doesn't Prepare You for the Street
> 
> The author's school didn't mention adrenaline, obstacles, didn't train defense against rear attacks, had no pressure testing, and didn't address actual self-defense scenarios? Sounds more like a sport, and less like a martial art, to me...
> 
> As far as whether or not Karate addresses warning signs of abusive boyfriends, etc... well, no, not generally. But then, that's not really the type of self-defense karate claims to teach, either... For more day-to-day self-defense, you're better off taking a course in nutrition, getting a gym membership, and finding some counseling. But again, those things are not the sort of self-defense for which anyone primarily trains karate...
> 
> 9. Karate Makes you Stiff and Rigid
> 
> Wow. Didn't realize becoming unusually flexible, strong without bulk, agile, and practicing a wide variety of smooth yet violent motions on your feet, on one foot, in the air, and on the ground made you stiff and rigid. Much better to just sit on a machine and isolate muscle groups into simple motions, if you want to be supple and lithe. Has the author ever SEEN a legitimate karateka?
> 
> 10. Karate is Ineffective Against Modern Weapons
> 
> Sadly, this does seem to be true in many schools. Like, say, schools which are training martial arts for fitness, or for sport, or for performance... But wait, what about those schools that spend great amounts of time learning to avoid and control modern weapons are actually training ineffective techniques, you know, the shcools where the focus IS self-defense against contemporary threats. Gosh, I guess I better go tell them...
> 
> 11. Karate Takes Too Long to Learn, and You Still Can't Fight!
> 
> ...I have a few people in mind I would really like the author to test that statement with. Make that a few dozen. Ok, make that a lot of people...
> 
> 12. The Apotheosis of the Master
> 
> Yeah, that's just creepy, I agree. Fortunately, the only mindset I've encountered around schools in this area treats the instructor as a friend, a teacher, and above all, someone with whom you feel comfortable, and about whom you feel positive.​




Sounds like somebody went to a sloppy school for a few years, didn't train hard, and watched too many early Jackie Chan movies...

Ok. Sorry. Rant ended.​


----------



## Tired_Yeti

still learning said:


> Hello, Real fighting is fast, no rules, anything goes. Karate does not teach you to bite,scratch,spit in to the eyes, and karate is not set-up to fight a real street fight, who fights like the Katas?
> 
> But it does teach you to beware, and not fight, this is the best self-defence!
> 
> Did you ever see anyone punch like they train in Karate fist to side and straight long punch? Watch all the fighters of the world and see how they punch? Notice the best guys are the same! (like boxing)
> 
> The top karate guys will hold there own,but the average karate black-belt students will most likly lose to the street fighter. They are not train to fight like the streets fights. Just my thoughts (from books and videos on street fights)...Aloha


The defanging of karate has been a long road and I think, honestly, we can blame much of it on the Japanese culture around the turn of the 20th century. As most of us already know, karate as it was formed in Okinawa in the 18th and 19th centuries was a holistic, serious, deadly fighting art. Some of the "dirty" techniques you described are found in the older katas.
Ever since the past masters tried to preserve karate by introducing it to the mainstream (Japanese culture), it was neutered into an athletic event.

So, is karate legit for the street? Well, unfortunately, that will depend on how it's learned. If you learn it from a teacher who doesn't study the bunkai from the viewpoint that it should reveal actual fighting techniques--and, thus, you just get some bizarre stances, stretches, and exercises from kata--then it won't be effective. We hear of "secret techniques" hidden in kata. The past masters who created those kata did not intend for them to be "secret". The circa WWII Japanese brought that about when they held distain for karate as being primitive, violent, and an unhealthy pastime for citizens (thus forcing the Okinawan masters of the time to dilute it into an exercise regime). We're still suffering from that today.
Kata is like the alphabet. All the letters to make all the words are in there but you don't use them all at the same time or in the order presented. You take the bits that you need and out them in the order needed for that moment.
Lots of things in karate today are just way off the mark, IMO. For example, stances. A stance is a place you should end up AFTER completing a technique. It's not a position you should put yourself in at the start of a fight. In all the real fights I've been in as an adult, I've found it best not to assume a stance for 2 reasons. 1 the stance limits your options to a degree because it puts your body in a certain angle and puts certain limbs closer to the enemy than others. 2 if your enemy has fought before, he can recognize what your doing and see the limitations you've put on yourself. But...stances often seem to be encouraged as a starting position in karate. The chambering of the fist at the hip before a punch, etc. Just a couple examples of many.

Someone mentioned George Dillman. I'd be cautious about most of what comes it of his mouth, personally. Maybe a better example of a bunkai expert would be Iain Abernethy.

IMO


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I can't speak for anyone else, but the karate I practice (Isshinryu) is effective for self-defense.  Anyone who doubts that is welcome to give it a try sometime.  That is all.


----------



## Kickboxer101

If karate is in effective why do people train it? Now I don't do karate but I wouldn't want to mess with a black belt in any karate style. It teaches punches, kicks and blocks so that makes it just as effective as kickboxing or mauy Thai or kray maga or any other striking art


----------



## Tames D

Any fighting art is only as good as how it is trained.


----------



## drop bear

Kickboxer101 said:


> If karate is in effective why do people train it? Now I don't do karate but I wouldn't want to mess with a black belt in any karate style. It teaches punches, kicks and blocks so that makes it just as effective as kickboxing or mauy Thai or kray maga or any other striking art



People train some pretty stupid stuff. 

For the most part nobody ever has to use if for anything and can just go through their lives assuming they would be a badass if it came down to it.

This is not a reflection on karate. Just a response to "why would they train it"


----------



## Dirty Dog

Kickboxer101 said:


> If karate is in effective why do people train it?



People train in martial arts for lots of reasons. Many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with self defense.


----------



## Tired_Yeti

Dirty Dog said:


> People train in martial arts for lots of reasons. Many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with self defense.



Very true!
Some styles (e.g. Judo and Taekwondo) are sports. They've always been sports. They were always meant to be sports. Some people enjoy the sport just like some people enjoy swimming or golf. Nothing wrong with that. Some people train for the health and fitness of it. Nothing wrong with that either.

I think it's best if a person understands WHY they are personally training and what they are being taught and not fall into the mistake of assuming they are automatically covering all bases (fitness, sporting competitions, and self-defense/fighting) just because they are training in a martial art.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tired_Yeti said:


> Some styles (e.g. Judo and Taekwondo) are sports. They've always been sports. They were always meant to be sports.



This is utterly and completely wrong.


----------



## drop bear

Tired_Yeti said:


> Very true!
> Some styles (e.g. Judo and Taekwondo) are sports. They've always been sports. They were always meant to be sports. Some people enjoy the sport just like some people enjoy swimming or golf. Nothing wrong with that. Some people train for the health and fitness of it. Nothing wrong with that either.
> 
> I think it's best if a person understands WHY they are personally training and what they are being taught and not fall into the mistake of assuming they are automatically covering all bases (fitness, sporting competitions, and self-defense/fighting) just because they are training in a martial art.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk



Depends if it is the sport of fighting.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tired_Yeti said:


> Some styles (e.g. Judo and Taekwondo) are sports. They've always been sports. They were always meant to be sports.


Perhaps you should consult the TKD encyclopedia as to the motivation for the inception of TKD.


----------



## Buka

I know people take Martial Arts for a lot of different reasons, but I suspect that everyone wants to learn to defend themselves. I shall go to my grave believing that.


----------



## TSDTexan

Having been in real world fights on the streets of San Antonio TX, and tradition karate/TSD has served it's purpose of keeping me alive I must disagree totally with the main thesis.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Buka said:


> I know people take Martial Arts for a lot of different reasons, but I suspect that everyone wants to learn to defend themselves. I shall go to my grave believing that.


Exactly even if they're doing It just for fitness I'm sure they still want to be able to use it to defend themselves if need be even if it's not their main focus it's still something they'll want


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> Perhaps you should consult the TKD encyclopedia as to the motivation for the inception of TKD.




Not all tkd lineages have remained true to Choi's ITF vison many have sportified and have been broken ever since


----------



## TSDTexan

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but the karate I practice (Isshinryu) is effective for self-defense.  Anyone who doubts that is welcome to give it a try sometime.  That is all.



Having had a full contact mouth guard only fight with an Isshinryu stylist (he claimed 4th dan) I can say it was easier fighting shot"oh"kan point fighters by far. We were way too young and dumb back then, and he insulted my art form... and claimed it was useless.

We both seriously underestimated each other's art. At the time I hadn't ever heard of Isshinryu. We later became really good friends and he taught me a few things about nihanchi kata.


----------



## RTKDCMB

TSDTexan said:


> Not all tkd lineages have remained true to Choi's ITF vison many have sportified and have been broken ever since


My quote was in reference to the comment about the reason for TKD's origin, not what happened after.


----------



## TSDTexan

RTKDCMB said:


> My quote was in reference to the comment about the reason for TKD's origin, not what happened after.



You are correct in what you said, in reference to the founder's intent and purpose in TKD.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tired_Yeti said:


> Very true!
> Some styles (e.g. Judo and Taekwondo) are sports. They've always been sports. They were always meant to be sports. Some people enjoy the sport just like some people enjoy swimming or golf. Nothing wrong with that. Some people train for the health and fitness of it. Nothing wrong with that either.



Er… others have corrected the TKD aspect, but you realise that your comments are also completely incorrect for Judo as well, yeah? Sure, competitive formats and training methodologies have been implemented in Judo since it's inception, but that's not the same as saying it was "always meant to be (a) sport"… as that was not really the aim or intention of Kano sensei… 



Tired_Yeti said:


> I think it's best if a person understands WHY they are personally training and what they are being taught and not fall into the mistake of assuming they are automatically covering all bases (fitness, sporting competitions, and self-defense/fighting) just because they are training in a martial art.



This requires understanding the difference… which is not something that is always present… 



Buka said:


> I know people take Martial Arts for a lot of different reasons, but I suspect that everyone wants to learn to defend themselves. I shall go to my grave believing that.



Hmm… then, honestly, you'd go to your grave wrong. If you're cool with that, no problem… but… 

Iaido
Kyudo
Koryu
Jodo
Atarashii Naginata
Kendo

and that's just looking at a brief list of Japanese arts which have no real "self defence" aspect to them whatsoever. Just sayin'….


----------



## Buka

Chris Parker said:


> Er… others have corrected the TKD aspect, but you realise that your comments are also completely incorrect for Judo as well, yeah? Sure, competitive formats and training methodologies have been implemented in Judo since it's inception, but that's not the same as saying it was "always meant to be (a) sport"… as that was not really the aim or intention of Kano sensei…
> 
> 
> 
> This requires understanding the difference… which is not something that is always present…
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm… then, honestly, you'd go to your grave wrong. If you're cool with that, no problem… but…
> 
> Iaido
> Kyudo
> Koryu
> Jodo
> Atarashii Naginata
> Kendo
> 
> and that's just looking at a brief list of Japanese arts which have no real "self defence" aspect to them whatsoever. Just sayin'….



I am quite happy to go to my grave thinking that. 

But, you are correct, Chris. And I should have stated it differently. What I should have said is everyone I've known, trained with and taught, which, of course, is completely different.


----------



## Tired_Yeti

RTKDCMB said:


> My quote was in reference to the comment about the reason for TKD's origin, not what happened after.



Fine. TKD wasn't intended to be only a sport, but that's what it has become and has been that way for decades.


"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tired_Yeti said:


> Fine. TKD wasn't intended to be only a sport, but that's what it has become and has been that way for decades.



Again, you're posting from a very limited (and incorrect) view of TKD. There are certainly a lot of TKD practitioners here who do NOT practice or teach TKD only as a sport. I can't quote numbers, but off hand I think the majority of TKD practitioners active on here would fall into this category.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tired_Yeti said:


> Fine. TKD wasn't intended to be only a sport, but that's what it has become and has been that way for decades.


Well I know of one very large organization, and several smaller ones, that don't have any sporting elements whatsoever.


----------



## Deleted member 34973

Hmm...I would have to disagree with the OP's assessment. In my personal experience, Karate is a true self defense art. With it, I have defended myself several times with Karate and in my youth, I accepted challenges to prove this line of thinking is incorrect.

I do remember when Karate became geared for tournament and the focus of training was change for such. I believe it was then, that Karate was begining to lose its luster as a self defense program.

At least in that Dojo...the Head Instructor lost 65% of his blackbelts due to that decision. Of course this was 30-40 yrs ago.


----------



## Koshiki

Dirty Dog said:


> Again, you're posting from a very limited (and incorrect) view of TKD. There are certainly a lot of TKD practitioners here who do NOT practice or teach TKD only as a sport. I can't quote numbers, but off hand I think the majority of TKD practitioners active on here would fall into this category.



TKD guy reporting in. I don't even know the basic rule-sets of any of the TKD sport-game things, Olympic style, point-sparring, what have you. If I entered a tournament for TKD sparring, I would, I'm sure, be out in the first seconds of the first round.

What I train in may be nominally TKD, but in application I find a lot more affinity with applied Goju Ryu, for example.

Just to back up Dirty Dogs point, I guess that's at least _two_ non-sport TKD guys on here...

EDIT:  But also, is this REALLY a 12 year old thread???


----------



## Buka

Zack Cart said:


> TKD guy reporting in. I don't even know the basic rule-sets of any of the TKD sport-game things, Olympic style, point-sparring, what have you. If I entered a tournament for TKD sparring, I would, I'm sure, be out in the first seconds of the first round.
> 
> What I train in may be nominally TKD, but in application I find a lot more affinity with applied Goju Ryu, for example.
> 
> Just to back up Dirty Dogs point, I guess that's at least _two_ non-sport TKD guys on here...
> 
> EDIT:  But also, is this REALLY a 12 year old thread???



A twelve year old thread, twenty two pages of it, yet a traditional Art still lives, still works and still serves people's needs.

Damn straight.


----------



## Ademadis

I really enjoy training in Karate for the pseudo-religious aspect that gets shot down in the article...

Also I study while completely understanding that practising karate and self-defence are two completely different things. If it really was a do or die self-defence situation I would take the mentality over limiting myself to the moves any day. Do whatever it takes, but look scary and completely in control while you do it I guess?

Also all those years ago I studied Tae Kwon Do to stop myself from being bullied at school. I never learned any sporting elements to it but it sure as hell made the bad kids go away. I'd say that counts as effective self defence.


----------



## Tez3

Ademadis said:


> Also I study while completely understanding that practising karate and self-defence are two completely different things



Why do you think they are two completely different things? Karate was designed as civilian unarmed self defence, it's what the Bunkai of katas are all about as much as all the other training in it.  Karate is very much about self defence, I don't honestly know what else you'd use it for.


----------



## Ademadis

Tez3 said:


> Why do you think they are two completely different things? Karate was designed as civilian unarmed self defence, it's what the Bunkai of katas are all about as much as all the other training in it.  Karate is very much about self defence, I don't honestly know what else you'd use it for.



I suppose my statement was pretty matter of fact. I'm wrong they're not two COMPLETELY different things.

It's more like; I didn't begin studying karate because I wanted to learn self defence, I began for fitness reasons. I don't study it currently with self-defence foremost in my mind,  there's still the fitness element to it and I want to enter competitions etc instead.


----------



## Tez3

Ademadis said:


> I suppose my statement was pretty matter of fact. I'm wrong they're not two COMPLETELY different things.
> 
> It's more like; I didn't begin studying karate because I wanted to learn self defence, I began for fitness reasons. I don't study it currently with self-defence foremost in my mind,  there's still the fitness element to it and I want to enter competitions etc instead.



Fair enough 

However as you get fitter you are also learning self defence techniques so it's win win, which has to be good. I hope you do Bunkai when you learn and practice kata though.
What sort of competitions are you planning on entering? I used to do full contact sparring and kata comps as well as a bit of kick boxing.


----------



## Ademadis

Tez3 said:


> Fair enough
> 
> However as you get fitter you are also learning self defence techniques so it's win win, which has to be good. I hope you do Bunkai when you learn and practice kata though.
> What sort of competitions are you planning on entering? I used to do full contact sparring and kata comps as well as a bit of kick boxing.



Aye we do Bunkai, and honestly I'm not sure yet as I'm still a relatively new practitioner. My club doesn't do full contact sparring but I have considered it. I'm going to attend a BUCS tournament (inter-university stuff) early next year to see where I stand and branch out from there.

Have you got any recommendations/advice for a complete competitions novice that I can take to heart?


----------



## Tez3

Ademadis said:


> Have you got any recommendations/advice for a complete competitions novice that I can take to heart?



Just listen to your instructors and enjoy yourself! Get the most fun out of competitions you can. 

Ps I wasn't too, too far from you this week, my daughter lives in Newmarket on the Godolphin Estate, weather was lovely and had a great time but oh the drag up the A1 back up North lol.

What style of karate are you doing by the way, meant to ask.


----------



## Ademadis

Tez3 said:


> Just listen to your instructors and enjoy yourself! Get the most fun out of competitions you can.
> 
> Ps I wasn't too, too far from you this week, my daughter lives in Newmarket on the Godolphin Estate, weather was lovely and had a great time but oh the drag up the A1 back up North lol.
> 
> What style of karate are you doing by the way, meant to ask.



Mm close one , and yeah the weather is scorching! I wouldn't mind if you passed some northern rain down to us, I swear I'm gonna die in this heat 

I'm studying Shotokan, but my Dojo's pretty eclectic when it comes to Karate styles. Student turnover means a lot of different karateka come and go.


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> Why do you think they are two completely different things? Karate was designed as civilian unarmed self defence, it's what the Bunkai of katas are all about as much as all the other training in it.  Karate is very much about self defence, I don't honestly know what else you'd use it for.



Perhaps it depends on style?

As someone who practices Wado-ryu, I don't think self defence is what Otsuka had in mind as its 'raison d'être'.

Perhaps it's a happy by-product (depends on how it is taught of course), but I've always said that if self defence is your ultimate goal - there are far more expeditious ways to achieve this!


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> As someone who practices Wado-ryu, I don't think self defence is what Otsuka had in mind as its 'raison d'être'.



I also train Wado Ryu and I would disagree with you quite strongly. The fact he trained with Choki Motobu and disagreed with Funakoshi over sparring shows a more combative nature.
that people chose to use it as a keep fit session is probably not what he had in mind when he formed Wado. Also the Yakusoku Kumite and Kihon Gumite show techniques which are the traditional use of karate, combat. Ohyogumite is a system of attacks and defences, if one were to not bring combat/self defence into the style why would one train these?
Karate is old, older than Wado and Shotokan as you know, it's most likely that Shotokan was devised with a more peaceful intent but as Otsuka disagreed with him plus added elements of other more combative styles I don't think he intended it to be not for self defence. The Pinan katas I don't think would have been chosen just for fitness or some sort of spirituality. http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/there-nothing-peaceful-about-pinansCertainly instructors I know who trained under him were sure it was about self defence and frankly I wouldn't argue with them who knew him.


----------



## Sojobo

Just about to start Keiko, so I'll expand later.

In the meantime have a read of the Otsuka family Wado website...

和道流空手道連盟

Section around reasons for training Wado


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> Just about to start Keiko, so I'll expand later.
> 
> In the meantime have a read of the Otsuka family Wado website...
> 
> 和道流空手道連盟
> 
> Section around reasons for training Wado



Ah, mansplaining because I obviously would not have read anything before.


----------



## Sojobo

'Mansplaining' I like it.

Well if that's what you call quoting from primary source then il take that over female logic


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> 'Mansplaining' I like it.
> 
> Well if that's what you call quoting from primary source then il take that over female logic



Not logic, experience. Every post I have put up about Wado Ryu here you have disagreed with and say the opposite in a superior way which is tiresome because it seems personal. So no I'm not hugely interested in re-reading something I have already read, maybe even before you did. I told you what my instructors from many many years ago said, obviously to you they were lying, so be it. I'm done.


----------



## Sojobo

Tez,

Nothing personal I assure you.

And the written word can often be mistaken in terms of tone.

Regarding Wado though this is the problem.

Many of the senior Wado instructors here in the UK (I'm talking 7th and 8th dans) don't get it.

Why, because Wado in the UK is broken and has been for decades.

Fact is - because they don't get it they cling to what is tangible and seemingly self evident.

That sets people down the wrong path with wrong goals and objectives and that's a shame, because Wado is a great art and much much more than a self defence system.


----------



## Flying Crane

Ademadis said:


> If it really was a do or die self-defence situation I would take the mentality over limiting myself to the moves any day.


May I ask, what do you mean when you say "limiting myself to the moves"?

I apologize if this is a reference to a prior post, I haven't read the entir thread.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Sojobo said:


> Tez,
> 
> Nothing personal I assure you.
> And the written word can often be mistaken in terms of tone.
> Regarding Wado though this is the problem.
> Many of the senior Wado instructors here in the UK (I'm talking 7th and 8th dans) don't get it.
> Why, because Wado in the UK is broken and has been for decades.
> Fact is - because they don't get it they cling to what is tangible and seemingly self evident.
> That sets people down the wrong path with wrong goals and objectives and that's a shame, because Wado is a great art and much much more than a self defence system.



So... enlighten us all, please, as to exactly what qualifies YOU to decide it's broken. Thanks.


----------



## Sojobo

Dirty Dog said:


> So... enlighten us all, please, as to exactly what qualifies YOU to decide it's broken. Thanks.


Do you train in Wado in the UK?


----------



## Sojobo

Dirty Dog said:


> So... enlighten us all, please, as to exactly what qualifies YOU to decide it's broken. Thanks.


If I could edit my post I would to say that - *Wado in the UK (to a large degree) is broken*.

There are pockets / groups that do 'get it' but they are in the minority.

To an extent, Wado-ryu (in the UK anyway) is a victim of its own success - in that its popularity in the late 60's and 70's meant that there are now scores of senior dan grades that (in the most part) broke away from the traditional teachings of the Japanese at 3rd dan (or below). These guys are now 7th and 8th dan 'Shihans' that - *in my experience* - were taken out of the oven before they were fully cooked (in fact it isn't confined to British born sensei's. Some of the early Japanese instructors that came over to the UK to spread the Wado word were fresh out of university at the time - and that helped fuel things).

Consequently (and I have decades of training along many of these guys to justify this statement) - they do not have enough depth of understanding in terms of the 'pedagogy' of Wado-ryu and how it fits into the 'Japanese' spectrum of Budo (the pinch of salt analogy) and instead look to Okinawan Karate / Shotokan to fill in the gaps.

This is easier and at first glance the seemingly obvious answer - but it isn't and so the cycle continues.


----------



## Ademadis

Flying Crane said:


> May I ask, what do you mean when you say "limiting myself to the moves"?
> 
> I apologize if this is a reference to a prior post, I haven't read the entir thread.



As in practical application of Karate in a self-defence situation varies a lot from stances and moves in Kata and sparring. And so should be treated more like guidelines than targets. (If that makes sense?)

I really should have proofread that post before I sent it, I tend to type in circles trying to sound smart xD


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> If I could edit my post I would to say that - *Wado in the UK (to a large degree) is broken*.
> 
> There are pockets / groups that do 'get it' but they are in the minority.
> 
> To an extent, Wado-ryu (in the UK anyway) is a victim of its own success - in that its popularity in the late 60's and 70's meant that there are now scores of senior dan grades that (in the most part) broke away from the traditional teachings of the Japanese at 3rd dan (or below). These guys are now 7th and 8th dan 'Shihans' that - *in my experience* - were taken out of the oven before they were fully cooked (in fact it isn't confined to British born sensei's. Some of the early Japanese instructors that came over to the UK to spread the Wado word were fresh out of university at the time - and that helped fuel things).
> 
> Consequently (and I have decades of training along many of these guys to justify this statement) - they do not have enough depth of understanding in terms of the 'pedagogy' of Wado-ryu and how it fits into the 'Japanese' spectrum of Budo (the pinch of salt analogy) and instead look to Okinawan Karate / Shotokan to fill in the gaps.
> 
> This is easier and at first glance the seemingly obvious answer - but it isn't and so the cycle continues.




Wow, I guess you are going to also back the new 'functional TKD' as being good as well, because that's the biggest 'I know better than everyone because I'm more knowledgeable, better and I'm right, everyone else is wrong' post I've read for a long time.
If you are going to take that attitude it's simply a waste of time trying to converse.


----------



## Sojobo

Tez,

Why is it that when someone presents an alternative to the way that you chose to perceive things - you suggest that it is not worth any further involvement? 

Let's take this back a step or two...

It was suggested that Karate is only about Self Defence and when I suggested that Wado was not (and presented source reference to support that affirmation) - you get all stroppy and suggest that my posts are unnecessarily aloof and personal.

You know in life - you have to accept that you may not always be right?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> I also train Wado Ryu and I would disagree with you quite strongly. The fact he trained with Choki Motobu and disagreed with Funakoshi over sparring shows a more combative nature.
> that people chose to use it as a keep fit session is probably not what he had in mind when he formed Wado. Also the Yakusoku Kumite and Kihon Gumite show techniques which are the traditional use of karate, combat. Ohyogumite is a system of attacks and defences, if one were to not bring combat/self defence into the style why would one train these?
> Karate is old, older than Wado and Shotokan as you know, it's most likely that Shotokan was devised with a more peaceful intent but as Otsuka disagreed with him plus added elements of other more combative styles I don't think he intended it to be not for self defence. The Pinan katas I don't think would have been chosen just for fitness or some sort of spirituality. http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/there-nothing-peaceful-about-pinansCertainly instructors I know who trained under him were sure it was about self defence and frankly I wouldn't argue with them who knew him.


Tez, can you give me a short description of the difference/disagreement about sparring you mention between Motobu and Funakoshi, or point me toward an article? I'm starting to learn a bit more about the differences among the styles of Karate, and this seems key to these two styles.


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> you suggest that it is not worth any further involvement?



That is self evident, to stop it descending into an argument and having the thread locked.



Sojobo said:


> You know in life - you have to accept that you may not always be right?



Actually it's not me saying I'm right, I told you what my instructors said, you then launched into a derogatory account of how UK Wado Ryu is rubbish, it's instructors incompetent etc. You on the other hand are Wado perfection, which is amusing.



Sojobo said:


> unnecessarily aloof and personal



Oxymoron.




gpseymour said:


> Tez, can you give me a short description of the difference/disagreement about sparring you mention between Motobu and Funakoshi, or point me toward an article? I'm starting to learn a bit more about the differences among the styles of Karate, and this seems key to these two styles



Certainly, just give me a bit of time, I'm on my mobile phone out and about, will sort when I get to my computer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sojobo said:


> Just about to start Keiko, so I'll expand later.
> 
> In the meantime have a read of the Otsuka family Wado website...
> 
> 和道流空手道連盟
> 
> Section around reasons for training Wado


That actually speaks to the reasons for studying "martial arts", not specifically Wado. It appears to be speaking to the "do" side of martial arts, that we should be improving our lives through that study, rather than just learning to fight. Nothing there implies Wado isn't designed, studied, or taught for self-defense.


----------



## Sojobo

gpseymour said:


> That actually speaks to the reasons for studying "martial arts", not specifically Wado. It appears to be speaking to the "do" side of martial arts, that we should be improving our lives through that study, rather than just learning to fight. Nothing there implies Wado isn't designed, studied, or taught for self-defense.


And by not saying - implies that it is?

Otsuka and his Wado creation is a complex one that is intertwined with Japanese history and politics of the time. It is less a Karate than a version of Otsuka's take on Budo - it simply uses the chassis of Funakoshi's karate for something to build on but that's as far as the similarities go.

And that thought process applies to it's intended purpose or should I say reason for study.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sojobo said:


> And by not saying - implies that it is?
> 
> Otsuka and his Wado creation is a complex one that is intertwined with Japanese history and politics of the time. It is less a Karate than a version of Otsuka's take on Budo - it simply uses the chassis of Funakoshi's karate for something to build on but that's as far as the similarities go.
> 
> And that thought process applies to it's intended purpose or should I say reason for study.


You pointed to that page as a clear sign that Wado is not for self-defense. The page speaks to the philosophy of budo in general, not to the art, itself. I didn't use it as an example for any argument, you did, and I simply pointed out that it doesn't provide any valid support. It would be like me arguing that English is a complex language (it is) and pointing as evidence to a site that says linguistics is a complex topic.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> Motobu and Funakoshi,



Funakoshi vs Motobu – How Two Fierce Rivals Shared Students

A Meeting With Chosei Motobu, by Graham Noble

Master Funakoshi's Karate, Part I, by Graham Noble

Not sure if this is what you had in mind.


----------



## Sojobo

To understand Wado and how it ticks, you should not look at Karate and its "Self Defence" reasoning.

Instead you need to look at the Koryu arts of feudal Japan upon which Wado is based.

Most of the principles of Wado (in terms of movement and application) are derived from sword oriented bu-jutsu.

Lets be quite clear - these were not intended to be used by the layman as a method of self protection against "ruffians" they were aggressive techniques designed to take out (by killing or maiming) your enemy.

Otsuka was very well versed in these arts and recognised that there was a gap in the market between Judo and Aikido to make a "Japanese karate" that engaged the principles or Koryu bujutsu  (in terms of cultural assets of Japan) to promote the "self improvement" side of training in the martial arts.

In this respect it is a study of martial movement and principles over and above it being a method of self defence.


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> You on the other hand are Wado perfection, which is amusing.



Far from it - I'm perhaps a little further down the Wado path than you are, but I am still training, learning and growing everyday.


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> Lets be quite clear - these were not intended to be used by the layman as a method of self protection against "ruffians" they were aggressive techniques designed to take out (by killing or maiming) your enemy.
> 
> .



I think you have a strange idea of self defence if you think it's not for taking out someone attacking you, enemy or not. I would hope techniques were done aggressively, not a lot of point of half heartedly defending yourself like a fop. I don't think anyone has suggested that martial arts were a 'layman's' game, studying any martial art makes you more than a layman.



Sojobo said:


> Far from it - I'm perhaps a little further down the Wado path than you are, but I am still training, learning and growing everyday.



You assume you have been training longer than I have? Anyone with half a brain will have realised that you have called out my instructors and promoted yourself as being superior to them and their instructors as well. Your ideas of others in Wado leave a bad taste I'm afraid.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Funakoshi vs Motobu – How Two Fierce Rivals Shared Students
> 
> A Meeting With Chosei Motobu, by Graham Noble
> 
> Master Funakoshi's Karate, Part I, by Graham Noble
> 
> Not sure if this is what you had in mind.


That is much of what I had in mind. If the founder of Wado was heavily influenced (as seems the case) by Motobu's teaching, I can't imagine that he didn't have combat (fighting) effectiveness among his goals for the style.

You mentioned a difference in opinion on sparring, but I didn't see anything specifically about that in the articles.


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> You assume you have been training longer than I have? Anyone with half a brain will have realised that you have called out my instructors and promoted yourself as being superior to them and their instructors as well. Your ideas of others in Wado leave a bad taste I'm afraid.


Length of time training is in not always a measure of ability or understanding.

I have NOT called out your instructors (I don't know them), I have simply made a statement based personal observation that "many" instructors (that was the word I used) were barking up the wrong tree.

I also acknowledge that were good ones out there.

If what I say leaves a bad taste in your mouth so be it.


----------



## Sojobo

gpseymour said:


> That is much of what I had in mind. If the founder of Wado was heavily influenced (as seems the case) by Motobu's teaching, I can't imagine that he didn't have combat (fighting) effectiveness among his goals for the style.



Otsuka's involvement with Motobu was fleeting at best.

There is no doubt he trained with him (and Wado's Naihanchi kata is in the most part that of Motobu), but I don't think it was Motobu that encouraged the difference (in terms of whether to include kumite in your Karate).

This almost certainly came from Otsuka's koryu training where controlled sparing / kumite / randori etc was a staple part of keiko.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> That is much of what I had in mind. If the founder of Wado was heavily influenced (as seems the case) by Motobu's teaching, I can't imagine that he didn't have combat (fighting) effectiveness among his goals for the style.
> 
> You mentioned a difference in opinion on sparring, but I didn't see anything specifically about that in the articles.



Shotokan isn't my style but I do know that Funakoshi didn't like sparring, others did including Ohtsuka which cause the split. Hironori Ohtsuka. This mentions the three instructors who came here to teach Wado and which Sojobo thinks are so lacking.




it seems now that Sojobo has had a change of direction Wado is far too dangerous to be used for self defence because it's a 'battlefield art to be used for killing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Shotokan isn't my style but I do know that Funakoshi didn't like sparring, others did including Ohtsuka which cause the split. Hironori Ohtsuka
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it seems now that Sojobo has had a change of direction Wado is far too dangerous to be used for self defence because it's a 'battlefield art to be used for killing.


That's interesting. It seems at least some Shotokan schools don't agree with Funakoshi's thoughts on that. I have a student who studied Shotokan for 8 years in Germany, and they apparently sparred extensively.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sojobo said:


> Otsuka's involvement with Motobu was fleeting at best.
> 
> There is no doubt he trained with him (and Wado's Naihanchi kata is in the most part that of Motobu), but I don't think it was Motobu that encouraged the difference (in terms of whether to include kumite in your Karate).
> 
> This almost certainly came from Otsuka's koryu training where controlled sparing / kumite / randori etc was a staple part of keiko.


"Fleeting" is a fairly vague term. If the author of the article Tez linked to is correct, the combat orientation is one of the reasons he trained with Motobu. The length of time he spent with Motobu isn't as relevant as his reasons for it, hence my reference to the influence rather than the training. If he went seeking someone with more combat focus for his own training, I'd be surprised if he later decided not to have a combat focus in his own art.


----------



## Tez3

The three instructors sent here taught as they were taught by the founder. If he were not happy with them I can't imagine why they would have been sent here if they weren't well grounded in the style, ( length of time training means little I'm told), then surely Wado Ryu would not have been taught here by them.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Sojobo said:


> Do you train in Wado in the UK?



I see. So your response to a direct question about the specific training, experience and ranking you possess that qualifies you to make broad sweeping statements about the state of an art is vague and evasive. 
I think that actually tells me exactly what I need to know.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> I see. So your response to a direct question about the specific training, experience and ranking you possess that qualifies you to make broad sweeping statements about the state of an art is vague and evasive.
> I think that actually tells me exactly what I need to know.


That reminds me of an interaction I had at a conference. I saw someone conducting business in a way I considered odd. I stepped up and asked him why he made that decision (under the assumption there was probably a good reason for it, which I didn't know). His response was, "I made two million dollars last year. How much did you make?"

I knew then that there was probably no reason for his decision except personal arrogance.


----------



## Sojobo

gpseymour said:


> "Fleeting" is a fairly vague term. If the author of the article Tez linked to is correct, the combat orientation is one of the reasons he trained with Motobu. The length of time he spent with Motobu isn't as relevant as his reasons for it, hence my reference to the influence rather than the training. If he went seeking someone with more combat focus for his own training, I'd be surprised if he later decided not to have a combat focus in his own art.


According to the biography of Otsuka by his grandson Kazutaka Otsuka...

_"When he was 31 years old, he heard of Funakoshi Sensei from Okinawa living in a Meiseijuku dormitory, which was for the university students of Okinawa and he started studying at the Meiseijuku dormitory in the dining room. Funakoshi Sensei asked Grand Master Otsuka if he knew karate before because Shinto Yoshin Ryu already included striking and kicking techniques. Funakoshi Sensei knew only 15 katas at that time and Grand Master Otsuka completed those in less than one year. Then he wasn’t satisfied with only learning order of katas, so he wanted to visit Okinawa to find out about meaning of each movement, but Funakoshi Sensei denied him going to Okinawa. Funakoshi Sensei had reasons for not wanting to return to Okinawa. Because of debts incurred by Giei, his son, he was unable to return to Okinawa. Three years later, Grand Master Otsuka visited two Okinawa senseis, Mabuni Kenei and Choki Motubu who were living in Osaka City, in order to learn more detail about Okinawan karate. He asked Motobu Sensei about details of each karate techniques and they shared techniques with each other. He then asked about the actual situation of karate in Okinawa and found out there was no further information for him there, so he decided not to travel to Okinawa but to study himself about karate and jujutsu and to create a new style"
_
There is little evidence to support the fact that Otsuka trained extensively with Motobu, let alone the suggestion that his main reason for doing so was because of Kumite.


----------



## Sojobo

Dirty Dog said:


> I see. So your response to a direct question about the specific training, experience and ranking you possess that qualifies you to make broad sweeping statements about the state of an art is vague and evasive.
> I think that actually tells me exactly what I need to know.


My rank is irrelevant to you.

The fact that you think I know less about my martial art than I do - tells me something about your mindset too.


----------



## Sojobo

gpseymour said:


> That reminds me of an interaction I had at a conference. I saw someone conducting business in a way I considered odd. I stepped up and asked him why he made that decision (under the assumption there was probably a good reason for it, which I didn't know). His response was, "I made two million dollars last year. How much did you make?"
> 
> I knew then that there was probably no reason for his decision except personal arrogance.



Guys - if you want to stick with your buddy over this that's fine.

She's not right and you don't know why.

I've let you have my reasoning as to why - but if that doesn't leave you in a happy place - I'm not going to cry over it.


----------



## Sojobo

gpseymour said:


> That's interesting. It seems at least some Shotokan schools don't agree with Funakoshi's thoughts on that. I have a student who studied Shotokan for 8 years in Germany, and they apparently sparred extensively.


Most Shotokan schools today spar extensively and have done for a long time.

Shotokan changed shape and direction extensively when Funkoshi's son and senior students took over the reigns from him.


----------



## Tez3

Ok, lets put this into perspective. First you say Wado Ryu is not for self defence, it has other, unnamed purposes.




Sojobo said:


> As someone who practices Wado-ryu, I don't think self defence is what Otsuka had in mind as its 'raison d'être'.
> !





Sojobo said:


> Tez,
> 
> Nothing personal I assure you.
> 
> And the written word can often be mistaken in terms of tone.
> 
> Regarding Wado though this is the problem.
> 
> Many of the senior Wado instructors here in the UK (I'm talking 7th and 8th dans) don't get it.
> 
> Why, because Wado in the UK is broken and has been for decades.
> 
> Fact is - because they don't get it they cling to what is tangible and seemingly self evident.
> 
> That sets people down the wrong path with wrong goals and objectives and that's a shame, because Wado is a great art and much much more than a self defence system.



But it presumable is because you've just said it's more than a self defence system while telling us that Wado Ryu is broken and useless, it's senior instructors rubbish. Oh and the three instructors sent by Ohtsuka to bring Wado to the UK. Your experience being the touchstone of quality.



Sojobo said:


> If I could edit my post I would to say that - *Wado in the UK (to a large degree) is broken*.
> 
> There are pockets / groups that do 'get it' but they are in the minority.
> 
> To an extent, Wado-ryu (in the UK anyway) is a victim of its own success - in that its popularity in the late 60's and 70's meant that there are now scores of senior dan grades that (in the most part) broke away from the traditional teachings of the Japanese at 3rd dan (or below). These guys are now 7th and 8th dan 'Shihans' that - *in my experience* - were taken out of the oven before they were fully cooked (in fact it isn't confined to British born sensei's. Some of the early Japanese instructors that came over to the UK to spread the Wado word were fresh out of university at the time - and that helped fuel things).
> 
> Consequently (and I have decades of training along many of these guys to justify this statement) - they do not have enough depth of understanding in terms of the 'pedagogy' of Wado-ryu and how it fits into the 'Japanese' spectrum of Budo (the pinch of salt analogy) and instead look to Okinawan Karate / Shotokan to fill in the gaps.



Personal insults, nice. However it's a matter of opinion whether karate is just for self defence or not.That's for another discussion another thread. the thing is, I'm not saying I'm right, the three instructors who Ohtsuka and those they trained are the people you are saying are wrong.



Sojobo said:


> It was suggested that Karate is only about Self Defence and when I suggested that Wado was not (and presented source reference to support that affirmation) - you get all stroppy and suggest that my posts are unnecessarily aloof and personal.
> 
> You know in life - you have to accept that you may not always be right?





Sojobo said:


> To understand Wado and how it ticks, you should not look at Karate and its "Self Defence" reasoning.
> 
> Instead you need to look at the Koryu arts of feudal Japan upon which Wado is based.
> 
> Most of the principles of Wado (in terms of movement and application) are derived from sword oriented bu-jutsu.
> 
> Lets be quite clear - these were not intended to be used by the layman as a method of self protection against "ruffians" they were aggressive techniques designed to take out (by killing or maiming) your enemy.
> 
> Otsuka was very well versed in these arts and recognised that there was a gap in the market between Judo and Aikido to make a "Japanese karate" that engaged the principles or Koryu bujutsu  (in terms of cultural assets of Japan) to promote the "self improvement" side of training in the martial arts.
> 
> In this respect it is a study of martial movement and principles over and above it being a method of self defence.




Whether Wado comes from the Koryo or not is not the point of the discussion, we were discussing self defence however you have taken it now to show that Wado is too deadly an art to be taught, it's only for those who fight on the battlefield, it also looks as if you are now also telling us that it's a deadly killing art which only you and a few true initiates practice, it's not for us laymen...we wouldn't understand. That is how you are coming across.  
The only question relevant to this thread is the self defence aspect of karate.


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> Shotokan isn't my style but I do know that Funakoshi didn't like sparring, others did including Ohtsuka which cause the split. Hironori Ohtsuka. *This mentions the three instructors who came here to teach Wado and which Sojobo thinks are so lacking*.



Come on Tez - you're better than this.

Having trained with one of those Instructors and extensively with one of their students - they are (were) not lacking and you know that was not what I was referring to.



> it seems now that Sojobo has had a change of direction Wado is far too dangerous to be used for self defence because it's a 'battlefield art to be used for killing.



Yes - because I said that didn't I


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sojobo said:


> My rank is irrelevant to you.
> 
> The fact that you think I know less about my martial art than I do - tells me something about your mindset too.


Actually, his initial post held no indication that he thought you knew less. He asked a question to get some frame of reference as to how much you are likely to know. If someone asks how long I've been studying NGA, that's a valid question that gives them some idea of how informed I'm likely to be and how deep my understanding likely is. ("Likely" of course being key in this.)


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo, this thread is about self defence in karate not where Wado, Shotokan or anything else came from.
Can you defend  yourself if you train Wado Ryu...yes or no?

You are making assumptions about people, putting words into people's mouths, deciding we are all ignorant and only you know the answer. You have bad mouthed several instructors, said that Wado is 'broken' and we have it all wrong. No, we have nothing 'wrong' you are just on the wrong subject.  I repeat, can you defend yourself from attack if you train Wado Ryu? A lot of people don't actually care where it came from who did what who said what, not their monkey, not their circus. Do we need a lecture to divine whether a Wado Ryu karateka can defend themselves? No. All you needed to say was whether you felt Wado people can defend themselves or not. Simple.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sojobo said:


> Guys - if you want to stick with your buddy over this that's fine.
> 
> She's not right and you don't know why.
> 
> I've let you have my reasoning as to why - but if that doesn't leave you in a happy place - I'm not going to cry over it.


I've actually said nothing in support of Tez. I've only responded to what has been posted, noting what seems to support one side of the debate or another (and those things that seem irrelevant to the debate at hand). Tez provided some relevant articles that supported her view, and I commented on the articles (not on her points). You've now posted one that seems to contradict a key point from one of those articles, and that's relevant.


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> Come on Tez - you're better than this.



Don't you dare patronise me! You wandered so far off topic with your crusade to show how much you know you have alienated at least one good poster here. There was no disagreements until you started on your quest to 'educate' us. All we were discussing was karate and self defence.


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> Don't you dare patronise me! .



What!! And 'Mansplaining' isn't patronising!?


----------



## Sojobo

gpseymour said:


> Actually, his initial post held no indication that he thought you knew less. He asked a question to get some frame of reference as to how much you are likely to know. If someone asks how long I've been studying NGA, that's a valid question that gives them some idea of how informed I'm likely to be and how deep my understanding likely is. ("Likely" of course being key in this.)


And I think I answered that.


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> No. All you needed to say was whether you felt Wado people can defend themselves or not. Simple.



That was not how this started.

The question is not can Wado people defend themselves.

The Issue is  -was Wado-ryu created primarily as a means of self defence - and the answer is a resounding no IMO!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sojobo said:


> And I think I answered that.


Not in your response to Dirty Dog, you didn't. You, whether you intended to or not, responded with a challenge of his credentials. If you don't see the issue with that, look at the tenor of your own posts in this thread. You have repeatedly come across as decrying the knowledge of others (including many you likely do not know, since it's unlikely you personally know most of the Wado-ryu instructors in the UK), you have repeatedly chosen to see questions as aggressive posts, and you have dismissed others' knowledge or experience without providing any reason why they should be dismissed.

Either you're overly aggressive in presenting what should be an interesting and informative side of a debate (one in which I have absolutely no interest other than the intellectual pursuit), or you're simply unaware of how you come across.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Sojobo said:


> And I think I answered that.



If by "answered" you mean "completely avoided giving any actual answer" then you sure did.

I'll be more specific...
How long have you been training in Wado Ryu?
Under whom?
What rank do you hold, and who awarded it?

These are simple questions, and there is no rational reason for refusing to answer them, since they bear directly on your qualifications to pronounce judgement on on how very highly ranked Wado practitioners teach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sojobo said:


> According to the biography of Otsuka by his grandson Kazutaka Otsuka...
> 
> _"When he was 31 years old, he heard of Funakoshi Sensei from Okinawa living in a Meiseijuku dormitory, which was for the university students of Okinawa and he started studying at the Meiseijuku dormitory in the dining room. Funakoshi Sensei asked Grand Master Otsuka if he knew karate before because Shinto Yoshin Ryu already included striking and kicking techniques. Funakoshi Sensei knew only 15 katas at that time and Grand Master Otsuka completed those in less than one year. Then he wasn’t satisfied with only learning order of katas, so he wanted to visit Okinawa to find out about meaning of each movement, but Funakoshi Sensei denied him going to Okinawa. Funakoshi Sensei had reasons for not wanting to return to Okinawa. Because of debts incurred by Giei, his son, he was unable to return to Okinawa. Three years later, Grand Master Otsuka visited two Okinawa senseis, Mabuni Kenei and Choki Motubu who were living in Osaka City, in order to learn more detail about Okinawan karate. He asked Motobu Sensei about details of each karate techniques and they shared techniques with each other. He then asked about the actual situation of karate in Okinawa and found out there was no further information for him there, so he decided not to travel to Okinawa but to study himself about karate and jujutsu and to create a new style"
> _
> There is little evidence to support the fact that Otsuka trained extensively with Motobu, let alone the suggestion that his main reason for doing so was because of Kumite.


An interesting disagreement between the sources. The other article implies (though I don't think it actually says so) that Otsuka actually trained with Motobu for a while, rather than just visiting with him briefly (in those days, I'd assume a visit would be measured in days or weeks). This biography speaks to what was discussed and doesn't reflect any training time (though I'd be surprised if there wasn't any). It doesn't speak to a motive other than learning more about Okinawan Karate, so it certainly doesn't imply he was there because of Motobu's reputation as a fighter.


----------



## Sojobo

gpseymour said:


> You have repeatedly come across as decrying the knowledge of others (including many you likely do not know, since it's unlikely you personally know most of the Wado-ryu instructors in the UK)


I probably know or know of many of the senior grade Wado-ka here in the UK.

As I have said though - Many (not All or Most) - don't get it. 







> Either you're overly aggressive in presenting what should be an interesting and informative side of a debate (one in which I have absolutely no interest other than the intellectual pursuit), or you're simply unaware of how you come across.


It's Friday folks and Im about to up-sticks

Didn't intent to offend anyone (I just tell it how I see it).

I love you all really


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> The Issue is -was Wado-ryu created primarily as a means of self defence - and the answer is a resounding no IMO!



Actually no, it started because we were talking about karate. You brought up Wado Ryu and said it wasn't made for self defence. We weren't talking about Wado and we weren't discussing primary or secondary purposes. You made it into a one style discussion and decided I was wrong because I told you something my instructors had said. Now they may well have been wrong, you clearly think so but unless you were there you cannot say I wasn't told that. To say I wasn't told that is to call me a liar.


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> Actually no, it started because we were talking about karate. You brought up Wado Ryu and said it wasn't made for self defence. We weren't talking about Wado and we weren't discussing primary or secondary purposes. You made it into a one style discussion and decided I was wrong because I told you something my instructors had said. Now they may well have been wrong, you clearly think so but unless you were there you cannot say I wasn't told that. To say I wasn't told that is to call me a liar.


The thread is about Karate and self defence.
I suggested that Wado was not created - for the purpose of Karate.
I am not (nor have I) called or implied you are a liar.


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> The thread is about Karate and self defence.
> I suggested that Wado was not created - for the purpose of Karate.
> I am not (nor have I) called or implied you are a liar.



'Suggested'? well if that's you suggesting I'd hate to think how you are when you are certain.

The whole point of my original post was that karate has techniques that can and are used for self defence, these should be taught as well as things like one and three step sparring, kata and other things. Whether Wado was created originally for self defence is irrelevant because if it has the self defence techniques in they should be taught. The post really was as simple as that.


----------



## Sojobo

Dirty Dog said:


> If by "answered" you mean "completely avoided giving any actual answer" then you sure did.
> 
> I'll be more specific...
> How long have you been training in Wado Ryu?
> Under whom?
> What rank do you hold, and who awarded it?
> 
> These are simple questions, and there is no rational reason for refusing to answer them, since they bear directly on your qualifications to pronounce judgement on on how very highly ranked Wado practitioners teach.



I prefer a little anonymity in these things - I feel it keeps things more open.

You'll notice I haven't asked anyone else involved in the discussion for their credentials as I don't think its necessary, but if it makes you feel betters...

I have been training in Wado for over 30 years
I train with an international group affiliated to the JKF Wado-kai
I am a Senior Dan Grade, Instructor and Examiner with said group


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> 'Suggested'? well if that's you suggesting I'd hate to think how you are when you are certain.
> 
> The whole point of my original post was that karate has techniques that can and are used for self defence, these should be taught as well as things like one and three step sparring, kata and other things. Whether Wado was created originally for self defence is irrelevant because if it has the self defence techniques in they should be taught. The post really was as simple as that.


Tez,

I don't disagree with that sentiment - but I'm not sure that saying Wado (as an art form) was created expressly for the purpose of self defence and saying that it CAN be used for self defence and therefore should be - is the same thing.

I would agree that you can use it (or at least the techniques found within it) to a certain degree - but the efficiency will depend on the instructor and how they structure the training to that end.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sojobo said:


> I prefer a little anonymity in these things - I feel it keeps things more open.
> 
> You'll notice I haven't asked anyone else involved in the discussion for their credentials as I don't think its necessary, but if it makes you feel betters...
> 
> I have been training in Wado for over 30 years
> I train with an international group affiliated to the JKF Wado-kai
> I am a Senior Dan Grade, Instructor and Examiner with said group


Anonymity on those topics only means we can't tell whether someone is speaking from experience or from some external perception. Your years, rank, and background give us a better view of where your arguments come from. It's valuable to help us see past some misperceptions. If you look around the site, you'll see a few fairly uninformed people passing along their ill-conceived conclusions as fact. It short-cuts some of our discussions if we know whether we're dealing with someone who has one month, 5 years, or 30 years of experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sojobo said:


> Tez,
> 
> I don't disagree with that sentiment - but I'm not sure that saying Wado (as an art form) was created expressly for the purpose of self defence and saying that it CAN be used for self defence and therefore should be - is the same thing.
> 
> I would agree that you can use it (or at least the techniques found within it) to a certain degree - but the efficiency will depend on the instructor and how they structure the training to that end.


That last point is an area of agreement among most on here when talking about training any art/style for self-defense.


----------



## Sojobo

gpseymour said:


> An interesting disagreement between the sources. The other article implies (though I don't think it actually says so) that Otsuka actually trained with Motobu for a while, rather than just visiting with him briefly (in those days, I'd assume a visit would be measured in days or weeks). This biography speaks to what was discussed and doesn't reflect any training time (though I'd be surprised if there wasn't any). It doesn't speak to a motive other than learning more about Okinawan Karate, so it certainly doesn't imply he was there because of Motobu's reputation as a fighter.


Otsuka was a skilled martial artist. I think he would have recognised and respected Motobu's 'fighting' ability if not only by reputation.

I think it is also probable that he did spend long enough with him to learn Naihanchi kata (which was very much Motobu's thing) - and he obviously learnt enough from him to realise that it is "very deep" as Otsuka says in his book.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sojobo said:


> Otsuka was a skilled martial artist. I think he would have recognised and respected Motobu's ability if not only by reputation.
> 
> I think it is also probably that he did spend long enough with him to learn Naihanchi kata (which was very much Motobu's thing) - and he obviously learnt enough from him to realise that it is "very deep" as Otsuka says in his book.


I would assume he knew Motobu's reputation, as you say. My point was that it's unclear whether it was his reputation as a martial artist in general and his experience with Okinawan Karate, or specifically his reputation as one who used Karate effectively in fights (something that differentiated him from Funakoshi, for example). Either would be a valid reason for him to reach out to Motobu.

That's a good point about the Naihanchi kata. Unfortunately, it means nothing to me, since I don't know what that kata is. From your post, I assume it's something that would take some time to learn to that level, which implies he probably was there for some weeks (or at least several intense days).


----------



## Sojobo

gpseymour said:


> I would assume he knew Motobu's reputation, as you say. My point was that it's unclear whether it was his reputation as a martial artist in general and his experience with Okinawan Karate, or specifically his reputation as one who used Karate effectively in fights (something that differentiated him from Funakoshi, for example). Either would be a valid reason for him to reach out to Motobu.
> 
> That's a good point about the Naihanchi kata. Unfortunately, it means nothing to me, since I don't know what that kata is. From your post, I assume it's something that would take some time to learn to that level, which implies he probably was there for some weeks (or at least several intense days).


I've read somewhere that Otsuka likened Wado to Aikido with Teeth (or maybe I just made that up  ).
Either way - I think he recognised that Motobu was perhaps a practical martial artist over a scholastic one (that perhaps he came to realise that Funakoshi was)!


----------



## Dirty Dog

Sojobo said:


> I prefer a little anonymity in these things - I feel it keeps things more open.



So in other words... you'll dodge direct questions and give only vague and non-specific answers. Got it. That is your prerogative. Doesn't do much for your credibility, of course, but feel free to dodge.


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> I don't disagree with that sentiment - but I'm not sure that saying Wado (as an art form) was created expressly for the purpose of self defence and saying that it CAN be used for self defence and therefore should be - is the same thing.



Only you however were talking about Wado Ryu. Without knowing what the chap I directed my post at trained in there was no use mentioning any particular style. It was a far more general discussion than you made it.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> Naihanchi kata.




It's the so called ( by some)  'perfect kata, the only one you would need to know to be able to defend yourself.
Naihanchi - Karate's Most Deadly Kata? | Iain Abernethy


----------



## Sojobo

Dirty Dog said:


> So in other words... you'll dodge direct questions and give only vague and non-specific answers. Got it. That is your prerogative. Doesn't do much for your credibility, of course, but feel free to dodge.


Martial Talk Credibility? OK I'll bear that in mind.


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> Only you however were talking about Wado Ryu. Without knowing what the chap I directed my post at trained in there was no use mentioning any particular style. It was a far more general discussion than you made it.


Noted


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> That was not how this started.
> 
> The question is not can Wado people defend themselves.
> 
> The Issue is  -was Wado-ryu created primarily as a means of self defence - and the answer is a resounding no IMO!



Only you are concerned with that issue, no one else is, I asked if Wado people can defend themselves because that's what the thread is about therefore the only pertinent question to ask.


----------



## Sojobo

Yep - you've said


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sojobo said:


> I've read somewhere that Otsuka likened Wado to Aikido with Teeth (or maybe I just made that up  ).
> Either way - I think he recognised that Motobu was perhaps a practical martial artist over a scholastic one (that perhaps he came to realise that Funakoshi was)!


Whether you read it or made it up, I like that. Now I need to go find some Wado videos to see what it looks like.


----------



## Steve

I'm very confused by this thread.  A suggestion that you guys are free to ignore.  I think it's probably more constructive to ask someone what they meant than to tell them what they meant.  Friendlier, too.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> Whether you read it or made it up, I like that. Now I need to go find some Wado videos to see what it looks like.



Tt's cool, but of course I'm biased!


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> Tt's cool, but of course I'm biased!


Tt?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Sojobo said:


> Tt?


I think she meant "It's" rather than "Tt's".


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> Tt?



You really can't resist can you? As I said anything I post up you have to make an adverse comment on or try to be smart? it was a typo, fairly obvious.


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> You really can't resist can you? As I said anything I post up you have to make an adverse comment on or try to be smart? it was a typo, fairly obvious.


No, genuinely I thought Tt was a term I wasn't aware of.


----------



## Sojobo

gpseymour said:


> I think she meant "It's" rather than "Tt's".


Yes - I see that now.


----------



## pgsmith

View from the outside ...
Sojobo, you come across as an arrogant know-it-all with a very large chip on your shoulder. We get that you feel that Wado ryu is different form other karate styles. We get that you liken it more to koryu training and feel that it's not just for self defense. However, this thread was a very general discussion about whether traditional karate is actually effective for self-defense. Your ranting, while almost entertaining enough to be worth the irritation factor, has nothing to do with the original discussion.

You've made abundantly clear that you don't care what us underlings on Martial Talk think of you, but I thought it was worth the attempt to get you to stop and take a look around before diving back into your pointless ranting.

Perhaps you could start a new thread discussing Wado ryu in particular. That might actually be informative.


----------



## Sojobo

pgsmith said:


> You've made abundantly clear that you don't care what us underlings on Martial Talk think of you, but I thought it was worth the attempt to get you to stop and take a look around before diving back into your pointless ranting.


Some underlings...not all.


----------



## Sojobo

My ranting isn't pointless by the way - and I am British so everything a write should be read with one eye on the sarcastic - it's the way we roll!


----------



## Sojobo

pgsmith said:


> Perhaps you could start a new thread discussing Wado ryu in particular. That might actually be informative.


I'd love to, but unfortunately I think it would degenerate into why Wado is lacking something and that can be replaced by the likes of Mr Abernethy and co.


----------



## Sojobo

pgsmith said:


> Sojobo, you come across as an arrogant know-it-all with a very large chip on your shoulder.


pgsmith.. I have always respected your posts here and other forums - can you specify what post I came over as arrogant? I'm an engineer by trade and dislike generalisations.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Sojobo said:


> Some underlings...not all.



You do not HAVE any underlings here. This, in part, might be why pgsmith characterized your posts as arrogant.


----------



## Sojobo

Dirty Dog said:


> You do not HAVE any underlings here. This, in part, might be why pgsmith characterized your posts as arrogant.


Really - that does disappoint me!

Fella - I get it.


----------



## Tez3

I'm also British and I don't find your posts humorous or even sarcastic.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> You do not HAVE any underlings here. This, in part, might be why pgsmith characterized your posts as arrogant.


"Underlings" was pgsmith's term.  Sojobo's use in his response was, I think, a little tongue in cheek.  I notice you're not taking pgsmith to task for the three paragraph long ad hominem.  Is it possible you are taking sides, and maybe even making things worse?


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> I'm also British and I don't find your posts humorous or even sarcastic.


Really...? Life is too short not to get it.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> "Underlings" was pgsmith's term.  Sojobo's use in his response was, I think, a little tongue in cheek.  I notice you're not taking pgsmith to task for the three paragraph long ad hominem.  Is it possible you are taking sides, and maybe even making things worse?



Are you operating under the misconception that I (or any other staff member) are not allowed to have and/or express opinions, or agree with/disagree with expressed opinions and views?

Is it possible you are taking sides, and maybe even making things worse?


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> Really...? Life is too short not to get it.



Humorous and sarcastic doesn't slag off respected instructors including the three Japanese ones who brought Wado to the UK, as well as senior instructors now.
For me Wado is the perfect style, it doesn't lack anything and I have the pleasure of knowing Iain Abernethy, he's humble, friendly and knowledgeable, he disrespects no one and no style, as an instructor he's patient, calm and will work in the student's best interest. He is a gentleman.


----------



## Sojobo

Ladies and Gents,

Great chat and I apologise if my posts have been misinterpreted as too abrupt or 'up myself'.

I'm off to the land of 'fakey-ned' as I have to leave at the 'sparrows' tomorrow to travel down to our groups training session and squad selection.

Ill be off line for a few hours - be specific and logical - not emotional.


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> Humorous and sarcastic doesn't slag off respected instructors including the three Japanese ones who brought Wado to the UK, as well as senior instructors now.
> For me Wado is the perfect style, it doesn't lack anything and I have the pleasure of knowing Iain Abernethy, he's humble, friendly and knowledgeable, he disrespects no one and no style, as an instructor he's patient, calm and will work in the student's best interest. He is a gentleman.


Chick,
I didn't 'slag off' any of the instructors that brought Wado to the UK.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Are you operating under the misconception that I (or any other staff member) are not allowed to have and/or express opinions, or agree with/disagree with expressed opinions and views?
> 
> Is it possible you are taking sides, and maybe even making things worse?


And now you're deflecting.  Ooookay.  I notice you're not addressing the questions, but are instead being clever.  I think you're out of line on this one, Dirty Dog. 

But since you asked, I don't know what to think of sojobo.  I don't have a good sense of whether or how long he's trained.  He's a wild card.  But I also don't see him doing anything that is more or less rude than the treatment he's received.  In fact, I think his responses have been mostly good natured.   Ultimately, he hasn't said anything that leads me to believe he's less credible than, say, you or anyone else on this forum.  Not yet, at least.

All that leads to taking sides.  I don't think I've taken one yet.  I think you have, and it's clouding your better judgment, and leading you to suffer from confirmation bias against this post and in favor of some others. 

And also since you brought it up, I completely expect you and other moderators to have and express your opinions, but as a leader on this forum, surely you understand that you cannot completely separate your personal views from your official views, and you will always represent the administration, even when posting outside of that.  In my opinion, at least. 

Am I making things worse?  I hope not.  That's not my intent, and I'll accept your implicit request that I withdraw.  I'll leave it to you guys and just cross my fingers that the thread return to something more interesting.


----------



## Sojobo

Before you go off on one - Chick is a term of endearment where I come from.


----------



## Sojobo

Steve said:


> But since you asked, I don't know what to think of sojobo.  I don't have a good sense of whether or how long he's trained.  He's a wild card.  But I also don't see him doing anything that is more or less rude than the treatment he's received.  In fact, I think his responses have been mostly good natured.   Ultimately, he hasn't said anything that leads me to believe he's less credible than, say, you or anyone else on this forum.


Thank you...


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> And now you're deflecting.  Ooookay.  I notice you're not addressing the questions, but are instead being clever.



Forgive me. I thought the answer to your only actual question was self-evident. No, I do not think I am making things worse.
Happy now?



Steve said:


> I think you're out of line on this one, Dirty Dog.



You are, of course, entitled to your view. And I won't even scold you for expressing it.



Steve said:


> But since you asked, I don't know what to think of sojobo.  I don't have a good sense of whether or how long he's trained.  He's a wild card.



I don't either. That is why I asked plain and clear questions. For which he declined to provide plain and clear answers.



Steve said:


> But I also don't see him doing anything that is more or less rude than the treatment he's received.  In fact, I think his responses have been mostly good natured.   Ultimately, he hasn't said anything that leads me to believe he's less credible than, say, you or anyone else on this forum.  Not yet, at least.



Again, it's a matter of viewpoint. Personally, I think an unwillingness to provide clear answers to clear questions detracts from ones credibility. 

If you dropped by a school, and the instructor told you that he knew all about XXXXX but refused to answer the simple question "where did you learn XXXXX?" wouldn't you question their credibility?

There is request, implicit or explicit, that you withdraw.


----------



## Sojobo

Dirty Dog said:


> Forgive me. I thought the answer to your only actual question was self-evident. No, I do not think I am making things worse.
> Happy now?
> 
> 
> 
> You are, of course, entitled to your view. And I won't even scold you for expressing it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't either. That is why I asked plain and clear questions. For which he declined to provide plain and clear answers.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's a matter of viewpoint. Personally, I think an unwillingness to provide clear answers to clear questions detracts from ones credibility.
> 
> If you dropped by a school, and the instructor told you that he knew all about XXXXX but refused to answer the simple question "where did you learn XXXXX?" wouldn't you question their credibility?
> 
> There is request, implicit or explicit, that you withdraw.


I supplied you with my qualifications / experience! 
So you cant work out who I am - that's not the same thing.


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> Chick,
> I didn't 'slag off' any of the instructors that brought Wado to the UK.



You did actually, you said that being straight out of uni they made things worse.



Sojobo said:


> Before you go off on one - Chick is a term of endearment where I come from.


and?


----------



## TimoS

What does any of this bickering have to do with the actual topic?


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Forgive me. I thought the answer to your only actual question was self-evident. No, I do not think I am making things worse.
> Happy now?
> 
> 
> 
> You are, of course, entitled to your view. And I won't even scold you for expressing it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't either. That is why I asked plain and clear questions. For which he declined to provide plain and clear answers.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's a matter of viewpoint. Personally, I think an unwillingness to provide clear answers to clear questions detracts from ones credibility.
> 
> If you dropped by a school, and the instructor told you that he knew all about XXXXX but refused to answer the simple question "where did you learn XXXXX?" wouldn't you question their credibility?
> 
> There is request, implicit or explicit, that you withdraw.


I'll just speak for myself.  If the questions were asked by someone who seems already to have formed an opinion, I'd be a little cagey, as well.  You have to admit that when you start drilling someone about their credentials, it's not coming from an open and friendly place. 

I've seen you get cagey from time to time, too, when you believe someone is asking a loaded question.  Shoot, I asked you a couple of simple questions and you're being incredibly snarky with me.


----------



## Tez3

TimoS said:


> What does any of this bickering have to do with the actual topic?



That's the problem...... nothing, as I pointed out a couple of times.


----------



## jks9199

Ladies and Gentlemen, 
It seems that things are getting rather heated, and I'm seeing style bashing by people within the same style.  Isn't that usually reserved to the Wing Chun forum?  Perhaps we can rein the attacks and shots in and participate politely and respectfully?  Maybe we can do that before points have to be awarded?

Jks9199
Administrator

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Sojobo

Tez3 said:


> You did actually, you said that being straight out of uni they made things worse.


And if truth be told - they would probably agree.

Most have now evolved.

That's what budo is all about - isn't it?


----------



## Steve

TimoS said:


> What does any of this bickering have to do with the actual topic?


Good point.  I went back and reread the last several pages of this thread, and I will admit I'm very curious to hear more about Wado Ryu Karate, how it relates to koryu arts in Japan, and whether or not self defense was a founding priority for the style. 

It also seems that sojobo is implying that bunkai is a sort of reverse engineering of karate, adding things which may not have been part of the style to begin with.  I may have this all wrong.  But if so, it's a position that will make for some very interesting reading, as people here take bunkai very seriously. 

@Sojobo , I hope you actually know what you're talking about.   I'll offer just a word of advise.  At some point, @Chris Parker will come along and quote every single post you've written, responding to each paragraph in turn.  So, if you want it to be something you can read in one sitting, you might consider backing off and waiting for his response.  It's already going to be a doozy.  Any mention of koryu arts is like a beacon for him.  And truly, if you don't know what you're talking about, he's going to eviscerate you, figuratively speaking of course.


----------



## Tez3

It just seemed very simple when I answered someone post, to me if you train karate then you have self defence techniques at your finger tips and if you need them you should use them. Some places just teach things like no touch sparring and kata for the sake of it, I just think if you are training a martial art get the most out of it and learn to defend yourself properly. Regardless of where Wado came from, what it was designed for or even where it's going it has some damn fine self defence which I was taught, teach and am proud of. I love Wado, I love the kata, I love the way the techniques are structured and I love that I have a formidable arsenal of self defence techniques, in fact I love it all.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> It just seemed very simple when I answered someone post, to me if you train karate then you have self defence techniques at your finger tips and if you need them you should use them. Some places just teach things like no touch sparring and kata for the sake of it, I just think if you are training a martial art get the most out of it and learn to defend yourself properly. Regardless of where Wado came from, what it was designed for or even where it's going it has some damn fine self defence which I was taught, teach and am proud of. I love Wado, I love the kata, I love the way the techniques are structured and I love that I have a formidable arsenal of self defence techniques, in fact I love it all.


I think that, if trained in a realistic manner, there's no doubt that karate is effective in a physical encounter. 

However, isn't this contrary to some of the statements on this forum?  What do you guys think about the idea that martial arts and self defense are unrelated, and that any overlap is "largely superficial?"  There was another thread on the topic of "martial arts vs self defense" a couple of years ago where @Chris Parker said the following: 


Chris Parker said:


> For the record, my position is going to be yes, unquestioningly, martial arts and self defence are two very different skill sets, contexts, methodologies, requirements, approaches, and more. The similarities are largely superficial, and a degree of potential (albeit almost accidental, frankly) cross-over between the two.


I think that the overlap between self defense and martial arts is worth discussing... specifically this idea that the two are only superficially linked.


----------



## pgsmith

Sojobo said:


> pgsmith.. I have always respected your posts here and other forums - can you specify what post I came over as arrogant? I'm an engineer by trade and dislike generalisations.


  I would delve further into it, but I can only access from work, so I don't have the time to get overly specific. I will, however, point out the initial post that put my back up as it came across as arrogant, grandstanding, and dismissive all at the same time. Especially given the fact that nobody here knows who exactly you are, or why you feel qualified to pass this sort of judgment.  I also have to point out, being an engineer myself, that this statement that I'm quoting is a gross generalization. 



Sojobo said:


> Regarding Wado though this is the problem.
> 
> Many of the senior Wado instructors here in the UK (I'm talking 7th and 8th dans) don't get it.
> 
> Why, because Wado in the UK is broken and has been for decades.
> 
> Fact is - because they don't get it they cling to what is tangible and seemingly self evident.
> 
> That sets people down the wrong path with wrong goals and objectives and that's a shame, because Wado is a great art and much much more than a self defence system.





Steve said:


> "Underlings" was pgsmith's term.  Sojobo's use in his response was, I think, a little tongue in cheek.  I notice you're not taking pgsmith to task for the three paragraph long ad hominem.  Is it possible you are taking sides, and maybe even making things worse?


 
  Steve,
  My post was a heartfelt response to sojobo's initial tone and hijacking of the thread. Please read the thread title if you don't understand. His subsequent posts about the beginnings and purpose of Wado were interesting but had no bearing on the initial discussion, and instead seemed to me to be part of a personal agenda outside of the parameters of the discussion.

  Can I offer you some cheese?


----------



## Steve

pgsmith said:


> Steve,
> My post was a heartfelt response to sojobo's initial tone and hijacking of the thread. Please read the thread title if you don't understand. His subsequent posts about the beginnings and purpose of Wado were interesting but had no bearing on the initial discussion, and instead seemed to me to be part of a personal agenda outside of the parameters of the discussion.
> 
> Can I offer you some cheese?


Nobody's perfect.  I think things worked out pretty well in the end.  I am genuinely interested in hearing more about Wado Ryu, and whether or not it is a self defense focused art.

Regarding thread drift, it's a funny thing.  Sometimes, it's okay.  Other times, it's not.  I think it's pretty subjective, but I also think it's unavoidable, particularly in a thread that is as lengthy as this one.


----------



## Hyoho

A swift kick in between the legs with some added karate skills is most effective. What is not so good is nowadays people that attack you are usually armed and possibly have taken drugs. M.A. on its own of any description as self defense will not work under these circumstances.


----------



## Sojobo

pgsmith said:


> I would delve further into it, but I can only access from work, so I don't have the time to get overly specific. I will, however, point out the initial post that put my back up as it came across as arrogant, grandstanding, and dismissive all at the same time. Especially given the fact that nobody here knows who exactly you are, or why you feel qualified to pass this sort of judgment.  I also have to point out, being an engineer myself, that this statement that I'm quoting is a gross generalization.



I had a break from the PC this weekend (for a residential training camp), and it was probably a good thing to let things simmer down a little.

I entered the discussion with what I thought was a valid point. I felt (perhaps wrongly) that my opening posts on the subject were ridiculed and dismissed in a way that sought to undermine the validity of the comments.

If I am being honest this did get my back up - and perhaps, as a result, the tone in subsequent posts were overly strong.

It was never my intention to offend or upset anyone - I do try to be a nice person (I seem to have failed though in this case).




pgsmith said:


> Steve,
> My post was a heartfelt response to sojobo's initial tone and hijacking of the thread. Please read the thread title if you don't understand. His subsequent posts about the beginnings and purpose of Wado were interesting but had no bearing on the initial discussion, and instead seemed to me to be part of a personal agenda outside of the parameters of the discussion.



Regarding Hijacking the thread - this was honestly not my intention.

I don't post too regularly on this or any other board these days, but I felt compelled to offer my opinion on the matter (from a Wado perspective) when a very strong comment was made about karate and its relationship to self defence in terms of being it's sole raison detre.

I don't believe this is the case, but we've done it to death - so I have no appetite to go back there. 

I will however take you up on that cheese.


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> when a very strong comment was made about karate and *its relationship to self defence in terms of being it's sole raison detre.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> You may have thought that was what I said but it wasn't so the whole thing was actually redundant and it caused a lot of upset because no one likes being targeted as you did me. You cried insult where there was none and as you have done this to me several times now there's obviously a pattern. You have your opinions on Wado ryu, other instructors in the style have theirs which they will pass to their students, in this case me. You will pass yours onto your students.I've not encountered such dogmatic views as yours from others in Wado, it's always been a friendly group who have never been overly concerned about being right


----------



## Buka

Ah, cheese.


----------



## Tez3

Buka said:


> Ah, cheese.



We had lunch here the other day and tasted cheese, so much cheese.
Real Yorkshire Wensleydale Cheese - Wensleydale Creamery


----------



## Hyoho

Tez3 said:


> We had lunch here the other day and tasted cheese, so much cheese.
> Real Yorkshire Wensleydale Cheese - Wensleydale Creamery


Had some myself but had it served up in the Canadian Rockies. A real treat.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hyoho said:


> A swift kick in between the legs with some added karate skills is most effective. What is not so good is nowadays people that attack you are usually armed and possibly have taken drugs. M.A. on its own of any description as self defense will not work under these circumstances.


"Often" might be a better word. "Usually" implies that the majority of attacks are by armed individuals, and I don't think statistics back that up.

Realistically, I doubt a higher percentage of attackers are armed today than were 50 years ago, when there were fewer laws about specific weapons.


----------



## Hyoho

gpseymour said:


> "Often" might be a better word. "Usually" implies that the majority of attacks are by armed individuals, and I don't think statistics back that up.
> 
> Realistically, I doubt a higher percentage of attackers are armed today than were 50 years ago, when there were fewer laws about specific weapons.


I guess it depend where you live or the environments you frequent. Few crimes are carried out without some sort of weapon. Watch YouTube. 

On a lighter note criminals also practice M.A. I used to teach at a yakuza dojo in Japan as well as the police headquarters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hyoho said:


> I guess it depend where you live or the environments you frequent. Few crimes are carried out without some sort of weapon. Watch YouTube.
> 
> On a lighter note criminals also practice M.A. I used to teach at a yakuza dojo in Japan as well as the police headquarters.



If we are speaking of crimes like armed robbery, you are likely correct (in fact, by default, you are correct). If we speak of crimes in general (including assault, theft, etc.), then weapons are probably involved in the minority.

If you are speaking specifically of assualts (many of which never get reported as crimes), then we need to look on YouTube again, and there are more videos there of people just hitting each other, etc. than of someone attacking with a knife, gun, etc.

One of the law enforcement folks here - do you know the stats on this, by any chance?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tez3 said:


> We had lunch here the other day and tasted cheese, so much cheese.
> Real Yorkshire Wensleydale Cheese - Wensleydale Creamery


I had never heard of 'Wensleydale cheese' in the entire 44 years of my life so far and now I have encountered the name twice in one day (the other being an option in the multiple chioce question on the Chase). Weird.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

RTKDCMB said:


> I had never heard of 'Wensleydale cheese' in the entire 44 years of my life so far and now I have encountered the name twice in one day (the other being an option in the multiple chioce question on the Chase). Weird.


You've never watched Wallace and Gromit? You poor soul.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tony Dismukes said:


> You've never watched Wallace and Gromit? You poor soul.


So then I have heard the name before. Still weird though.


----------



## Tez3

There's Swaledale cheese as well, less well know but I live in Swaledale ( Wensleydale is next 'valley' over from us) so know quite a bit about it lol. The Swaledale Cheese Company


----------



## Tony Dismukes




----------



## pgsmith

Sojobo said:


> Regarding Hijacking the thread - this was honestly not my intention.
> 
> I don't post too regularly on this or any other board these days, but I felt compelled to offer my opinion on the matter (from a Wado perspective) when a very strong comment was made about karate and its relationship to self defence in terms of being it's sole raison detre.
> 
> I don't believe this is the case, but we've done it to death - so I have no appetite to go back there.
> 
> I will however take you up on that cheese.



  So, if I started a new thread about the origins and outlook of Wado ryu, would you be willing to contribute? Toby Threadgill wrote a little about this many years back when he was investigating the origins of the Shindo Yoshin ryu that he practices, and I thought it was interesting that Wado has such a different history than the other well known karate traditions.


----------



## Sojobo

pgsmith said:


> So, if I started a new thread about the origins and outlook of Wado ryu, would you be willing to contribute? Toby Threadgill wrote a little about this many years back when he was investigating the origins of the Shindo Yoshin ryu that he practices, and I thought it was interesting that Wado has such a different history than the other well known karate traditions.


Yes, I'd be happy to contribute to such a thread.


----------



## Tez3

@Chris Parker needs to be involved I feel. I won't be involved because I feel that whatever I said I would be attacked for it, sorry but that's how it is.


----------



## Sojobo

pgsmith said:


> So, if I started a new thread about the origins and outlook of Wado ryu, would you be willing to contribute? Toby Threadgill wrote a little about this many years back when he was investigating the origins of the Shindo Yoshin ryu that he practices, and I thought it was interesting that Wado has such a different history than the other well known karate traditions.


I've never met Toby, but we chat regularly and share thoughts on the matter.
He's also very good friends with Shingo Ohgami sensei who has played an important part in shaping my Wado understanding.


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo said:


> I've never met Toby, but we chat regularly and share thoughts on the matter.
> He's also very good friends with *Shingo Ohgami sensei* who has played an important part in shaping my Wado understanding.



So, how strange that he's influenced people in opposite directions then.


----------



## Tez3

Tez3 said:


> So, how strange that he's influenced people in opposite directions then.





Tez3 said:


> @Chris Parker needs to be involved I feel. I won't be involved because I feel that whatever I said I would be attacked for it, sorry but that's how it is.



You prove my point by disagreeing.
Are you saying then that the same person cannot have influenced us both?


----------



## Tez3

Sojobo, all you are doing is confirming what I said and think, that you disagree and dislike *everything* I post. You made it personal which is fine, I have broad shoulders. I won't be responding to you after this, you have made it very clear what you think about me. So it's goodnight and goodbye from me.


----------



## Sojobo

Ah, Monty Python - a great reflection on recent events on this thread.


----------



## Steve

Sojobo said:


> Ah, Monty Python - a great reflection on recent events on this thread.


No, it's not.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> No, it's not.



Yes, it is.


----------



## TKDFromDMV_Student

MJS said:


> Good post! I think that this is where the 'Martial Artist" is separated from the RBSD guys



RBSD? That's a new term to me.


----------



## TimoS

The thread that refuses to die 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Buka

By all means, kill it. Please.


----------



## Steve

TKDFromDMV_Student said:


> RBSD? That's a new term to me.


Reality Based Self Defense.  Kind of like a much more serious form of Kato attacking Inspector Clouseau.


----------



## KabutoKouji

'I've spoken at length to many boxing, kali, Brazilian Jujitsu and muaythai instructors and they all agree, karate produces a tenseness and rigidity that seems almost irreversible'

'Ive spoken with X about Y and they say Y isnt as good' - that's sealed it then


----------



## Gerry Seymour

TimoS said:


> The thread that refuses to die
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


This is the thread that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Some people started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever, just because this is the thread that never....


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KabutoKouji said:


> 'I've spoken at length to many boxing, kali, Brazilian Jujitsu and muaythai instructors and they all agree, karate produces a tenseness and rigidity that seems almost irreversible'
> 
> 'Ive spoken with X about Y and they say Y isnt as good' - that's sealed it then


I will say there's some validity to the statement. I've trained alongside and taught people who trained in various styles of Karate. There's a higher incidence of (what seems to me) odd tension among those who trained exclusively in Karate, than among any other art, or among the untrained. Mind you, I don't think it's irreversible, nor is it universal. The best Karateka I've worked with were neither tense nor rigid.


----------



## KabutoKouji

gpseymour said:


> I will say there's some validity to the statement. I've trained alongside and taught people who trained in various styles of Karate. There's a higher incidence of (what seems to me) odd tension among those who trained exclusively in Karate, than among any other art, or among the untrained. Mind you, I don't think it's irreversible, nor is it universal. The best Karateka I've worked with were neither tense nor rigid.



you do have a point, the stop start of the patterns themselves probably leads to this - I come from ITF TKD background and even though it is probably a little less rigid (with the 'sine-wave' in there), there is still a lot of Shotokan influence in it I believe. When I try to practice my Tan Tui, my instructors are always saying 'this isn't Karate' to me as I do tend to over emphasize the 'stops' at the end of movements.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KabutoKouji said:


> you do have a point, the stop start of the patterns themselves probably leads to this - I come from ITF TKD background and even though it is probably a little less rigid (with the 'sine-wave' in there), there is still a lot of Shotokan influence in it I believe. When I try to practice my Tan Tui, my instructors are always saying 'this isn't Karate' to me as I do tend to over emphasize the 'stops' at the end of movements.


Perhaps that's it. I have a lot of experience with two Shotokan Karatedo practitioners. One is a current student, who trained Shotokan as his primary/only art for several years. He has more stiffness than any student I can recall, though he learns the movements better than most. The other was a training partner who was training Shotokan and NGA simultaneously (and Iaido for a while). He never got that rigidity, likely because of his NGA training. He was never as fluid as most others at his level, but his quick, decisive movements more than make up for that (he is now shodan in both, I believe).


----------



## KabutoKouji

yeah when we are practicing TaiJiJuan Pushing Hands I also find it pretty hard to relax and 'soften' a bit


----------



## Ben S

I definitely agree with the many reasons why Karate's rigid approach, despite its strong focus and strength, would fail most people in a 'real fight'. There are many arts that might serve a defender better than Karate - perhaps wing chun, krav maga and others. Simply being a master of forms and techniques in a class environment could certainly fail to work out for most Karate practitioners in the chaos that happens in a real altercation with a crazed attacker. Then I think of my first teacher Uechi master Ihor Rymaruk, now around 70, who practices only Karate. This not a man that anyone, anywhere is going to easily hurt or subdue. 


.


----------



## Psilent Knight

"Holy resurrected thread Batman!!" 

While I do understand where the author of the article is coming from and has some valid points, I think that overall his conclusions are severely misguided. If we were to place an elephant inside of a room and allowed uninformed outsiders to only get a glimpse of it through a keyhole then their respective perceptions can be misguided. If every time I looked through the keyhole and only caught a glimpse of the elephants body or torso I may think that it is a rhinoceros that is behind that door. If another person only manages to catch a glimpse of the elephant's trunk every time they glance through the keyhole then perhaps they would think that it's some kind of large snake that is behind that door.

It's in a similar fashion that I think that the author of this article is misguided. He's going by the karateka who either train for sport and/or self development or a way of life (in essence, martial _ART_). *THE PROBLEM IS* that most of the karateka who train in one or both of those aspects also _CLAIM_ and _BELIEVE_ that they train for self defense as well when nothing can be further from the truth after close examination.

For me it is quite simple, if you want to be able to utilize karate or any fighting art for self protection then you would have to train it *strictly *for self protection. I simply cannot see how one can possibly train in sport and realistic self protection at the same time. You're either training in sport or self protection or_ Art_. It is my personal observation and experiences that the majority of karate schools *claim* to teach and train in self defense when* in reality* they are teaching and training a sport/tournament version of karate. It seems that almost no one in the karate world is willing or able to see this situation for what it really is and call it for what it really is. This creates a not so great reputation surrounding karate and causes people like the author of the article to dismiss karate entirely (though under faulty premises).

I do think that one can train in either sport or realistic self defense and still practice_ Art_ at the same time *if* one is willing to look at their training as having a _side benefit_ of art, self growth/development, way of life, way of self expression, etc.

But my stance is that karate can be very, very effective for self protection/self defense IF it is truly, truly, truly trained for such and only for such.

My two cents for what it's worth.

Take Care Everyone and Have A Great One,
Osu!


----------



## Martial_Kumite

What I think is that karate can be effective, if one practices the application of it in "real world" type scenarios. If you just have a foundation, then that is all you have. You have to build something off of that foundation for it to be effective. It also depends on the person themselves. Saying that MA X or Y is ineffective is making a broad statement.


----------



## Psilent Knight

@Martial_Kumite  I completely agree with you. Especially the fact that at the end of the day it comes down to the individual fighter. Great post.

Take Care and Have A Great Day,
Osu!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KabutoKouji said:


> karate produces a tenseness and rigidity that seems almost irreversible'


I have heard the following comment:

If a Karate guy invents a car, that car will have square tires. It will turn as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1, 2, 3, 4, ...

The

- Karate has too many square.
- CMA has too many circles.

IMO, both are a bit too extreme. I like the middle approach. some smooth circles followed by some sharp edges, and then followed by more smooth circles and sharp edges. I can't rest with all sharp edges. I'll fall to sleep with too many circles.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This is the thread that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Some people started posting it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever, just because this is the thread that never....


----------



## drop bear

Psilent Knight said:


> For me it is quite simple, if you want to be able to utilize karate or any fighting art for self protection then you would have to train it *strictly *for self protection. I simply cannot see how one can possibly train in sport and realistic self protection at the same time. You're either training in sport or self protection or_ Art_. I



A good martial art that has a solid foundation can do both. Or all three.

When I read terms like self protection I am reminded of terms like tactical. Which is an obvious sale pitch.

You can buy stuff. You can buy tactical stuff. But tactical stuff is not always better for doing tactical things. It is just designed to make the consumer buy the product.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> A good martial art that has a solid foundation can do both. Or all three.
> 
> When I read terms like self protection I am reminded of terms like tactical. Which is an obvious sale pitch.
> 
> You can buy stuff. You can buy tactical stuff. But tactical stuff is not always better for doing tactical things. It is just designed to make the consumer buy the product.


I like the foregrip. My sword doesn't have that.


----------



## JR 137

Psilent Knight said:


> "Holy resurrected thread Batman!!"
> 
> While I do understand where the author of the article is coming from and has some valid points, I think that overall his conclusions are severely misguided. If we were to place an elephant inside of a room and allowed uninformed outsiders to only get a glimpse of it through a keyhole then their respective perceptions can be misguided. If every time I looked through the keyhole and only caught a glimpse of the elephants body or torso I may think that it is a rhinoceros that is behind that door. If another person only manages to catch a glimpse of the elephant's trunk every time they glance through the keyhole then perhaps they would think that it's some kind of large snake that is behind that door.
> 
> It's in a similar fashion that I think that the author of this article is misguided. He's going by the karateka who either train for sport and/or self development or a way of life (in essence, martial _ART_). *THE PROBLEM IS* that most of the karateka who train in one or both of those aspects also _CLAIM_ and _BELIEVE_ that they train for self defense as well when nothing can be further from the truth after close examination.
> 
> For me it is quite simple, if you want to be able to utilize karate or any fighting art for self protection then you would have to train it *strictly *for self protection. I simply cannot see how one can possibly train in sport and realistic self protection at the same time. You're either training in sport or self protection or_ Art_. It is my personal observation and experiences that the majority of karate schools *claim* to teach and train in self defense when* in reality* they are teaching and training a sport/tournament version of karate. It seems that almost no one in the karate world is willing or able to see this situation for what it really is and call it for what it really is. This creates a not so great reputation surrounding karate and causes people like the author of the article to dismiss karate entirely (though under faulty premises).
> 
> I do think that one can train in either sport or realistic self defense and still practice_ Art_ at the same time *if* one is willing to look at their training as having a _side benefit_ of art, self growth/development, way of life, way of self expression, etc.
> 
> But my stance is that karate can be very, very effective for self protection/self defense IF it is truly, truly, truly trained for such and only for such.
> 
> My two cents for what it's worth.
> 
> Take Care Everyone and Have A Great One,
> Osu!



You're looking through that keyhole too, in a way, regarding sport karate.  I'm assuming you have point fighting in mind.  What about knockdown?  Watch a Kyokushin tournament and tell me that what they're doing is far enough removed from reality to be completely ineffective as self defense (the when all other options have been exhausted aspect; please let's not have another SD vs fighting vs ad nauseum).

Even point fighting has elements that'll help defend yourself.  A punch is a punch.  Learning to punch helps.  Learning to kick helps.  Learning to evade helps.  Learning timing helps.  Training hard and getting in good physical shape helps.  The pressure to perform against unknown opponents helps.  Point fighting is a bit of a stretch, but some universal fighting attributes are there.

For the record, I hate point fighting.  But it's not 100% worthless.  Training for a tournament that my daughters talked me into competing in made me better able to defend myself.  It didn't take me from a nobody to a guy who can clear out the bar by himself with one hand tied behind his back, but there's no denying I got faster, stronger, and more flexible.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> A good martial art that has a solid foundation can do both. Or all three.
> 
> When I read terms like self protection I am reminded of terms like tactical. Which is an obvious sale pitch.
> 
> You can buy stuff. You can buy tactical stuff. But tactical stuff is not always better for doing tactical things. It is just designed to make the consumer buy the product.


That's about the only thing I'd rather have than a working light saber.   Wait.   No, I'd still rather have a working light saber.  But that's a very close second.


----------



## Psilent Knight

JR 137 said:


> You're looking through that keyhole too, in a way, regarding sport karate.  I'm assuming you have point fighting in mind.  What about knockdown?  Watch a Kyokushin tournament and tell me that what they're doing is far enough removed from reality to be completely ineffective as self defense (the when all other options have been exhausted aspect; please let's not have another SD vs fighting vs ad nauseum).
> 
> Even point fighting has elements that'll help defend yourself.  A punch is a punch.  Learning to punch helps.  Learning to kick helps.  Learning to evade helps.  Learning timing helps.  Training hard and getting in good physical shape helps.  The pressure to perform against unknown opponents helps.  Point fighting is a bit of a stretch, but some universal fighting attributes are there.
> 
> For the record, I hate point fighting.  But it's not 100% worthless.  Training for a tournament that my daughters talked me into competing in made me better able to defend myself.  It didn't take me from a nobody to a guy who can clear out the bar by himself with one hand tied behind his back, but there's no denying I got faster, stronger, and more flexible.



I wish to repeat that my post was just my two cents FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. Everyone here is free to either agree or disagree.



drop bear said:


> When I read terms like self protection I am reminded of terms like tactical. Which is an obvious sale pitch.



Good thing I have nothing to sell. Also I wish to make clear that I personally use the terms self protection and self defense interchangeably (which should've been obvious from my post).

Take Care and Have A Good Night,
Osu!


----------



## JR 137

Psilent Knight said:


> I wish to repeat that my post was just my two cents FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. Everyone here is free to either agree or disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing I have nothing to sell. Also I wish to make clear that I personally use the terms self protection and self defense interchangeably (which should've been obvious from my post).
> 
> Take Care and Have A Good Night,
> Osu!



Isn't every post just the poster's opinion?  I didn't take any offense to your post I quoted.  I agree with a lot of what you said, but I gave some counterpoints.  Just my 2 cents.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> That's about the only thing I'd rather have than a working light saber.   Wait.   No, I'd still rather have a working light saber.  But that's a very close second.


you cant have a working light saber....you'll take your eye out.


----------



## Steve

JR 137 said:


> Isn't every post just the poster's opinion?  I didn't take any offense to your post I quoted.  I agree with a lot of what you said, but I gave some counterpoints.  Just my 2 cents.


Sometimes a post contains a fact or two.  The trick is to distinguish between facts and opinions.  Usually pretty straightforward. 

But often, someone will post facts and also their opinions derived from facts, and not be able to tell one from the other.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> you cant have a working light saber....you'll take your eye out.


I'd certainly be short a limb or two, but the good news is that the robotic prosthetics are awesome.


----------



## hoshin1600

If I am free do disagree then I will.  I good art will preform well in any environment.  You may have to tweak it for better performance but it will work well. A good punch is a good punch, regardless of the context. On the opposite side, a crappy punch may only work in point fighting. Or in a single context.
A good art acts as a base and the individual can take it in whatever direction they choose. You can then do little add on to tailor it.


----------



## Psilent Knight

JR 137 said:


> Isn't every post just the poster's opinion?  I didn't take any offense to your post I quoted.  I agree with a lot of what you said, but I gave some counterpoints.  Just my 2 cents.



If I may, I would like to state one thing for everyone's clarification. I was not singling out point sparring, I meant sport/tournament karate regardless if it's full contact, semi contact, non contact, point sparring or anything else in between. If it has rules, a referee, a designated fighting area, fixed time limit and the participants  are given the chance to be set and ready before the ref yells "BEGIN!" then it is sport which is a *whole different animal from the real thing*. I think I'll just leave it at that.

Take Care,

Osu!


----------



## drop bear

Psilent Knight said:


> If I may, I would like to state one thing for everyone's clarification. I was not singling out point sparring, I meant sport/tournament karate regardless if it's full contact, semi contact, non contact, point sparring or anything else in between. If it has rules, a referee, a designated fighting area, fixed time limit and the participants  are given the chance to be set and ready before the ref yells "BEGIN!" then it is sport which is a *whole different animal from the real thing*. I think I'll just leave it at that.
> 
> Take Care,
> 
> Osu!



Well yeah. Obviously fighting is easier if I dont have to worry about rules a ref and the other guy being pre warned. But what are you going to do?


----------



## CDR_Glock

In modern times we must always be aware of what is happening.  Disaster can occur in a moment's notice.  So can a riot or random act of violence.  Situational awareness is critical.

As for the rigidity of karate, I agree.  There are other forms that can be more effective.

I also look towards improvised weapons wherever I may be.  Anything can be applied as a weapon.  It can dissuade an attack or outright neutralize it.

However, with racial tensions and gang violence, I have resorted to my training with firearms.   I would use my martial arts to buy me seconds to be able to step back and draw my weapon.   That is realistically how I approach self defense.  

I have gotten into 2 hostile disputes and talked my way out of them. Always ready to attack or counter.  Luckily I have never had to attack or counter attack an assailant.  

I don't put myself in situations that would lead to major conflict.  However, it is important to use whatever tools are available.  Shooting is my last option.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ShortBridge

I agree that karate is ineffective against nuclear attacks, poison gas and snipers. I couldn't get through the rest of this diatribe.


----------



## wingchun100

The Kai said:


> A "Traditional" Reverse punch is both a technique and a training tool.  I was taught that it is easier to teach and practice big motions, also trains the full range of motion.  Eventually, you should be able to throw a punch from the shoulder, or from your pocket for that matter with correct body mechanics.
> 
> Todd


 
The mention of big motions made me think of my current Wing Chun teacher. All his teaching favors what he calls "small circle." He said to me in the last class I attended: "If you can get good at small circle, big circle is easy."


----------



## Vincent

Like many of the people here, I agree with some of the points and disagree with others.  I don't want to say that karate was never any good, but I do think most of the physical discipline that's called karate today doesn't seem like a logical or efficient means of training for self defense.

At the risk of getting bogged down in hair-splitting, I'll contrast typical karate with boxing.  Boxers don't spend years whittling away at imperfections in the execution of their discipline before they can handle themselves.  I doubt most boxers would be afraid to take a karate class, but the majority of karateka wouldn't step foot in a real boxing gym.  I'm not saying that boxing is the be-all, end-all, but that typical karate doesn't compare very well when the rubber meets the road.  Boxing has very efficient technique that's tested and refined in a more intensive and realistic arena (the ring) than most karateka will ever enter.  Some karateka will counter that boxing is made for the ring, but karate is made for the street.  Okay, let's get a boxer who has trained for as long as that karateka, find an area of "street," and see how the karateka does against the boxer.  Let's see if the boxer doesn't agree to that idea with a confident "yeah, sure," while the karateka tries talking his way out of it.

Karate blocks, at least as they're presented, are ridiculous.  Outside of the movies, or a martial arts school where the students have all bought into the dance, where have you seen that kind of block work?  Show me one instance of an upper, lower, outside-inside, or inside-outside block happening in MMA?  I suspect there's a valid "street" application in which a block is actually a strike meant to take out to injure that limb, but I don't think it works how the blocking technique that karateka practice for years suggests it would work.

Karate's body toughening practices don't seem very productive.  I'm not aware of people who have to handle violent situations for a living repetitively banging their limbs to toughen them up.  I fully agree that people who are serious about combat should get in the ring and learn to manage their fear of getting hit.  There should also be physical conditioning for explosive power, general strength, endurance, and cardio-vascular fitness.  But bruising yourself until you don't bruise anymore is awfully questionable.  That's a lot of self-inflicted inflammation, and medical science has learned a lot about the negative long-term effects of inflammation.

I was ready to write off karate completely and instead go with a something like a BJJ/striking mix, but I do notice all the LE and military professionals who have faced violence for a living and have high rank in a traditional karate ryuha.  They've done other combat methodologies too, but they found enough value in karate to stick with it long enough to get a level of rank that takes decades.

I suspect there are realistic approaches to karate that develop respectable combatants, but they aren't for everybody.  Just like in a boxing gym, you'll endure some intense training and will need to be tougher than the average person.  But that karate isn't common today, and the vast majority of school-running sensei aren't at that level.


----------



## Buka

Welcome to MartialTalk, Vincent. 

Heck of a first post, great read. I'm not sure there's a "typical Karate" any more, though. 

As I read your post I knew you've been around for a while. I kind of got the flavor of Karate as I knew it back in the day. But we lived in the boxing gym during the day because the dojo didn't open until 5.

I'll tell you what, though. If you're a Karate man and study boxing for a few years? The day the guys in the boxing gym finally ask you to fight with some of that Karate stuff - it is like the greatest Christmas morning you ever had as a little kid.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Vincent said:


> Like many of the people here, I agree with some of the points and disagree with others.  I don't want to say that karate was never any good, but I do think most of the physical discipline that's called karate today doesn't seem like a logical or efficient means of training for self defense.
> 
> At the risk of getting bogged down in hair-splitting, I'll contrast typical karate with boxing.  Boxers don't spend years whittling away at imperfections in the execution of their discipline before they can handle themselves.  I doubt most boxers would be afraid to take a karate class, but the majority of karateka wouldn't step foot in a real boxing gym.  I'm not saying that boxing is the be-all, end-all, but that typical karate doesn't compare very well when the rubber meets the road.  Boxing has very efficient technique that's tested and refined in a more intensive and realistic arena (the ring) than most karateka will ever enter.  Some karateka will counter that boxing is made for the ring, but karate is made for the street.  Okay, let's get a boxer who has trained for as long as that karateka, find an area of "street," and see how the karateka does against the boxer.  Let's see if the boxer doesn't agree to that idea with a confident "yeah, sure," while the karateka tries talking his way out of it.
> 
> Karate blocks, at least as they're presented, are ridiculous.  Outside of the movies, or a martial arts school where the students have all bought into the dance, where have you seen that kind of block work?  Show me one instance of an upper, lower, outside-inside, or inside-outside block happening in MMA?  I suspect there's a valid "street" application in which a block is actually a strike meant to take out to injure that limb, but I don't think it works how the blocking technique that karateka practice for years suggests it would work.
> 
> Karate's body toughening practices don't seem very productive.  I'm not aware of people who have to handle violent situations for a living repetitively banging their limbs to toughen them up.  I fully agree that people who are serious about combat should get in the ring and learn to manage their fear of getting hit.  There should also be physical conditioning for explosive power, general strength, endurance, and cardio-vascular fitness.  But bruising yourself until you don't bruise anymore is awfully questionable.  That's a lot of self-inflicted inflammation, and medical science has learned a lot about the negative long-term effects of inflammation.
> 
> I was ready to write off karate completely and instead go with a something like a BJJ/striking mix, but I do notice all the LE and military professionals who have faced violence for a living and have high rank in a traditional karate ryuha.  They've done other combat methodologies too, but they found enough value in karate to stick with it long enough to get a level of rank that takes decades.
> 
> I suspect there are realistic approaches to karate that develop respectable combatants, but they aren't for everybody.  Just like in a boxing gym, you'll endure some intense training and will need to be tougher than the average person.  But that karate isn't common today, and the vast majority of school-running sensei aren't at that level.


Welcome, Vincent. Like Buka, I think that's a heck of a first post! Great thoughts - love how you're digging in and really thinking.

A few thoughts on the differences. First off, we can't even go down the rabbit hole of comparing serious boxers to hobbyist Karate students. These days, I'm starting to see hobbyist boxers, but I think those weren't as common in the past. (By hobbyist, I mean folks who train 2-5 hours a week most of the time - contrast that with serious training which usually starts at 5 hours a day several days a week.) I think you'd find a faster path and different approach if you looked at - for instance - someone studying Karate seriously (5+ hours a day, including fitness training, etc.) to prepare for serious competition. Just compare the time-in-training (ignoring the advantages of compressed timeframes, less time to forget, etc.). If someone trains 3 hours a week (2 classes at many schools, which is pretty common) plus does some moderate fitness for 3 hours a week (two runs, plus a trip to the gym for strength), that's about 300 hours a year. Now let's say a serious boxer (or Karateka) trains hard for 6 hours a day, including 2 hours of heavy fitness work, 5 days a week (I've known guys who trained harder than that) - that's 30 hours a week, about 1500 hours a year. On time alone, they are covering about 5 years of hobbyist time in a single year. And they are training with more intensity, which seems to develop folks faster and farther. And their fitness work is more intense (and more frequent) so they are in better shape. Given those last two points, the serious boxer is probably better at 1 year than the hobbyist Karateka is in 5, but it's not because of the art. Buka trained much harder "back in the day" than I have trained.If you put me in my prime against Buka in his prime, he'd absolutely trash me. And I'm not sure it would matter much which art either of us trained in.

Now that we've dispensed with that variable, let's look at some of the concepts you're examining. Much of the inefficiency (from a fight perspective) of the typical path comes from a few areas. Perhaps the clearest is that what's taught is Karate-do. In Japanese culture, that "do" means something specific - that the teaching is more about improvement than fighting (or, at least, as much so). Part of the point is the time spent honing the discipline. So, even when a kick is useful, time is spent perfecting the technical merits (note: not always the same as the usefulness). Drills are sometimes used just as a method of development. Another component is the love of the tradition. There are Karate forms that help build strength. I'm no expert in the area, but I'll be we (as a society) know faster ways to build most of that strength, but some folks still use that slower method because they enjoy it - the path (the "do") is the point sometimes.

Mind you, that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. Within my own art, I'm a bit of a maverick. I've changed more of the approach than anyone I know. Some of that is to be more efficient, but it's still nowhere near what I could design as a "most efficient" practice. Why? Because I like the kinds of folks I can help/work with/teach at the level I teach. To go for "most efficient", I'd have to change my audience, because the hobbyist (even the serious hobbyist, like me) isn't interested in that commitment. My priorities have almost always put that in another area. And I like the kind of person who is interested in exploring the idea of "aiki" - the intellectual and physical pursuit of working that "softer" approach into fight mechanics. It's a long path. The techniques are useful, but not "most efficient" path to fighting effectiveness by a long shot. I suspect there's some of that in Karate, as well - some stuff that's there because it attracts the right group of people who can geek out about it and have fun training together, which enriches their lives probably more than the actual fighting ability will.

So, my basic point is that there IS, as you suspected, real fighting value to Karate. Lots of it, in fact. It comes slower (though perhaps not quite as slowly as you perceive) than in some disciplines, but it definitely exists.


----------



## JR 137

Vincent said:


> Like many of the people here, I agree with some of the points and disagree with others.  I don't want to say that karate was never any good, but I do think most of the physical discipline that's called karate today doesn't seem like a logical or efficient means of training for self defense.
> 
> At the risk of getting bogged down in hair-splitting, I'll contrast typical karate with boxing.  Boxers don't spend years whittling away at imperfections in the execution of their discipline before they can handle themselves.  I doubt most boxers would be afraid to take a karate class, but the majority of karateka wouldn't step foot in a real boxing gym.  I'm not saying that boxing is the be-all, end-all, but that typical karate doesn't compare very well when the rubber meets the road.  Boxing has very efficient technique that's tested and refined in a more intensive and realistic arena (the ring) than most karateka will ever enter.  Some karateka will counter that boxing is made for the ring, but karate is made for the street.  Okay, let's get a boxer who has trained for as long as that karateka, find an area of "street," and see how the karateka does against the boxer.  Let's see if the boxer doesn't agree to that idea with a confident "yeah, sure," while the karateka tries talking his way out of it.
> 
> Karate blocks, at least as they're presented, are ridiculous.  Outside of the movies, or a martial arts school where the students have all bought into the dance, where have you seen that kind of block work?  Show me one instance of an upper, lower, outside-inside, or inside-outside block happening in MMA?  I suspect there's a valid "street" application in which a block is actually a strike meant to take out to injure that limb, but I don't think it works how the blocking technique that karateka practice for years suggests it would work.
> 
> Karate's body toughening practices don't seem very productive.  I'm not aware of people who have to handle violent situations for a living repetitively banging their limbs to toughen them up.  I fully agree that people who are serious about combat should get in the ring and learn to manage their fear of getting hit.  There should also be physical conditioning for explosive power, general strength, endurance, and cardio-vascular fitness.  But bruising yourself until you don't bruise anymore is awfully questionable.  That's a lot of self-inflicted inflammation, and medical science has learned a lot about the negative long-term effects of inflammation.
> 
> I was ready to write off karate completely and instead go with a something like a BJJ/striking mix, but I do notice all the LE and military professionals who have faced violence for a living and have high rank in a traditional karate ryuha.  They've done other combat methodologies too, but they found enough value in karate to stick with it long enough to get a level of rank that takes decades.
> 
> I suspect there are realistic approaches to karate that develop respectable combatants, but they aren't for everybody.  Just like in a boxing gym, you'll endure some intense training and will need to be tougher than the average person.  But that karate isn't common today, and the vast majority of school-running sensei aren't at that level.


Excellent post, and I agree with a lot of what you’re saying.  I won’t rehash what I agree and disagree with, as the previous 2 posters have done a better job of stating exactly how I feel.  I’ll just add a little bit to it...

A lot of current karate (and other striking arts) students aren’t “serious” students in the sense that their main objective is self-defense/fighting.  They’re there far more for the other benefits TMA have been pushing in ads - self discipline, wellness, etc.  Nothing wrong with that.  IMO they’re there more for the side effects than the originally intended purpose.  Kind of like doctors prescribing a drug “off-label” (think Wellbutrin to quit smoking rather than for its intended anti-depression).

One other point is my situation and many others I train alongside in my dojo - we’ve been there, done that when we were younger.  I trained bare knuckle in my 20s.  I wrestled through elementary and high school.  The day in and day out pounding isn’t as easy to recover from in my early 40s and beyond as it was back then. Sure, I could still do it, but for how long?  I re-started karate a few years ago after an almost 15 year hiatus.  When I was looking at dojos, it was between a Kyokushin dojo and Seido.  I knew I wouldn’t be in Kyokushin for a long time; maybe a few years at best until my body stopped recovering from it.  Seido comes from Kyokushin, but the contact level is less.  The curricula are quite similar (Seido’s founder, Tadashi Nakamura, was sent to the US by Mas Oyama to start and spread Kyokushin here).

The hard contact and training are great.  IMO everyone should have some experience with it.  It teaches things that IMO can’t be learned by any other means.  But there’s a limit; there’s a balance.  Sure there’s people that have trained like that for decades, but INO they’re the exception and not the rule.  I know so many people who trained like that for a long time and can’t train anything anymore due to the toll it took.  I know too many guys who’ve had hips and shoulders replaced and various other problems way too early in life due to it.

Karate is supposed to be a lifelong study.  I went the lighter contact route to ensure it will be.  Most of the older people in my dojo have done the same.  Most came from Kyokushin.  You can easily spot the ones who came from there and similar systems from the ones who didn’t.  Not from a technical nor aesthetic standpoint, but from shear fighting ability.  It’s not because the ones who didn’t weren’t taught right; it’s because they’ve never been hit really hard and haven’t really learned that lesson IMO.


----------



## hoshin1600

i think the posts made by Buka, Gerry and JR are spot on.
@Vincent  i would propose that your point of view is 100% true and accurate according to your own view of karate.  i would then ask you to define karate. Describe it to me.  i am 100% sure your definition of karate,does not match mine , Buka. Gerry or JR's  description or what karate looks like for them.  JR hit the nail on the head with the comment that karate is meant to be trained for life.  from a young youth until the day you die.  the image of karate you hold in your mind is only one version of what karate *can be*.  karate is more a vessel, a container rather then the contents.  
i see comments and view points like your own very often and sometimes it gets under my skin but as i age i just have to nod and say ok if you say so.
karate is like a good Vietnamese soup.  some will say the soup is too spicy, well then dont put sriracha sauce in it.  some will say its too sour,, well then dont put the lime in it and put in more sugar.  but its too sweet,  too fishy,  too many vegetables.  dont like beef,,, well then put in sea food,  dont like sea food,, put in beef balls or chicken.   karate is the base broth and bowl.   people complain about the flavor because they forget its their soup!!!!  your depending on someone else to spoon feed you!   the chef/ teacher cant please everyone.  the teacher does his best to present the flavor MOST  people will enjoy, young to old.  if you are disappointed in the flavor, take the responsibility upon yourself to get the flavor you like.  its not the bowls fault, its up to you.


----------



## JR 137

hoshin1600 said:


> i think the posts made by Buka, Gerry and JR are spot on.
> @Vincent  i would propose that your point of view is 100% true and accurate according to your own view of karate.  i would then ask you to define karate. Describe it to me.  i am 100% sure your definition of karate,does not match mine , Buka. Gerry or JR's  description or what karate looks like for them.  JR hit the nail on the head with the comment that karate is meant to be trained for life.  from a young youth until the day you die.  the image of karate you hold in your mind is only one version of what karate *can be*.  karate is more a vessel, a container rather then the contents.
> i see comments and view points like your own very often and sometimes it gets under my skin but as i age i just have to nod and say ok if you say so.
> karate is like a good Vietnamese soup.  some will say the soup is too spicy, well then dont put sriracha sauce in it.  some will say its too sour,, well then dont put the lime in it and put in more sugar.  but its too sweet,  too fishy,  too many vegetables.  dont like beef,,, well then put in sea food,  dont like sea food,, put in beef balls or chicken.   karate is the base broth and bowl.   people complain about the flavor because they forget its their soup!!!!  your depending on someone else to spoon feed you!   the chef/ teacher cant please everyone.  the teacher does his best to present the flavor MOST  people will enjoy, young to old.  if you are disappointed in the flavor, take the responsibility upon yourself to get the flavor you like.  its not the bowls fault, its up to you.


Great points.  Karate is different things to different people.  To which I’ll add, it’s also different things to each individual.  People’s priorities change.  People’s abilities change.  My focus today at almost 42 isn’t what it was at 22.  Some things change, and some things are the same.  If I numbered my priorities from 1-5 in my 20s, the order of those would be different today.  I’d say 3 or 4 of those priorities would be on both lists, but it’s doubtful they’d be in the same order.


----------



## JR 137

Another thing I was pondering...

Karate is a physical activity.  Just because one takes up the activity doesn’t mean they have to go all out with it.  Think of basketball...

Some people set up a hoop in the driveway and are content just shooting the ball.  Some are content just playing with their kids.

Some people like to play pick-up in the park.  Some people join an age group rec league and play once or twice a week.

They enjoy playing without any pressure to get good at it.  They’re getting exercise, socializing, having fun, and it gives them something to look forward to doing.

Then you’ve got people who’s life seems to revolve around the game.  They’re out playing, they’re doing stuff outside the game like conditioning, watching video, attending seminars/camps, etc.  They want to be the best they can be.  They may be trying to get a scholarship, into a good school, coaching, pro contract, etc.

No matter which way you look at it, it’s still basketball.  There’s no wrong or right.  The guy shooting hoops with his kids or playing once or twice a week isn’t wasting his time.  The guy who’s made it his life’s passion isn’t wasting his time either.  The serious guy doesn’t have a leg to stand on if he tells the guy who’s playing pick-up he’s wasting his time and not to bother because it’s not real basketball.

Think of any other physical activity, and it’s the same thing; golf, tennis, baseball, soccer, etc.  MA’s no different.  You’ve got people who do it to pass time, people who are trying to reach a very difficult goal, and everything in between.

Just because we take it more seriously than say 90% of the people out there doesn’t mean much.  And to be honest, very few of us in that group would have the motivation and means to become an elite pro fighter.  And from that group, how many are physically gifted enough to be?

Karate and everything else is different things to different people.


----------



## mrt2

JR 137 said:


> Another thing I was pondering...
> 
> 
> 
> *Think of any other physical activity, and it’s the same thing; golf, tennis, baseball, soccer, etc.  MA’s no different.  You’ve got people who do it to pass time, people who are trying to reach a very difficult goal, and everything in between.*
> 
> Just because we take it more seriously than say 90% of the people out there doesn’t mean much.  And to be honest, very few of us in that group would have the motivation and means to become an elite pro fighter.  And from that group, how many are physically gifted enough to be?
> 
> Karate and everything else is different things to different people.


That is all true, except for the whole belt system. Ideally, the belt should mean something in terms of ability.  But does it?  Watching, say, black belts, or even colored belts over the last few months, I would say no, it does not.

So, if traditional MA were like, say, yoga, I would agree with you 100%.  As it is, I agree with you 90%, with the caveat that the belt system is a sort of gatekeeper, but merely achieving, say a purple, brown, or even black belt shows a certain competence in curriculum, but there is a big variation in ability among people wearing the same color belt.


----------



## mrt2

JR 137 said:


> Excellent post, and I agree with a lot of what you’re saying.  I won’t rehash what I agree and disagree with, as the previous 2 posters have done a better job of stating exactly how I feel.  I’ll just add a little bit to it...
> 
> A lot of current karate (and other striking arts) students aren’t “serious” students in the sense that their main objective is self-defense/fighting.  They’re there far more for the other benefits TMA have been pushing in ads - self discipline, wellness, etc.  Nothing wrong with that.  IMO they’re there more for the side effects than the originally intended purpose.  Kind of like doctors prescribing a drug “off-label” (think Wellbutrin to quit smoking rather than for its intended anti-depression).
> 
> One other point is my situation and many others I train alongside in my dojo - we’ve been there, done that when we were younger.  I trained bare knuckle in my 20s.  I wrestled through elementary and high school.  The day in and day out pounding isn’t as easy to recover from in my early 40s and beyond as it was back then. Sure, I could still do it, but for how long?  I re-started karate a few years ago after an almost 15 year hiatus.  When I was looking at dojos, it was between a Kyokushin dojo and Seido.  I knew I wouldn’t be in Kyokushin for a long time; maybe a few years at best until my body stopped recovering from it.  Seido comes from Kyokushin, but the contact level is less.  The curricula are quite similar (Seido’s founder, Tadashi Nakamura, was sent to the US by Mas Oyama to start and spread Kyokushin here).
> 
> The hard contact and training are great.  IMO everyone should have some experience with it.  It teaches things that IMO can’t be learned by any other means.  But there’s a limit; there’s a balance.  Sure there’s people that have trained like that for decades, but INO they’re the exception and not the rule.  I know so many people who trained like that for a long time and can’t train anything anymore due to the toll it took.  I know too many guys who’ve had hips and shoulders replaced and various other problems way too early in life due to it.
> 
> Karate is supposed to be a lifelong study.  I went the lighter contact route to ensure it will be.  Most of the older people in my dojo have done the same.  Most came from Kyokushin.  You can easily spot the ones who came from there and similar systems from the ones who didn’t.  Not from a technical nor aesthetic standpoint, but from shear fighting ability.  It’s not because the ones who didn’t weren’t taught right; it’s because they’ve never been hit really hard and haven’t really learned that lesson IMO.



This is a good point.  When I returned to MA after a long hiatus, I considered joining an MMA or BJJ gym, but I decided at 52 and overweight, it wasn't for me.  But I am concerned that traditional martial arts is becoming too much the realm of women, children, and old men.  When I did Tang Soo Do back in the early 80s, I was not an especially athletic kid.  But there were older teens and adults who were, and sparring against those guys regularly, even if it was just light contact, made me better at Tang Soo Do.  I am wondering if, maybe, with more of the cohort just looking to learn how to fight going over to MMA, if maybe TMA is not as good as it could be because of that.


----------



## JR 137

mrt2 said:


> That is all true, except for the whole belt system. Ideally, the belt should mean something in terms of ability.  But does it?  Watching, say, black belts, or even colored belts over the last few months, I would say no, it does not.
> 
> So, if traditional MA were like, say, yoga, I would agree with you 100%.  As it is, I agree with you 90%, with the caveat that the belt system is a sort of gatekeeper, but merely achieving, say a purple, brown, or even black belt shows a certain competence in curriculum, but there is a big variation in ability among people wearing the same color belt.


Yup.  But something to keep in mind is that a belt color/rank has MINIMUM levels of proficiency, not maximum.  There’s “good enough” for a given rank, and not “too good” for that same rank.

Yes, it can be a gatekeeper when it’s done right (ie not sold).  But it’s certainly not fool-proof.  If it were solely an indicator of ability, then every rank would have to be able to beat every rank below it.  So every first dan in the club would have to be able to beat every brown belt and below.  Every second dan would have to be able to beat every 1st dan and below.  That, my friend, is an impossible proposition.

There are a few systems that are somewhat close to this ideal until you get to the highest ranks where there’s a minimum age and the promotions are based on service to the art.  Think BJJ and Judo.  Up until you get to full instructor level ranks and above, you’re promoted on ability (no solely, as there’s exceptions due to age, disability, etc).  You don’t get very many legitimate Judo black belts who are getting thrown around by lower ranks.  And if they are, they almost certainly weren’t back when they earned that rank, ie the 80 year old judo black belt wasn’t always 80.

I look around and see some people ranked above me who I’m a better fighter than. And I see some people below me who’d lay a hurtin’ on me.  Neither one make my rank better nor worse.  They’ve got a saying in yoga (thanks @AngryHobbit) : don’t worry about what’s going on on someone else’s mat; worry about what’s going on on your mat.  If you’re just interested in rank, everyone else’s rank means a lot.  If you’re just interested in improving, it’s a non issue.


----------



## mrt2

JR 137 said:


> Yup. * But something to keep in mind is that a belt color/rank has MINIMUM levels of proficiency, not maximum. * There’s “good enough” for a given rank, and not “too good” for that same rank.
> 
> Yes, it can be a gatekeeper when it’s done right (ie not sold).  But it’s certainly not fool-proof.  If it were solely an indicator of ability, then every rank would have to be able to beat every rank below it.  So every first dan in the club would have to be able to beat every brown belt and below.  Every second dan would have to be able to beat every 1st dan and below.  That, my friend, is an impossible proposition.
> 
> There are a few systems that are somewhat close to this ideal until you get to the highest ranks where there’s a minimum age and the promotions are based on service to the art.  Think BJJ and Judo.  Up until you get to full instructor level ranks and above, you’re promoted on ability (no solely, as there’s exceptions due to age, disability, etc).  You don’t get very many legitimate Judo black belts who are getting thrown around by lower ranks.  And if they are, they almost certainly weren’t back when they earned that rank, ie the 80 year old judo black belt wasn’t always 80.
> 
> I look around and see some people ranked above me who I’m a better fighter than. And I see some people below me who’d lay a hurtin’ on me.  Neither one make my rank better nor worse.  They’ve got a saying in yoga (thanks @AngryHobbit) : don’t worry about what’s going on on someone else’s mat; worry about what’s going on on your mat.  If you’re just interested in rank, everyone else’s rank means a lot.  If you’re just interested in improving, it’s a non issue.


Yup, minimum proficiency.


----------



## JR 137

mrt2 said:


> This is a good point.  When I returned to MA after a long hiatus, I considered joining an MMA or BJJ gym, but I decided at 52 and overweight, it wasn't for me.  But I am concerned that traditional martial arts is becoming too much the realm of women, children, and old men.  When I did Tang Soo Do back in the early 80s, I was not an especially athletic kid.  But there were older teens and adults who were, and sparring against those guys regularly, even if it was just light contact, made me better at Tang Soo Do.  I am wondering if, maybe, with more of the cohort just looking to learn how to fight going over to MMA, if maybe TMA is not as good as it could be because of that.


MMA has taken some of the “fighters” out of TMA.  Just looking at averages, the more dojos out there, the smaller the individual schools; there’s only so many people interested.

Many MA have become a sport in a sense for kids.  Look at youth sports; travel leagues, scholastic sports, etc.  Kids get cut.  Kids sit the bench.  Kids have to compete.  There’s none of that in MA if they don’t want to compete.  Everyone “plays” and no one sits the bench.  If they’re not a good athlete, so what?  They’re not going to lose.  They’re not going to stand around in the outfield because the coach knows the ball won’t come to them.  Maybe it’ll take a little while longer to promote.  Teammates aren’t going to make fun of them for being the worst player on the team.  Teammates aren’t going to not pass them the ball.

It’s the ultimate “sport” for kids who aren’t good enough.  And I say that with all good intentions and no malice.  

Sure there’s excellent kid athletes in MA.  But they’re typically not just going to the dojo.  And there’s some great kid athletes in MA who aren’t as good at other sports or don’t have the desire to do anything else.  But from what I’ve seen, most kids in MA are the kids who would struggle with team sports and/or competitive sports.


----------



## hoshin1600

mrt2 said:


> This is a good point.  When I returned to MA after a long hiatus, I considered joining an MMA or BJJ gym, but I decided at 52 and overweight, it wasn't for me.  But I am concerned that traditional martial arts is becoming too much the realm of women, children, and old men.  When I did Tang Soo Do back in the early 80s, I was not an especially athletic kid.  But there were older teens and adults who were, and sparring against those guys regularly, even if it was just light contact, made me better at Tang Soo Do.  I am wondering if, maybe, with more of the cohort just looking to learn how to fight going over to MMA, if maybe TMA is not as good as it could be because of that.



if TMA "is not as good as it could be"   its because the individual is not working hard enough.   part of the problem is that in the 1980's there was a big push toward teaching kids and this continues today.  expectations are lowered to be "inclusive"  and geared toward the lowest common denominator.  it is not a unique problem for TMA.  we see this in the military ,we see it in law enforcement.  its what led to the fall of the Roman Empire. This battle is playing itself out right now with the debate of women in the US military.  why is the standard for enlisting men 71 push ups but women is only 42 push ups?  men need to run 2 miles in 13 min and women need to run in 15 :36 min.   professional  sports will not have this problem because they couldnt give two craps about inclusivity and political correctness, the aim is to win.   recreational martial arts wont work that hard. trust me when i say we are already seeing the lowering of standards in BJJ.   i remember teaching classes back in the 80's when a few students went to the owner and complained i was having the class do too many push ups and the exercises were too hard.  i was told to make it easier.  no one ever went easier on me and even if they wanted to, i wouldnt allow that of myself.  a dojo is nothing more than a group of people who get together to train.  what kind of people do you train with?
it's time people stop putting blame on TMA, the style, the teacher , the dojo and start taking responsibility for their own training.

ok im done my rant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

mrt2 said:


> That is all true, except for the whole belt system. Ideally, the belt should mean something in terms of ability.  But does it?  Watching, say, black belts, or even colored belts over the last few months, I would say no, it does not.
> 
> So, if traditional MA were like, say, yoga, I would agree with you 100%.  As it is, I agree with you 90%, with the caveat that the belt system is a sort of gatekeeper, but merely achieving, say a purple, brown, or even black belt shows a certain competence in curriculum, but there is a big variation in ability among people wearing the same color belt.


The belt only means precisely what those involved decide it should mean. If a group decides the requirement for a fuscia belt is to be able to recite a poem an spar for 30 seconds against a boxer, that’s what it means. I’m being facetious, of course, but the point is important. What I think a belt should mean really isn’t important to anyone but my students.


----------



## mrt2

hoshin1600 said:


> if TMA "is not as good as it could be"   its because the individual is not working hard enough.   *part of the problem is that in the 1980's there was a big push toward teaching kids and this continues today.  *expectations are lowered to be "inclusive"  and geared toward the lowest common denominator.  it is not a unique problem for TMA.  we see this in the military ,we see it in law enforcement.  its what led to the fall of the Roman Empire. This battle is playing itself out right now with the debate of women in the US military.  why is the standard for enlisting men 71 push ups but women is only 42 push ups?  men need to run 2 miles in 13 min and women need to run in 15 :36 min.   professional  sports will not have this problem because they couldnt give two craps about inclusivity and political correctness, the aim is to win.   recreational martial arts wont work that hard. trust me when i say we are already seeing the lowering of standards in BJJ.   i remember teaching classes back in the 80's when a few students went to the owner and complained i was having the class do too many push ups and the exercises were too hard.  i was told to make it easier.  no one ever went easier on me and even if they wanted to, i wouldnt allow that of myself.  a dojo is nothing more than a group of people who get together to train.  what kind of people do you train with?
> it's time people stop putting blame on TMA, the style, the teacher , the dojo and start taking responsibility for their own training.
> 
> ok im done my rant.


Well, this is true.  I see this a my current TKD place.  The master and his son both try to push the kids to do more, to punch and kick with some snap and technique, and to remember the curriculum.  It really shouldn't be too hard.  But some kids struggle.  Frankly, since their marketing materials suggest that TKD will help instill discipline, focus, and other good stuff, it shouldn't surprise them when they attract students who have problems concentrating.  In this regard, I think they, and other places that market to kids are over promising.

When I did MA as a kid, it helped me tremendously with all those things.  Confidence, fitness, focus, discipline and with a caveat, ability to fight.  All of it.  But I started at 14, and I never trained with younger children.  And, my former instructors never lowered their standards for my 14 or 15 year old self.

I think it comes down to maturity and motivation.  At 14, I really was motivated to improve myself, and while I had some notion of kicking some bully's butt, that never actually came to pass.  The only fight I got into in high school played out nothing like my Chuck Norris fantasy version.  It was ugly, I got hit in the face, and the fight ended with me and the other guy wrestling around on the ground.  After that, I learned my lesson.  Sparring in a dojang, or at a tournament is nothing like a street fight.  And it motivated me to train harder, and to concentrate more, and to be more situationally aware.  (and not to go around acting like an A$$hole, and to not hang around with or engage with A$$holes).  Anyhow, it must have worked.  I thought after that fight, I might have to fight again, but it never came to pass.  Because of my focus on training, I got a lot stronger, and lost a lot of weight, and generally carried myself more confidently.

But that is all an aside.  IMO (and again, just my perception.  ) for a lot of younger kids in TKD, especially the ones younger than 10 or 12, maybe 1 in 5 has the right motivation and mindset, and maybe 1 in 5 or even 2 in 5 should probably quit because they suck and they show no real desire to get better, but don't tell the parents that.  Of the rest, I would say it is a big question mark.  Some of them try, but they are kids. Maybe some of them will get better as their minds and bodies develop, and maybe they won't.  But it is a delicate conversation to tell a parent after they just paid $1,200 a year that their little son or daughter isn't very good.  I can't say that is a conversation I would want to have with a parent after I took their money.


----------



## Flying Crane

mrt2 said:


> But I am concerned that traditional martial arts is becoming too much the realm of women, children, and old men.



Would you please elaborate on what you are getting at here?  This sounds like a pretty hefty judgement you are making on others, and I’m sure that is not what you meant...


----------



## JR 137

Flying Crane said:


> Would you please elaborate on what you are getting at here?  This sounds like a pretty hefty judgement you are making on others, and I’m sure that is not what you meant...


I left that alone because I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Flying Crane

JR 137 said:


> I left that alone because I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.


So am I.


----------



## oftheherd1

> But I am concerned that traditional martial arts is becoming too much the realm of women, children, and old men.





Flying Crane said:


> Would you please elaborate on what you are getting at here?  This sounds like a pretty hefty judgement you are making on others, and I’m sure that is not what you meant...



Yep, we either need clarification on what TMA is or what "women, children, and old men" is.  Because I am one of them.  I really want to know where I stand.  

Especially since to my knowledge, TMA has always had contingents of old men, children, and women.  Help me please.


----------



## mrt2

JR 137 said:


> Many MA have become a sport in a sense for kids.  Look at youth sports; travel leagues, scholastic sports, etc.  Kids get cut.  Kids sit the bench.  Kids have to compete.  *There’s none of that in MA if they don’t want to compete.  Everyone “plays” and no one sits the bench. * If they’re not a good athlete, so what?  They’re not going to lose.  They’re not going to stand around in the outfield because the coach knows the ball won’t come to them.  Maybe it’ll take a little while longer to promote.  Teammates aren’t going to make fun of them for being the worst player on the team.  Teammates aren’t going to not pass them the ball.
> 
> It’s the ultimate “sport” for kids who aren’t good enough.  And I say that with all good intentions and no malice.
> 
> Sure there’s excellent kid athletes in MA.  But they’re typically not just going to the dojo.  And there’s some great kid athletes in MA who aren’t as good at other sports or don’t have the desire to do anything else.  But from what I’ve seen, most kids in MA are the kids who would struggle with team sports and/or competitive sports.


This is all true, even back in the day.  I was that kid, who wasn't all that talented athletically, and particularly hated the jock culture (and most of the jocks) at my high school.


----------



## mrt2

oftheherd1 said:


> Yep, we either need clarification on what TMA is or what "women, children, and old men" is.  Because I am one of them.  I really want to know where I stand.
> 
> Especially since to my knowledge, TMA has always had contingents of old men, children, and women.  Help me please.


At 52, I consider myself part of the old man contingent at my dojang.  I am not trying to disrespect anybody.  Maybe the huge cohort of children are the next gen of good fighters.


----------



## oftheherd1

mrt2 said:


> At 52, I consider myself part of the old man contingent at my dojang.  I am not trying to disrespect anybody.  Maybe the huge cohort of children are the next gen of good fighters.



Age wise you are a couple of years my junior.  Not that it means anything.  You may well be senior in rank.  My highest certificate is 2nd Dan.  I have studied some beyond that but I will never go higher as my GM passed away some years ago.



mrt2 said:


> ...
> Maybe the huge cohort of children are the next gen of good fighters.



I've known some very good women students and fighters as well.


----------



## Flying Crane

oftheherd1 said:


> Age wise you are a couple of years my junior.  Not that it means anything.  You may well be senior in rank.  My highest certificate is 2nd Dan.  I have studied some beyond that but I will never go higher as my GM passed away some years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> I've known some very good women students and fighters as well.


One of my best teachers is a woman, and as such the school had a much higher than average percentage of women students than other schools.  A lot of skilled classmates I had, in that group.


----------



## JR 137

Flying Crane said:


> One of my best teachers is a woman, and as such the school had a much higher than average percentage of women students than other schools.  A lot of skilled classmates I had, in that group.


My CI’s wife is the co-owner and technically the co-CI of our dojo.  I say technically because she hasn’t taught in a few years due to a string of injuries and illness.

She comes from a tough as a coffin nail era.  When she started, it was bare knuckle.  And there were very, very few women.  The women who were there tended to get it worse than the men, because most guys in the dojo had the attitude that women didn’t belong and had to prove they were worthy of training with men.  All the women I know who stuck around during that era are a true force to be reckoned with.

Thankfully that way of thinking is just about gone.  That’s definitely not the tone Nakamura set nor tolerated, but it definitely happened.  And it happened pretty much everywhere.  If you see a woman who’s been around since the 60s-80s, I’m sure they’ll tell you how it was.


----------



## drop bear

If I could become a ufc fighter without really trying I would. If I can have a six pack by taking a pill I would. 

Karate in the way it is complained about allows me these achievements without the work. And the only price I have to pay is I never use it outside my safe space.

But the fighting ability is a lie.

Now luckily this lie about fighting skill is also supported by lies about self defence. In that you never actually need to use it you just have to say you did. Or even say what you would have done. And everyone will clap you on the back and tell you how great a martial artist you are. And remember never using your skill is the greatest expression of that skill. 

And for most people that is the primary use of martial arts.

But if your primary use of martial arts is maybe actual self defence. Say you really expect to win a fight against someone who wants to hurt you. I would suggest fighting guys who understand how fighting works.

Which is not anywhere near as fun as that black belt.


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> Another thing I was pondering...
> 
> Karate is a physical activity.  Just because one takes up the activity doesn’t mean they have to go all out with it.  Think of basketball...
> 
> Some people set up a hoop in the driveway and are content just shooting the ball.  Some are content just playing with their kids.
> 
> Some people like to play pick-up in the park.  Some people join an age group rec league and play once or twice a week.
> 
> They enjoy playing without any pressure to get good at it.  They’re getting exercise, socializing, having fun, and it gives them something to look forward to doing.
> 
> Then you’ve got people who’s life seems to revolve around the game.  They’re out playing, they’re doing stuff outside the game like conditioning, watching video, attending seminars/camps, etc.  They want to be the best they can be.  They may be trying to get a scholarship, into a good school, coaching, pro contract, etc.
> 
> No matter which way you look at it, it’s still basketball.  There’s no wrong or right.  The guy shooting hoops with his kids or playing once or twice a week isn’t wasting his time.  The guy who’s made it his life’s passion isn’t wasting his time either.  The serious guy doesn’t have a leg to stand on if he tells the guy who’s playing pick-up he’s wasting his time and not to bother because it’s not real basketball.
> 
> Think of any other physical activity, and it’s the same thing; golf, tennis, baseball, soccer, etc.  MA’s no different.  You’ve got people who do it to pass time, people who are trying to reach a very difficult goal, and everything in between.
> 
> Just because we take it more seriously than say 90% of the people out there doesn’t mean much.  And to be honest, very few of us in that group would have the motivation and means to become an elite pro fighter.  And from that group, how many are physically gifted enough to be?
> 
> Karate and everything else is different things to different people.



Is that what they tell you at karate school though?

If I did social backyard basketball for twenty years would I get destroyed by a guy who has trained at a serious level for six months?

I think there are a lot more people in karate who would actually like to be good at karate if they could. And are getting short changed by the culture.

I mean in my school I can watch a guy train harder, do the right things and become better than me. And from there I can make the informed choice as to what level I want to progress.

In these schools I can't. They are deliberately hidden.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Is that what they tell you at karate school though?
> 
> If I did social backyard basketball for twenty years would I get destroyed by a guy who has trained at a serious level for six months?
> 
> I think there are a lot more people in karate who would actually like to be good at karate if they could. And are getting short changed by the culture.
> 
> I mean in my school I can watch a guy train harder, do the right things and become better than me. And from there I can make the informed choice as to what level I want to progress.
> 
> In these schools I can't. They are deliberately hidden.


Deliberately?


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> Is that what they tell you at karate school though?
> 
> If I did social backyard basketball for twenty years would I get destroyed by a guy who has trained at a serious level for six months?
> 
> I think there are a lot more people in karate who would actually like to be good at karate if they could. And are getting short changed by the culture.
> 
> I mean in my school I can watch a guy train harder, do the right things and become better than me. And from there I can make the informed choice as to what level I want to progress.
> 
> In these schools I can't. They are deliberately hidden.


People aren’t that naive.  Some are, but very few genuinely are.  After you’ve been there for a little while, you start to see that what you’re doing doesn’t really equate to fighting.  Non-contact, stopping for points, “punches don’t score” (yes, that’s an actual line my uncle was told at a TKD McDojo when he was throwing punches), etc.  The ones who’ve been roughed up once or twice outside the dojo start to see it.  The ones who want to actually learn how to fight start to see it.  The ones who are there to pass time, socialize, get in shape, learn an art form for the sake of it, etc. start to see it too.  Only the completely naive don’t see the B S after a while.  The difference between those that truly want to fight and those who don’t is the ones who don’t want to fight are having fun with it, so it’s all good.

Maybe I’m giving people too much credit.  I doubt it, but maybe.


----------



## hoshin1600

I would flip this around.  Everyone knows what an MMA or boxing gym does and how they train.  
But these people didn't join there did they?  They didn't join an MMA gym because that's not what they wanted. They may have even showed up looked around and said ...nope not for me.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Deliberately?



Yep. Systems set up to obscure any sort of real results seem deliberate to me.

You could come in and spar my coach on your first day. Make a judgement whether he is **** or legit.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> I would flip this around.  Everyone knows what an MMA or boxing gym does and how they train.
> But these people didn't join there did they?  They didn't join an MMA gym because that's not what they wanted. They may have even showed up looked around and said ...nope not for me.



Why would you when you can get a better result for less effort.

MMA is fine for sport. But in self defence you want to be able to kill 3 oponants in a street fight. Not spend 15 minutes trading with one guy.


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> People aren’t that naive.  Some are, but very few genuinely are.  After you’ve been there for a little while, you start to see that what you’re doing doesn’t really equate to fighting.  Non-contact, stopping for points, “punches don’t score” (yes, that’s an actual line my uncle was told at a TKD McDojo when he was throwing punches), etc.  The ones who’ve been roughed up once or twice outside the dojo start to see it.  The ones who want to actually learn how to fight start to see it.  The ones who are there to pass time, socialize, get in shape, learn an art form for the sake of it, etc. start to see it too.  Only the completely naive don’t see the B S after a while.  The difference between those that truly want to fight and those who don’t is the ones who don’t want to fight are having fun with it, so it’s all good.
> 
> Maybe I’m giving people too much credit.  I doubt it, but maybe.



Do I have to start putting up videos of what people genuinely believe works?


----------



## TimoS

drop bear said:


> Do I have to start putting up videos of what people genuinely believe works?



Might be interesting to see what weird stuff you’ve come across. I know there’s plenty of FBSD (fantasy based self defense) out there 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yep. Systems set up to obscure any sort of real results seem deliberate to me.
> 
> You could come in and spar my coach on your first day. Make a judgement whether he is **** or legit.


I’m not aware of a system deliberately set up to obscure that. Most that obscure it do so by lack of understanding, or because they mistake skill and ability (elderly dude with extreme skill might have little remaining fighting ability). 

Oh, and it’s not the coach/instructor I want to spar. I don’t actually care how good he is at fighting, since I’m not hiring him to fight.


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> I’m not aware of a system deliberately set up to obscure that. Most that obscure it do so by lack of understanding, or because they mistake skill and ability (elderly dude with extreme skill might have little remaining fighting ability).
> 
> Oh, and it’s not the coach/instructor I want to spar. I don’t actually care how good he is at fighting, since I’m not hiring him to fight.



I agree except for your first sentence 



 where our old friend Mr. Dillman is shown.  BTW, if the thread on fasting is still open the URL should go there with instructions to look about 1:09, and again a little later.  

But some martial arts certainly don't understand a few of the moves in katas, as I have mentioned before.


----------



## Buka

I only met George Dillman once, went to a seminar he was teaching. I wanted to see for myself what he was all about.

It was a whole lot of fun, very entertaining. But at the same time, he was an extremely knowledgeable Martial Artist. Really vast knowledge. And sort of a caricature of a carnival barker. Kind of a big, fuzzy, teddy bear carnival barker.

But that boy could break down Kata, I'll tell you that. And talk? Oh, man, that boy could talk.

I'm wondering how many others that are considered frauds in our world are also as knowledgeable. And I wonder how much money George Dillman has made in the Arts.

I wonder a lot of things I guess.


----------



## hoshin1600

Buka said:


> I only met George Dillman once, went to a seminar he was teaching. I wanted to see for myself what he was all about.
> 
> It was a whole lot of fun, very entertaining. But at the same time, he was an extremely knowledgeable Martial Artist. Really vast knowledge. And sort of a caricature of a carnival barker. Kind of a big, fuzzy, teddy bear carnival barker.
> 
> But that boy could break down Kata, I'll tell you that. And talk? Oh, man, that boy could talk.
> 
> I'm wondering how many others that are considered frauds in our world are also as knowledgeable. And I wonder how much money George Dillman has made in the Arts.
> 
> I wonder a lot of things I guess.


i think Dillman was a really good martial artist back in the day. at some point he went down a rabbit hole with no return. i wonder if he regrets it now.


----------



## Buka

hoshin1600 said:


> i think Dillman was a really good martial artist back in the day. at some point he went down a rabbit hole with no return. i wonder if he regrets it now.



I don't know, maybe he does. He didn't seem like the type of Martial Artists that let anything bother him, though. Water off a ducks back kind of thing.

He was one of the more interesting characters I've met in the arts. I'd even go to another of his seminars if he had one out here. The entertainment value alone, no disrespect intended, would be worth whatever the cost.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> I agree except for your first sentence
> 
> 
> 
> where our old friend Mr. Dillman is shown.  BTW, if the thread on fasting is still open the URL should go there with instructions to look about 1:09, and again a little later.
> 
> But some martial arts certainly don't understand a few of the moves in katas, as I have mentioned before.


You think there’s something in his system deliberately set up to obscure results? Possible he actually believes his hype, instead?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I’m not aware of a system deliberately set up to obscure that. Most that obscure it do so by lack of understanding, or because they mistake skill and ability (elderly dude with extreme skill might have little remaining fighting ability).
> 
> Oh, and it’s not the coach/instructor I want to spar. I don’t actually care how good he is at fighting, since I’m not hiring him to fight.



Good point. We should go off a demo. (Because that is not deliberately obscuring someone's ability)


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I don't know, maybe he does. He didn't seem like the type of Martial Artists that let anything bother him, though. Water off a ducks back kind of thing.
> 
> He was one of the more interesting characters I've met in the arts. I'd even go to another of his seminars if he had one out here. The entertainment value alone, no disrespect intended, would be worth whatever the cost.



Didn't they used to sucker punch people though?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Good point. We should go off a demo. (Because that is not deliberately obscuring someone's ability)


Straw man. Nice try, though.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Straw man. Nice try, though.



Because a demo is not a deliberate act to obscure the ability of a martial artist.





Mabye i should have said grading instead.





Please explain how this is either not obscuring martial arts ability or how it is not deliberate.





I mean is this deliberate then?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Because a demo is not a deliberate act to obscure the ability of a martial artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mabye i should have said grading instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how this is either not obscuring martial arts ability or how it is not deliberate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean is this deliberate then?


I don't think most folks realize when they're not really testing live ability. Remember that "deliberately" was what I was questioning. I'm not sure it happens so deliberately as you think.

And demos aren't an attempt to obscure, but an attempt to wow. It's an attempt to show off. I've never liked them, but the intent - so far as I can tell - isn't what you claimed earlier. Oh, and you are drifting in your argument. You've apparently had a mood swing and decided it's time for another argument, and are pursuing the attempt with me where you can. I'm not biting.


----------



## DaveB

The article is garbage.

It's based on a series of old stereotypes and on a mindless practitioner, and on a lack of understanding of the point of the old-fashioned traditional training methods. 

Karate basics are excellent self defence tools as they are natural macro movements that will stay with you when adrenaline dump kills your fine motor skill. 
Stances are actually elements of the strikes in freeze frame for teaching purposes. Weight distribution and balance are essential to striking and generally useful in fighting. 

Essentially the author is whining that karate starts you off building coordination and moves on to technique refinement before focusing on fighting. 

Yet I've encountered so many rbsd and combat sportsmen whose biggest weaknesses are technical. Bottom line you need both and any school can neglect any part.

That being said for kids I would always go traditional martial arts over combat sports if I had to pick. (preference would be do both).

Modern karate has moved on in a lot of cases from the stereotypes he lists. 
Most importantly the relevant factor is not the art but the training. Nothing stops karate schools using alive training and so many do.

If you are advising parents your best bet is to tell them what to look out for,  not what art to train.


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> You think there’s something in his system deliberately set up to obscure results? Possible he actually believes his hype, instead?



Well, since I have never been to a seminar of his, nor visited his dojo, nor subjected myself to his displays of gi, I cannot.  Perhaps @Buka can elaborate on that having actually been to one of Mr. Dillman's seminars.

But in that it seems his apparent application of gi never seems to be shown outside his dojo or outside his own students, it would seem there is some obscuring of true results.  If I am wrong I would love to hear it from someone trustworthy like @Buka.

FWIW, I do believe in gi.  But not quite the way Mr. Dillman displays it.


----------



## JR 137

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, since I have never been to a seminar of his, nor visited his dojo, nor subjected myself to his displays of gi, I cannot.  Perhaps @Buka can elaborate on that having actually been to one of Mr. Dillman's seminars.
> 
> But in that it seems his apparent application of gi never seems to be shown outside his dojo or outside his own students, it would seem there is some obscuring of true results.  If I am wrong I would love to hear it from someone trustworthy like @Buka.
> 
> FWIW, I do believe in gi.  But not quite the way Mr. Dillman displays it.


My former sensei attended a Dillman/Wally Jay/Remi Presas seminar back in the day before Dillman started his no-touch KO fiasco.  He went for Dillman’s pressure points an kata bunkai (application); the other two guys were a bonus in his mind before he went.

According to him...
Dillman’s videos show what looks like foolproof KOs, working every time, over and over again.  And against attendees rather than solely against his own crew.  At the seminar he was at, Dillman’s crew was KOed and/or stunned every time (depending on Dillman’s desired effect).  The attendees weren’t nearly as consistent.  There were quite a few who weren’t phased by anything.  My former sensei volunteered as an opponent.  He said it hurt, but he didn’t get KOed like some others did (with the same techniques).

He used the Dillman stuff he learned as trapping/grappling reinforcers rather than the “tap and KO” stuff after that.  He said the Presas and Jay stuff was great and made the trip worthwhile, whereas if it was just Dillman, he’d have been pretty upset.

For what it’s worth.


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> Didn't they used to sucker punch people though?



I don't know what you mean.


----------



## Buka

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, since I have never been to a seminar of his, nor visited his dojo, nor subjected myself to his displays of gi, I cannot.  Perhaps @Buka can elaborate on that having actually been to one of Mr. Dillman's seminars.
> 
> But in that it seems his apparent application of gi never seems to be shown outside his dojo or outside his own students, it would seem there is some obscuring of true results.  If I am wrong I would love to hear it from someone trustworthy like @Buka.
> 
> FWIW, I do believe in gi.  But not quite the way Mr. Dillman displays it.



I just left a message with one of my guys who went to that Dillman seminar with me.....trying to jog my memories a bit. I wish I could remember it in more detail, and it wasn't that long ago, probably 05 or thereabouts. He didn't go into one touch or no touch knock outs, but rather the meridians in the body for the flow of energy. Acupuncture and acupressure points really. 

The seminar was primarily people who were already associated with him in one form or another, but not like long term students of his - or at least that's how I read it. A buddy of mine invited me, he was into the whole meridian thing at the time. There was also some come alongs and standing joint lock stuff, with emphasis on detailed points on where to grab.  

And he did a serious breakdown of a couple Katas that the people were familiar with. Did a great job of it, in my opinion. Fascinating, really.

Referenced some books he was selling during the Kata breakdowns, did a great salesman job doing that, too. I was fascinated with the whole Dillman thing, his whole fast talking persona. I found him to be much more likeable than I had thought I would. I found myself, at times, studying him more than listening to what he had to say.

But he has a vast Martial experience, of that there was little doubt. I would have loved to have gotten shartfaced with him afterwards, that would have been pretty interesting.


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> I just left a message with one of my guys who went to that Dillman seminar with me.....trying to jog my memories a bit. I wish I could remember it in more detail, and it wasn't that long ago, probably 05 or thereabouts. He didn't go into one touch or no touch knock outs, but rather the meridians in the body for the flow of energy. Acupuncture and acupressure points really.
> 
> The seminar was primarily people who were already associated with him in one form or another, but not like long term students of his - or at least that's how I read it. A buddy of mine invited me, he was into the whole meridian thing at the time. There was also some come alongs and standing joint lock stuff, with emphasis on detailed points on where to grab.
> 
> And he did a serious breakdown of a couple Katas that the people were familiar with. Did a great job of it, in my opinion. Fascinating, really.
> 
> Referenced some books he was selling during the Kata breakdowns, did a great salesman job doing that, too. I was fascinated with the whole Dillman thing, his whole fast talking persona. I found him to be much more likeable than I had thought I would. I found myself, at times, studying him more than listening to what he had to say.
> 
> But he has a vast Martial experience, of that there was little doubt. I would have loved to have gotten shartfaced with him afterwards, that would have been pretty interesting.


There is a saying, “it takes a thousand acts to build a reputation, and only one to destroy it.”

Sounds like Dillman may have done his thousand acts and then undermined his own work with the one act of the no-touch knockouts that seriously harmed his credibility.

It would be good for us perhaps to remember that those same people who are pushing some nonsense MIGHT at the same time be a legitimate resource for other information.  Maybe we need to try and see past the one act, sometimes:


----------



## Buka

Flying Crane said:


> There is a saying, “it takes a thousand acts to build a reputation, and only one to destroy it.”
> 
> Sounds like Dillman may have done his thousand acts and then undermined his own work with the one act of the no-touch knockouts that seriously harmed his credibility.
> 
> It would be good for us perhaps to remember that those same people who are pushing some nonsense MIGHT at the same time be a legitimate resource for other information.  Maybe we need to try and see past the one act, sometimes:



That's a great point. 

Tell you something else I remember. Went to a week long training camp with Wally Jay back in the day. Wally and a dozen of his assistants taught, there was about 120 people attending. All the attendees were Japanese Jiu-Jitsu folks except for nine karate guys. I had five of my black belts with me, there were two black belts from Texas and one very quiet guy, mid to late twenties, from Pennsylvania.

As the week progresses, I keep catching the Pennsylvania guy out of the corner of my eye. This kid is one hell of a Karate man. Moves so well, so crisp, so fluid. And there's not a peep out of him, even when the Jiu-jitsu guys take advantage and intentionally hurt him - which they did to all the karate guys for the first two days - until we put a stop to it and damn near killed them. 

Anyway, I didn't get a chance to talk to the kid at all, too busy with my own guys and the two Texas guys who hooked up with us.

The last day, the Friday, I finally got a chance to chat, and eventually asked him who he trained with. 
He was a student of George Dillman. It's the only guy he had ever trained with. 
Made me go "hmmm."


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> That's a great point.
> 
> Tell you something else I remember. Went to a week long training camp with Wally Jay back in the day. Wally and a dozen of his assistants taught, there was about 120 people attending. All the attendees were Japanese Jiu-Jitsu folks except for nine karate guys. I had five of my black belts with me, there were two black belts from Texas and one very quiet guy, mid to late twenties, from Pennsylvania.
> 
> As the week progresses, I keep catching the Pennsylvania guy out of the corner of my eye. This kid is one hell of a Karate man. Moves so well, so crisp, so fluid. And there's not a peep out of him, even when the Jiu-jitsu guys take advantage and intentionally hurt him - which they did to all the karate guys for the first two days - until we put a stop to it and damn near killed them.
> 
> Anyway, I didn't get a chance to talk to the kid at all, too busy with my own guys and the two Texas guys who hooked up with us.
> 
> The last day, the Friday, I finally got a chance to chat, and eventually asked him who he trained with.
> He was a student of George Dillman. It's the only guy he had ever trained with.
> Made me go "hmmm."


Yeah, I also think about James Mitose in this context.  He did some bad deeds and spent the end of his life in prison.  I have read both of his books, and his second book has me absolutely convinced that he suffered from severe mental illnesss, at least later in his life.

Much of the kenpo world denounces him, and accuse him of being nothing but a charlatan and a fraud.  The Tracy lineage (in which I trained for a time) sees him as holding a legitimate place in our lineage, although he tends to be elevated above what I personally feel is appropriate.  Honestly, from what I know of him, I would have steered clear of him myself.

However, it is entirely possible that he was a solid and legitimate martial artist before his troubles began.   I don’t know, I wasn’t there.  But it could be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> There is a saying, “it takes a thousand acts to build a reputation, and only one to destroy it.”
> 
> Sounds like Dillman may have done his thousand acts and then undermined his own work with the one act of the no-touch knockouts that seriously harmed his credibility.
> 
> It would be good for us perhaps to remember that those same people who are pushing some nonsense MIGHT at the same time be a legitimate resource for other information.  Maybe we need to try and see past the one act, sometimes:


Just as a credible source doesn't necessarily make a statement true, a discredited source doesn't automatically make one false.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I don't know what you mean.



I read that's how they would pull off their chi punch stuff. Just wack you when you were not ready.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> That's a great point.
> 
> Tell you something else I remember. Went to a week long training camp with Wally Jay back in the day. Wally and a dozen of his assistants taught, there was about 120 people attending. All the attendees were Japanese Jiu-Jitsu folks except for nine karate guys. I had five of my black belts with me, there were two black belts from Texas and one very quiet guy, mid to late twenties, from Pennsylvania.
> 
> As the week progresses, I keep catching the Pennsylvania guy out of the corner of my eye. This kid is one hell of a Karate man. Moves so well, so crisp, so fluid. And there's not a peep out of him, even when the Jiu-jitsu guys take advantage and intentionally hurt him - which they did to all the karate guys for the first two days - until we put a stop to it and damn near killed them.
> 
> Anyway, I didn't get a chance to talk to the kid at all, too busy with my own guys and the two Texas guys who hooked up with us.
> 
> The last day, the Friday, I finally got a chance to chat, and eventually asked him who he trained with.
> He was a student of George Dillman. It's the only guy he had ever trained with.
> Made me go "hmmm."



Allen orr and force flow. He obviously puts out good fighters but I don't think it has much to do with kung fu magic.


----------



## JR 137

Flying Crane said:


> There is a saying, “it takes a thousand acts to build a reputation, and only one to destroy it.”
> 
> Sounds like Dillman may have done his thousand acts and then undermined his own work with the one act of the no-touch knockouts that seriously harmed his credibility.
> 
> It would be good for us perhaps to remember that those same people who are pushing some nonsense MIGHT at the same time be a legitimate resource for other information.  Maybe we need to try and see past the one act, sometimes:


Like the saying goes...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## JR 137

Buka said:


> I just left a message with one of my guys who went to that Dillman seminar with me.....trying to jog my memories a bit. I wish I could remember it in more detail, and it wasn't that long ago, probably 05 or thereabouts. He didn't go into one touch or no touch knock outs, but rather the meridians in the body for the flow of energy. Acupuncture and acupressure points really.
> 
> The seminar was primarily people who were already associated with him in one form or another, but not like long term students of his - or at least that's how I read it. A buddy of mine invited me, he was into the whole meridian thing at the time. There was also some come alongs and standing joint lock stuff, with emphasis on detailed points on where to grab.
> 
> And he did a serious breakdown of a couple Katas that the people were familiar with. Did a great job of it, in my opinion. Fascinating, really.
> 
> Referenced some books he was selling during the Kata breakdowns, did a great salesman job doing that, too. I was fascinated with the whole Dillman thing, his whole fast talking persona. I found him to be much more likeable than I had thought I would. I found myself, at times, studying him more than listening to what he had to say.
> 
> But he has a vast Martial experience, of that there was little doubt. I would have loved to have gotten shartfaced with him afterwards, that would have been pretty interesting.


I own the Adanced Pressure Point Fighting of Ryu Kyu Kempo book.  It’s actually really good.  Sure there’s some mysticism and voodoo in it, but getting past that and there’s a lot of useful stuff.  The standout to me is he breaks down Naihanchi kata at the end.  I really liked it.

My former sensei let me borrow a few VHS tapes on his kata breakdown.  A ton of great stuff with a few not so good KOs.  But even ignoring the KOs, and the technique itself was sound.

I’d been out of the loop for about 15 years.  I googled Dillman when I started up again, and out came the no-touch KO crap.  It ruined a lot of his prior stuff for me instantly.  But remembering his earlier stuff had me focus on the good stuff.

All IMO.


----------



## oftheherd1

Buka said:


> That's a great point.
> 
> Tell you something else I remember. Went to a week long training camp with Wally Jay back in the day. Wally and a dozen of his assistants taught, there was about 120 people attending. All the attendees were Japanese Jiu-Jitsu folks except for nine karate guys. I had five of my black belts with me, there were two black belts from Texas and one very quiet guy, mid to late twenties, from Pennsylvania.
> 
> As the week progresses, I keep catching the Pennsylvania guy out of the corner of my eye. This kid is one hell of a Karate man. Moves so well, so crisp, so fluid. And there's not a peep out of him, *even when the Jiu-jitsu guys take advantage and intentionally hurt him - which they did to all the karate guys for the first two days - until we put a stop to it and damn near killed them. *
> 
> Anyway, I didn't get a chance to talk to the kid at all, too busy with my own guys and the two Texas guys who hooked up with us.
> 
> The last day, the Friday, I finally got a chance to chat, and eventually asked him who he trained with.
> He was a student of George Dillman. It's the only guy he had ever trained with.
> Made me go "hmmm."



Disrespect is never good.  But at a teaching seminar, unacceptable!


----------



## Buka

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, I also think about James Mitose in this context.  He did some bad deeds and spent the end of his life in prison.  I have read both of his books, and his second book has me absolutely convinced that he suffered from severe mental illnesss, at least later in his life.
> 
> Much of the kenpo world denounces him, and accuse him of being nothing but a charlatan and a fraud.  The Tracy lineage (in which I trained for a time) sees him as holding a legitimate place in our lineage, although he tends to be elevated above what I personally feel is appropriate.  Honestly, from what I know of him, I would have steered clear of him myself.
> 
> However, it is entirely possible that he was a solid and legitimate martial artist before his troubles began.   I don’t know, I wasn’t there.  But it could be.



I almost forgot about Mitose. Definitely a "different" character than the norm. I spoke to some folks back in the nineties out here who had trained with him. They agreed with what you said about mental health.




JR 137 said:


> I own the Adanced Pressure Point Fighting of Ryu Kyu Kempo book.  It’s actually really good.  Sure there’s some mysticism and voodoo in it, but getting past that and there’s a lot of useful stuff.  The standout to me is he breaks down Naihanchi kata at the end.  I really liked it.
> 
> My former sensei let me borrow a few VHS tapes on his kata breakdown.  A ton of great stuff with a few not so good KOs.  But even ignoring the KOs, and the technique itself was sound.
> 
> I’d been out of the loop for about 15 years.  I googled Dillman when I started up again, and out came the no-touch KO crap.  It ruined a lot of his prior stuff for me instantly.  But remembering his earlier stuff had me focus on the good stuff.
> 
> All IMO.





oftheherd1 said:


> Disrespect is never good.  But at a teaching seminar, unacceptable!



I have to point out that Professor Jay had no idea any of this was going on, it was a large gymnasium and would only happen when he was in another part of the gym. It would take place when they wanted to show you the correct position or foot placement or whatever.....or if you asked about a particular part of the technique. They would demonstrate on you and hold you in the most painful part of the technique, with ever increasing pressure, while you tapped like crazy.

So, the second day was more of the same. Then the lunch break came. We were outside on the grass, beautiful summer day, and my group was looking at me. I said, "Okay, enough of this crap. Follow my lead." 

From that point, I would ask a question, they would demonstrate and crank the hell out of me. When I was finally let up, or let go of, I would say, "let me see if I have that right" and I'd do it to them. Only I wouldn't be nice. And I wouldn't let go when they tapped. And I wouldn't let go when they screamed. And I wouldn't let go until other instructors came rushing over. I explained to the other instructors what was about to happen and that you better bring over The Professor because I still wasn't letting go. (And my boys stood by, smiling, ready to fight, my wife, too, and she's meaner than all of them.)

Wally came over and I explained, quite succinctly, STILL holding the guy down in pain. Wally nodded, gave _them_ a disapproving look, patted my back, smiled and said, "very good". And went back to what he was doing. There was no more BS from that point forward. The rest of the seminar was wonderful, we learned a lot and had a ball. But I still HATE those sons of..

So.....yesterday I called my buddy/student and left a message about that Dillman seminar. He called me back and we talked for two fricken' hours. What a great time we had on the phone, all the memories came flooding back. My buddy has been training as long as I have and, at this point, is a more experienced Martial Artist than I am. He's trained with the folks I have, and many, many more. And he teaches full time for a living.

I had forgotten - he hooked up with Dillman and his people for about a year and a half after that seminar. Not giving up his own training, jut cutting it back some and going into the Dillman thing pretty much full time.

Dillman used to own Muhammed Ali's old training camp in Deer Lake Pennsylvania. My buddy, and four or five of his students, went to two different week long training camps there with Dillman and his people. Man, I sure wish I went with him, being a fan of Ali, that would have been just a great and historic experience for me. Kicked myself in the butt for missing it back then. Then forgot all about it. Kicking myself again now.

Anyway, he learned a lot about the body. He has more of a historic slant on Kata than I do and learned a lot about a lot of the Katas Dillman's association does. He also became friends with some of Dillman's top guys, who he assures me are really talented and knowledgeable Martial Artists to this day. I forget their names, if your interested I'll ask him again.

He also said that he was studying so much about the body so much at home, he felt like he was back in school full time. After a year and a half he left. Too much BS with the other stuff.

He also informed me that after a year or so he would be working with Dillman or one of his assistants and while doing partner work they would crank the crap out of him way beyond what was safe. My buddy is one hundred percent a gentleman, and he ain't no dummy. So he'd say, "You know, I'm giving you my arm to practice the technique, or to demo it for others, I'm GIVING it to you. You want to impress me, fight me and get my arm and do that. Go ahead, let's see what you can do."  And they would back off.

And in the *world of coincidence*..........my buddy runs a very busy dojo, this one has been running for over fifteen years. Three days ago he had one of his assistant instructors clean out some old storage cabinets to "get rid of crap we don't use". And his assistant found a whole pile of DVDs from one of Dillman's top assistants. My buddy didn't even remember they were there. He hasn't even watched them. Dillman's assistant gave them to him to sell fifteen years ago. He had forgotten all about them.

He put them on a table for anyone who wanted them for free. I told him I wanted a set, so he's going to send them. If anyone wants to check them out after I do, I'll gladly send them to you. Might be fun to watch. Might be stuff to learn. Might be all smoke and mirrors.

What a coincidence. Been there for years, forgotten. Just came out of the cabinet when we were talking  about Dillman right here on the boards. Kinda cool.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> I almost forgot about Mitose. Definitely a "different" character than the norm. I spoke to some folks back in the nineties out here who had trained with him. They agreed with what you said about mental health.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to point out that Professor Jay had no idea any of this was going on, it was a large gymnasium and would only happen when he was in another part of the gym. It would take place when they wanted to show you the correct position or foot placement or whatever.....or if you asked about a particular part of the technique. They would demonstrate on you and hold you in the most painful part of the technique, with ever increasing pressure, while you tapped like crazy.
> 
> So, the second day was more of the same. Then the lunch break came. We were outside on the grass, beautiful summer day, and my group was looking at me. I said, "Okay, enough of this crap. Follow my lead."
> 
> From that point, I would ask a question, they would demonstrate and crank the hell out of me. When I was finally let up, or let go of, I would say, "let me see if I have that right" and I'd do it to them. Only I wouldn't be nice. And I wouldn't let go when they tapped. And I wouldn't let go when they screamed. And I wouldn't let go until other instructors came rushing over. I explained to the other instructors what was about to happen and that you better bring over The Professor because I still wasn't letting go. (And my boys stood by, smiling, ready to fight, my wife, too, and she's meaner than all of them.)
> 
> Wally came over and I explained, quite succinctly, STILL holding the guy down in pain. Wally nodded, gave _them_ a disapproving look, patted my back, smiled and said, "very good". And went back to what he was doing. There was no more BS from that point forward. The rest of the seminar was wonderful, we learned a lot and had a ball. But I still HATE those sons of..
> 
> So.....yesterday I called my buddy/student and left a message about that Dillman seminar. He called me back and we talked for two fricken' hours. What a great time we had on the phone, all the memories came flooding back. My buddy has been training as long as I have and, at this point, is a more experienced Martial Artist than I am. He's trained with the folks I have, and many, many more. And he teaches full time for a living.
> 
> I had forgotten - he hooked up with Dillman and his people for about a year and a half after that seminar. Not giving up his own training, jut cutting it back some and going into the Dillman thing pretty much full time.
> 
> Dillman used to own Muhammed Ali's old training camp in Deer Lake Pennsylvania. My buddy, and four or five of his students, went to two different week long training camps there with Dillman and his people. Man, I sure wish I went with him, being a fan of Ali, that would have been just a great and historic experience for me. Kicked myself in the butt for missing it back then. Then forgot all about it. Kicking myself again now.
> 
> Anyway, he learned a lot about the body. He has more of a historic slant on Kata than I do and learned a lot about a lot of the Katas Dillman's association does. He also became friends with some of Dillman's top guys, who he assures me are really talented and knowledgeable Martial Artists to this day. I forget their names, if your interested I'll ask him again.
> 
> He also said that he was studying so much about the body so much at home, he felt like he was back in school full time. After a year and a half he left. Too much BS with the other stuff.
> 
> He also informed me that after a year or so he would be working with Dillman or one of his assistants and while doing partner work they would crank the crap out of him way beyond what was safe. My buddy is one hundred percent a gentleman, and he ain't no dummy. So he'd say, "You know, I'm giving you my arm to practice the technique, or to demo it for others, I'm GIVING it to you. You want to impress me, fight me and get my arm and do that. Go ahead, let's see what you can do."  And they would back off.
> 
> And in the *world of coincidence*..........my buddy runs a very busy dojo, this one has been running for over fifteen years. Three days ago he had one of his assistant instructors clean out some old storage cabinets to "get rid of crap we don't use". And his assistant found a whole pile of DVDs from one of Dillman's top assistants. My buddy didn't even remember they were there. He hasn't even watched them. Dillman's assistant gave them to him to sell fifteen years ago. He had forgotten all about them.
> 
> He put them on a table for anyone who wanted them for free. I told him I wanted a set, so he's going to send them. If anyone wants to check them out after I do, I'll gladly send them to you. Might be fun to watch. Might be stuff to learn. Might be all smoke and mirrors.
> 
> What a coincidence. Been there for years, forgotten. Just came out of the cabinet when we were talking  about Dillman right here on the boards. Kinda cool.


You have the coolest stories, man - even when you're just talking about a damned phone call. When you're done with them, I'll take a gander at those DVDs and then pass them along to someone else (unless someone with a driving desire for them asks before then).


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> You have the coolest stories, man - even when you're just talking about a damned phone call. When you're done with them, I'll take a gander at those DVDs and then pass them along to someone else (unless someone with a driving desire for them asks before then).



I'd take a gander too. I think Dillman is a nutjob, but I also know he trained under some very talented instructors before he bought into the voodoo nonsense.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> You have the coolest stories, man - even when you're just talking about a damned phone call. When you're done with them, I'll take a gander at those DVDs and then pass them along to someone else (unless someone with a driving desire for them asks before then).





Dirty Dog said:


> I'd take a gander too. I think Dillman is a nutjob, but I also know he trained under some very talented instructors before he bought into the voodoo nonsense.



Absolutely, gentlemen, I'll check them out and pass them along. If I decide to keep them I'll send them anyway and you can make stick figure notes...copying being against rules and all that. 

Any to any of the other guys, too. No problem.

EDIT. P.S. Gerry, I know I still owe you the second bunch of notes concerning multiples. And I will get them to you.....I'm just so fricken lazy when it comes to copying notes. Sorry, bro.


----------



## Hanshi

Very interesting article with both "food for thought" and some very accurate conclusions.  I've boxed, studied karate, aikido and other martial arts and weapons.  Since s-d isn't the only reason people study karate, or something else, applying these "facts" across the board makes little sense.  I know of quite a few black belts who would be lost in a real situation.  The only thing they have going for them is that element of surprise; the attacker doesn't expect them to know anything.  

I was trained in the principle of, *weapons first always, *environmental weapons, not classical.  Also firearms and knives!  Empty hands is fine for tournaments and the dojo but not the street.  One can easily train for self-defense without studying any martial art and my aikido instructor has such a program that he teaches from the USA to Isreal, Russia and other countries.  Mostly it's for LEO and military.  And as I have mentioned before, "will beats skill".


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> I almost forgot about Mitose. Definitely a "different" character than the norm. I spoke to some folks back in the nineties out here who had trained with him. They agreed with what you said about mental health.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to point out that Professor Jay had no idea any of this was going on, it was a large gymnasium and would only happen when he was in another part of the gym. It would take place when they wanted to show you the correct position or foot placement or whatever.....or if you asked about a particular part of the technique. They would demonstrate on you and hold you in the most painful part of the technique, with ever increasing pressure, while you tapped like crazy.
> 
> So, the second day was more of the same. Then the lunch break came. We were outside on the grass, beautiful summer day, and my group was looking at me. I said, "Okay, enough of this crap. Follow my lead."
> 
> From that point, I would ask a question, they would demonstrate and crank the hell out of me. When I was finally let up, or let go of, I would say, "let me see if I have that right" and I'd do it to them. Only I wouldn't be nice. And I wouldn't let go when they tapped. And I wouldn't let go when they screamed. And I wouldn't let go until other instructors came rushing over. I explained to the other instructors what was about to happen and that you better bring over The Professor because I still wasn't letting go. (And my boys stood by, smiling, ready to fight, my wife, too, and she's meaner than all of them.)
> 
> Wally came over and I explained, quite succinctly, STILL holding the guy down in pain. Wally nodded, gave _them_ a disapproving look, patted my back, smiled and said, "very good". And went back to what he was doing. There was no more BS from that point forward. The rest of the seminar was wonderful, we learned a lot and had a ball. But I still HATE those sons of..
> 
> So.....yesterday I called my buddy/student and left a message about that Dillman seminar. He called me back and we talked for two fricken' hours. What a great time we had on the phone, all the memories came flooding back. My buddy has been training as long as I have and, at this point, is a more experienced Martial Artist than I am. He's trained with the folks I have, and many, many more. And he teaches full time for a living.
> 
> I had forgotten - he hooked up with Dillman and his people for about a year and a half after that seminar. Not giving up his own training, jut cutting it back some and going into the Dillman thing pretty much full time.
> 
> Dillman used to own Muhammed Ali's old training camp in Deer Lake Pennsylvania. My buddy, and four or five of his students, went to two different week long training camps there with Dillman and his people. Man, I sure wish I went with him, being a fan of Ali, that would have been just a great and historic experience for me. Kicked myself in the butt for missing it back then. Then forgot all about it. Kicking myself again now.
> 
> Anyway, he learned a lot about the body. He has more of a historic slant on Kata than I do and learned a lot about a lot of the Katas Dillman's association does. He also became friends with some of Dillman's top guys, who he assures me are really talented and knowledgeable Martial Artists to this day. I forget their names, if your interested I'll ask him again.
> 
> He also said that he was studying so much about the body so much at home, he felt like he was back in school full time. After a year and a half he left. Too much BS with the other stuff.
> 
> He also informed me that after a year or so he would be working with Dillman or one of his assistants and while doing partner work they would crank the crap out of him way beyond what was safe. My buddy is one hundred percent a gentleman, and he ain't no dummy. So he'd say, "You know, I'm giving you my arm to practice the technique, or to demo it for others, I'm GIVING it to you. You want to impress me, fight me and get my arm and do that. Go ahead, let's see what you can do."  And they would back off.
> 
> And in the *world of coincidence*..........my buddy runs a very busy dojo, this one has been running for over fifteen years. Three days ago he had one of his assistant instructors clean out some old storage cabinets to "get rid of crap we don't use". And his assistant found a whole pile of DVDs from one of Dillman's top assistants. My buddy didn't even remember they were there. He hasn't even watched them. Dillman's assistant gave them to him to sell fifteen years ago. He had forgotten all about them.
> 
> He put them on a table for anyone who wanted them for free. I told him I wanted a set, so he's going to send them. If anyone wants to check them out after I do, I'll gladly send them to you. Might be fun to watch. Might be stuff to learn. Might be all smoke and mirrors.
> 
> What a coincidence. Been there for years, forgotten. Just came out of the cabinet when we were talking  about Dillman right here on the boards. Kinda cool.


I would be curious to know what they had to say about the quality and type of training they got from Mitose.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> Absolutely, gentlemen, I'll check them out and pass them along. If I decide to keep them I'll send them anyway and you can make stick figure notes...copying being against rules and all that.
> 
> Any to any of the other guys, too. No problem.
> 
> EDIT. P.S. Gerry, I know I still owe you the second bunch of notes concerning multiples. And I will get them to you.....I'm just so fricken lazy when it comes to copying notes. Sorry, bro.


No worries, brother. I'm a patient guy, especially when someone is doing me a favor.


----------



## Buka

Flying Crane said:


> I would be curious to know what they had to say about the quality and type of training they got from Mitose.



Most were of the _"a guy I know trained with Mitose"_ lineage. But a couple of old timers said they actually trained with him on Oahu way back in the day. I wish I could remember the stories in more detail. One guy said that Mitose was crazy, but in a conversational way, the way that we would describe any one of our more humorous and outgoing friends.

Martial Arts sure do have some characters.


----------



## oftheherd1

Buka said:


> I almost forgot about Mitose. Definitely a "different" character than the norm. I spoke to some folks back in the nineties out here who had trained with him. They agreed with what you said about mental health.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to point out that Professor Jay had no idea any of this was going on, it was a large gymnasium and would only happen when he was in another part of the gym. *It would take place when they wanted to show you the correct position or foot placement or whatever.....or if you asked about a particular part of the technique. They would demonstrate on you and hold you in the most painful part of the technique, with ever increasing pressure, while you tapped like crazy.*
> 
> So, the second day was more of the same. Then the lunch break came. We were outside on the grass, beautiful summer day, and my group was looking at me. I said, "Okay, enough of this crap. Follow my lead."
> 
> From that point, I would ask a question, they would demonstrate and crank the hell out of me. When I was finally let up, or let go of, I would say, "let me see if I have that right" and I'd do it to them. Only I wouldn't be nice. And I wouldn't let go when they tapped. And I wouldn't let go when they screamed. And I wouldn't let go until other instructors came rushing over. I explained to the other instructors what was about to happen and that you better bring over The Professor because I still wasn't letting go. (And my boys stood by, smiling, ready to fight, my wife, too, and she's meaner than all of them.)
> 
> Wally came over and I explained, quite succinctly, STILL holding the guy down in pain. Wally nodded, gave _them_ a disapproving look, patted my back, smiled and said, "very good". And went back to what he was doing. There was no more BS from that point forward. The rest of the seminar was wonderful, we learned a lot and had a ball. But I still HATE those sons of..
> 
> So.....yesterday I called my buddy/student and left a message about that Dillman seminar. He called me back and we talked for two fricken' hours. What a great time we had on the phone, all the memories came flooding back. My buddy has been training as long as I have and, at this point, is a more experienced Martial Artist than I am. He's trained with the folks I have, and many, many more. And he teaches full time for a living.
> 
> I had forgotten - he hooked up with Dillman and his people for about a year and a half after that seminar. Not giving up his own training, jut cutting it back some and going into the Dillman thing pretty much full time.
> 
> Dillman used to own Muhammed Ali's old training camp in Deer Lake Pennsylvania. My buddy, and four or five of his students, went to two different week long training camps there with Dillman and his people. Man, I sure wish I went with him, being a fan of Ali, that would have been just a great and historic experience for me. Kicked myself in the butt for missing it back then. Then forgot all about it. Kicking myself again now.
> 
> Anyway, he learned a lot about the body. He has more of a historic slant on Kata than I do and learned a lot about a lot of the Katas Dillman's association does. He also became friends with some of Dillman's top guys, who he assures me are really talented and knowledgeable Martial Artists to this day. I forget their names, if your interested I'll ask him again.
> 
> He also said that he was studying so much about the body so much at home, he felt like he was back in school full time. After a year and a half he left. Too much BS with the other stuff.
> 
> He also informed me that after a year or so he would be working with Dillman or one of his assistants and while doing partner work they would crank the crap out of him way beyond what was safe. My buddy is one hundred percent a gentleman, and he ain't no dummy. So he'd say, "You know, I'm giving you my arm to practice the technique, or to demo it for others, I'm GIVING it to you. You want to impress me, fight me and get my arm and do that. Go ahead, let's see what you can do."  And they would back off.
> 
> And in the *world of coincidence*..........my buddy runs a very busy dojo, this one has been running for over fifteen years. Three days ago he had one of his assistant instructors clean out some old storage cabinets to "get rid of crap we don't use". And his assistant found a whole pile of DVDs from one of Dillman's top assistants. My buddy didn't even remember they were there. He hasn't even watched them. Dillman's assistant gave them to him to sell fifteen years ago. He had forgotten all about them.
> 
> He put them on a table for anyone who wanted them for free. I told him I wanted a set, so he's going to send them. If anyone wants to check them out after I do, I'll gladly send them to you. Might be fun to watch. Might be stuff to learn. Might be all smoke and mirrors.
> 
> What a coincidence. Been there for years, forgotten. Just came out of the cabinet when we were talking  about Dillman right here on the boards. Kinda cool.



Certainly there are times when a little extra pain will get your attention.  In the Hapkido I learned, it didn't take me too long to realize how important foot placement could be.  When I began teaching, there were things I specifically taught rather than wait for them to learn on their own.  Foot placement being one of them.  

Also pain to them (with caution) when they didn't seem to be learning and applying techniques properly.  I would let them do it to me and if they weren't getting it, move their hands, fingers, or whatever to where they could hurt me.  It sometimes worked better that way.

But, while studying, we understood well that if we went beyond the bounds, we would get beyond the bounds.  So it didn't happen often.  

BTW, I would love to see the DVDs.  One can never have too many tools.  Thanks. for your generous offer.


----------



## Buka

These are the DVDs, which my buddy warned me he hasn't even watched so they might suck.






And here's a pic from the seminar we went to. I had never seen this pic, but it brought back a lot of memories. I am biting a hole in my lip trying not to laugh. When the pic was taken and the guy with the camera said "smile", one of the guys whispered say "Chi whiz".

That was in regards to something that was tried a few minutes earlier on one of the guys, which didn't work.

But I stilled loved the seminar. Kind of liked Sensei Dillman, too. 
The man sure can talk, I'll tell you that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> These are the DVDs, which my buddy warned me he hasn't even watched so they might suck.
> 
> View attachment 21450
> 
> And here's a pic from the seminar we went to. I had never seen this pic, but it brought back a lot of memories. I am biting a hole in my lip trying not to laugh. When the pic was taken and the guy with the camera said "smile", one of the guys whispered say "Chi whiz".
> 
> That was in regards to something that was tried a few minutes earlier on one of the guys, which didn't work.
> 
> But I stilled loved the seminar. Kind of liked Sensei Dillman, too.
> 
> View attachment 21451


I have to admit, when I get those, "Internal Workout" comes first. Gotta know what the heck that is.

And you have to be careful with Chi whiz. It tastes great, but you gotta believe in it to taste it, at all.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> I have to admit, when I get those, "Internal Workout" comes first. Gotta know what the heck that is.
> 
> And you have to be careful with Chi whiz. It tastes great, but you gotta believe in it to taste it, at all.



Yes, there is a certain "he's not a believer" type thing that goes on with some of this stuff.


----------



## Buka

My buddy threw the dvds in the mail today. I'm neck deep in several projects and don't have time, so I'll mail them to Gerry, and he can mail them to DD when he's done with them.

I'll catch up with them later, no hurry at all. Gerry, PM me your mailing address.


----------



## Michele123

Was Dillman the one teaching pressure points in Martial Arts in the late 90’s?  I remember my Sensei getting really interested in pressure point fighting around that time and we even hosted a seminar taught by a student of some big time pressure point fighter. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vincent

Apologies for posting some contentious assertions and then taking a week to respond to your replies.  I tried replying earlier, but kept getting pulled away by other things.

I've been interested in traditional martial arts for 35 years, intensely so for the first 20 of those years.  That interest brought me to Japan (I requested an assignment to Japan when I was in the military) and again when I went back to teach English.  I spent that time in Japan training in iaido, kyudo, and jujutsu.  Iaido and kyudo were great fun, because those arts have much of that old Japan feeling.  I think jujutsu can be good for self-defense, but I didn't get much where I trained (I'd rather not identify the ryuha, because they're good people who are preserving the art for their own reasons).  I would have gotten more from that jujutsu if we all wore Japanese armor and I had to be ready to defend against Japanese sword attacks and grapple the person.  I later read that the _soke_ made a comment about the need to develop the ryuha to be more relevant for today, so it isn't just me.  I'm sure there are better jujutsu ryuha for modern self-defense, and I'd put judo among the top.  So all three of the arts I learned in Japan are clearly museum pieces.  I of course didn't expect anything else from iaido or kyudo, but I wanted more self-defense relevance from my jujutsu training.

When somebody asks if a certain self-defense method is effective, I assume they mean certain things.  I assume they want practical self-defense skills in a reasonable period of time.  I assume they want to learn something that feels intuitive and natural, and that holds up under pressure.  I assume they want to feel confident in their ability to protect themselves.  Considering my history with Japanese martial arts, I'd be happy if karate fit the bill.  But like the jujutsu style I practiced, I just don't see the proof.  If anything, there's too much proof that it isn't the way to go for practical self defense in a reasonable period of time.  Let's look at the impractical stances.  They're said to build strong legs, but why not take the more direct approach of training with stances that people would actually use in a fighting situation (because you'll do what you practice) and complement it with exercises meant to build the desired strength - like how athletes train.  The answer is that it's the karate way, but is that way practical and efficient?

Some of you said that karate isn't just about self-defense, but about discipline and a general way of life.  I understand that diligent practice under a wise and motivational sensei can offer that (although the right boxing or BJJ coach could offer that too). But that's getting away from the point of this thread - effectiveness for self-defense.  I'm sorry to say this, but this switch-up is typical of karate.  There's no getting around the fact that karate training makes a clear claim on fighting proficiency, but so many karateka jump to the "it's not about fighting" narrative when challenged by a worthy opponent to prove themselves.  I know there are some capable karateka out there, but I wonder how many of those capable karateka have cross-trained in other striking methods like boxing.



gpseymour said:


> First off, we can't even go down the rabbit hole of comparing serious boxers to hobbyist Karate students


I wouldn't have made that comparison.  I'd want to compare two groups who train with similar seriousness and who put the same amount of time into training.  I'd also want people who hadn't trained in anything else and were as similar as reasonably possible across the board.  But I don't even know if such a scientific comparison would be necessary at this point.  I haven't seen many karateka prove that their art is a wise investment for practical self-defense in a reasonable period of time.



JR 137 said:


> I know so many people who trained like that for a long time and can’t train anything anymore due to the toll it took.


That's true, and I'm in the same boat.  I don't want to bust myself up with questionable body toughening, or subject my head to multiple all-out punches in the ring and then wait for the symptoms of brain damage to overtake me.  That's counterproductive to the whole point of self-defense.  But is training in watered-down method of self-defense the best alternative when other higher-probability methods are out there?

I love a traditional Japanese dojo, the feel of wearing a gi, and the aesthetic of a Japanese sword, a bamboo bow, or an oak jo.  When I catch up with my American friends who trained with me in Japan, we usually reminisce about our time at those dojos.  I miss it and want to get back to it.  When I consider budo for modern self-defense, I like judo and jodo.  For the claims that karate makes, I'd rather go with something like kickboxing.  That's just me and how I see things.  If somebody else wants to invest in karate (stances, blocks, kata, etc.) for self-defense, that's their choice.  I know there's a minority of karateka who do have respectable skills.  It's just not the right self-defense investment for me.


----------



## hoshin1600

Vincent said:


> Apologies for posting some contentious assertions and then taking a week to respond to your replies.  I tried replying earlier, but kept getting pulled away by other things.
> 
> I've been interested in traditional martial arts for 35 years, intensely so for the first 20 of those years.  That interest brought me to Japan (I requested an assignment to Japan when I was in the military) and again when I went back to teach English.  I spent that time in Japan training in iaido, kyudo, and jujutsu.  Iaido and kyudo were great fun, because those arts have much of that old Japan feeling.  I think jujutsu can be good for self-defense, but I didn't get much where I trained (I'd rather not identify the ryuha, because they're good people who are preserving the art for their own reasons).  I would have gotten more from that jujutsu if we all wore Japanese armor and I had to be ready to defend against Japanese sword attacks and grapple the person.  I later read that the _soke_ made a comment about the need to develop the ryuha to be more relevant for today, so it isn't just me.  I'm sure there are better jujutsu ryuha for modern self-defense, and I'd put judo among the top.  So all three of the arts I learned in Japan are clearly museum pieces.  I of course didn't expect anything else from iaido or kyudo, but I wanted more self-defense relevance from my jujutsu training.
> 
> When somebody asks if a certain self-defense method is effective, I assume they mean certain things.  I assume they want practical self-defense skills in a reasonable period of time.  I assume they want to learn something that feels intuitive and natural, and that holds up under pressure.  I assume they want to feel confident in their ability to protect themselves.  Considering my history with Japanese martial arts, I'd be happy if karate fit the bill.  But like the jujutsu style I practiced, I just don't see the proof.  If anything, there's too much proof that it isn't the way to go for practical self defense in a reasonable period of time.  Let's look at the impractical stances.  They're said to build strong legs, but why not take the more direct approach of training with stances that people would actually use in a fighting situation (because you'll do what you practice) and complement it with exercises meant to build the desired strength - like how athletes train.  The answer is that it's the karate way, but is that way practical and efficient?
> 
> Some of you said that karate isn't just about self-defense, but about discipline and a general way of life.  I understand that diligent practice under a wise and motivational sensei can offer that (although the right boxing or BJJ coach could offer that too). But that's getting away from the point of this thread - effectiveness for self-defense.  I'm sorry to say this, but this switch-up is typical of karate.  There's no getting around the fact that karate training makes a clear claim on fighting proficiency, but so many karateka jump to the "it's not about fighting" narrative when challenged by a worthy opponent to prove themselves.  I know there are some capable karateka out there, but I wonder how many of those capable karateka have cross-trained in other striking methods like boxing.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have made that comparison.  I'd want to compare two groups who train with similar seriousness and who put the same amount of time into training.  I'd also want people who hadn't trained in anything else and were as similar as reasonably possible across the board.  But I don't even know if such a scientific comparison would be necessary at this point.  I haven't seen many karateka prove that their art is a wise investment for practical self-defense in a reasonable period of time.
> 
> 
> That's true, and I'm in the same boat.  I don't want to bust myself up with questionable body toughening, or subject my head to multiple all-out punches in the ring and then wait for the symptoms of brain damage to overtake me.  That's counterproductive to the whole point of self-defense.  But is training in watered-down method of self-defense the best alternative when other higher-probability methods are out there?
> 
> I love a traditional Japanese dojo, the feel of wearing a gi, and the aesthetic of a Japanese sword, a bamboo bow, or an oak jo.  When I catch up with my American friends who trained with me in Japan, we usually reminisce about our time at those dojos.  I miss it and want to get back to it.  When I consider budo for modern self-defense, I like judo and jodo.  For the claims that karate makes, I'd rather go with something like kickboxing.  That's just me and how I see things.  If somebody else wants to invest in karate (stances, blocks, kata, etc.) for self-defense, that's their choice.  I know there's a minority of karateka who do have respectable skills.  It's just not the right self-defense investment for me.



Great post.
Having trained in Rinzai Zen, Jikishinkage Kashima shinden Ryu,  Tesshu style Shodo ,and Aikido,  when you speek about loving the feel of it and wanting to go back to those times , you words stir the same feeling with me. As the memories flood back in my head.
It's an experience that most martial artists do not get when training in modern martial arts here in America.
The experience is different: the feeling is different: the training is different:  the result, is different.
You then comment on a lack of effectiveness of karate based on your own experience and/or the experience of those you have had contact with. While your experience is undoubtedly real and true, perhaps they are not complete.  If I were to restrict my view to main land Japanese karate, such as Shotokan, I share the same observations and come to the same conclusions. However Shotokan is not ALL of karate and should not represent the entire spectrum of karate.  Shotokan for various historical reasons has become synonymous with karate and this as I am sure you know was by design. But it is not the only karate, nor is it even the original  Tode,  and every negative attribute that can be said about the style has a contrast and opposite attribute in another style. Usually those that evolved outside of Japan or prior to the 1930s. Broad brush descriptions are not accurate in the same way Koryu is not the same as MMA or modern American karate. Different feel different result.


----------



## Buka

Michele123 said:


> Was Dillman the one teaching pressure points in Martial Arts in the late 90’s?  I remember my Sensei getting really interested in pressure point fighting around that time and we even hosted a seminar taught by a student of some big time pressure point fighter.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



A lot of folks were, but there's a good chance he's who you're talking about. He's also synonymous with the no touch knock out thing from back then.


----------



## Michele123

Buka said:


> A lot of folks were, but there's a good chance he's who you're talking about. He's also synonymous with the no touch knock out thing from back then.



I never heard of a no touch knockout. Just pressure points and meridians and three pressure points to knock out but five to kill. But the points had to be of the same element type or follow an order for them to be effective. That sort of thing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buka

Michele123 said:


> I never heard of a no touch knockout. Just pressure points and meridians and three pressure points to knock out but five to kill. But the points had to be of the same element type or follow an order for them to be effective. That sort of thing.



This is kind of related to that, Michelle. And what started all the controversy concerning Dillman.


----------



## Flying Crane

Vincent said:


> Apologies for posting some contentious assertions and then taking a week to respond to your replies.  I tried replying earlier, but kept getting pulled away by other things.
> 
> I've been interested in traditional martial arts for 35 years, intensely so for the first 20 of those years.  That interest brought me to Japan (I requested an assignment to Japan when I was in the military) and again when I went back to teach English.  I spent that time in Japan training in iaido, kyudo, and jujutsu.  Iaido and kyudo were great fun, because those arts have much of that old Japan feeling.  I think jujutsu can be good for self-defense, but I didn't get much where I trained (I'd rather not identify the ryuha, because they're good people who are preserving the art for their own reasons).  I would have gotten more from that jujutsu if we all wore Japanese armor and I had to be ready to defend against Japanese sword attacks and grapple the person.  I later read that the _soke_ made a comment about the need to develop the ryuha to be more relevant for today, so it isn't just me.  I'm sure there are better jujutsu ryuha for modern self-defense, and I'd put judo among the top.  So all three of the arts I learned in Japan are clearly museum pieces.  I of course didn't expect anything else from iaido or kyudo, but I wanted more self-defense relevance from my jujutsu training.
> 
> When somebody asks if a certain self-defense method is effective, I assume they mean certain things.  I assume they want practical self-defense skills in a reasonable period of time.  I assume they want to learn something that feels intuitive and natural, and that holds up under pressure.  I assume they want to feel confident in their ability to protect themselves.  Considering my history with Japanese martial arts, I'd be happy if karate fit the bill.  But like the jujutsu style I practiced, I just don't see the proof.  If anything, there's too much proof that it isn't the way to go for practical self defense in a reasonable period of time.  Let's look at the impractical stances.  They're said to build strong legs, but why not take the more direct approach of training with stances that people would actually use in a fighting situation (because you'll do what you practice) and complement it with exercises meant to build the desired strength - like how athletes train.  The answer is that it's the karate way, but is that way practical and efficient?
> 
> Some of you said that karate isn't just about self-defense, but about discipline and a general way of life.  I understand that diligent practice under a wise and motivational sensei can offer that (although the right boxing or BJJ coach could offer that too). But that's getting away from the point of this thread - effectiveness for self-defense.  I'm sorry to say this, but this switch-up is typical of karate.  There's no getting around the fact that karate training makes a clear claim on fighting proficiency, but so many karateka jump to the "it's not about fighting" narrative when challenged by a worthy opponent to prove themselves.  I know there are some capable karateka out there, but I wonder how many of those capable karateka have cross-trained in other striking methods like boxing.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have made that comparison.  I'd want to compare two groups who train with similar seriousness and who put the same amount of time into training.  I'd also want people who hadn't trained in anything else and were as similar as reasonably possible across the board.  But I don't even know if such a scientific comparison would be necessary at this point.  I haven't seen many karateka prove that their art is a wise investment for practical self-defense in a reasonable period of time.
> 
> 
> That's true, and I'm in the same boat.  I don't want to bust myself up with questionable body toughening, or subject my head to multiple all-out punches in the ring and then wait for the symptoms of brain damage to overtake me.  That's counterproductive to the whole point of self-defense.  But is training in watered-down method of self-defense the best alternative when other higher-probability methods are out there?
> 
> I love a traditional Japanese dojo, the feel of wearing a gi, and the aesthetic of a Japanese sword, a bamboo bow, or an oak jo.  When I catch up with my American friends who trained with me in Japan, we usually reminisce about our time at those dojos.  I miss it and want to get back to it.  When I consider budo for modern self-defense, I like judo and jodo.  For the claims that karate makes, I'd rather go with something like kickboxing.  That's just me and how I see things.  If somebody else wants to invest in karate (stances, blocks, kata, etc.) for self-defense, that's their choice.  I know there's a minority of karateka who do have respectable skills.  It's just not the right self-defense investment for me.


I appreciate your observations but want to point out one or two things.  You mention not seeing proof of karates effectiveness.  I wonder what proof you need, and how much you have really seen.

How many people today practice karate around the world?  How many of them have used their skills to effectively defend themselves when needed?  I don’t know the answer to that, these are things that we can never know because nobody is systematically collecting statistics on every fight and every encounter and what every karateka is up to in the world.  So I suggest that you have seen very little and cannot make authoritative statements about all of karate.  

Is it a desire to see karate effectively used in MMA competition? That in no way impresses me one way or the other.  It is a very very very small percentage of the martial arts population that has any interest at all in participating in such competitions.   It is most definitely not the yardstick against which all things need to be measured.

So, I disagree with your statements, even while I believe that your experiences are real and your opinions are genuine.  There are skilled karateka and there are unskilled karateka.  They all exist.  What may be true for one is not true for another.


----------



## Vincent

> I know so many people who trained like that for a long time and can’t train anything anymore due to the toll it took.





> That's true, and I'm in the same boat.


Just to clarify, I meant that I too am concerned about about the long-term toll of blood-and-guts training.  I don't have any lasting injuries from my training, and I'd like to keep it that way.  Training should be hard, but not at the expense of health or long-term injuries.

I understand that all karate isn't Shotokan, and that there are other styles that go about things differently.  I also understand that I haven't see all there is to be seen.  That's why I acknowledged that exceptions are out there.  I'm saying that the kind of training and technique one typically sees in karate schools in the US don't seem like a high-probably option for effective self-defense in a reasonable period of time.

It's not that I have a desire to see karate used effectively in MMA, but that "typical" traditional karate seems far outclassed by MMA and many other approaches as a method of preparing for physical confrontation in the modern world.  The sensibilities of unarmed combat/self-defense have progressed, and I'm far from the only person who doesn't see traditional karate as a high-probability option.  As I said above, I do realize that there are exceptional karateka.  But if my son or nephew wanted to learn effective self-defense for today's realities in a reasonable period of time, traditional karate wouldn't be my recommendation.  If I knew of an exceptional school that updated its self-defense mindset and training methods, without exacting an unnecessary toll, I'd of course recommend that school.  But when considering the other options available today, I wouldn't say generically, "you should learn karate."


----------



## Flying Crane

Vincent said:


> Just to clarify, I meant that I too am concerned about about the long-term toll of blood-and-guts training.  I don't have any lasting injuries from my training, and I'd like to keep it that way.  Training should be hard, but not at the expense of health or long-term injuries.
> 
> I understand that all karate isn't Shotokan, and that there are other styles that go about things differently.  I also understand that I haven't see all there is to be seen.  That's why I acknowledged that exceptions are out there.  I'm saying that the kind of training and technique one typically sees in karate schools in the US don't seem like a high-probably option for effective self-defense in a reasonable period of time.
> 
> It's not that I have a desire to see karate used effectively in MMA, but that "typical" traditional karate seems far outclassed by MMA and many other approaches as a method of preparing for physical confrontation in the modern world.  The sensibilities of unarmed combat/self-defense have progressed, and I'm far from the only person who doesn't see traditional karate as a high-probability option.  As I said above, I do realize that there are exceptional karateka.  But if my son or nephew wanted to learn effective self-defense for today's realities in a reasonable period of time, traditional karate wouldn't be my recommendation.  If I knew of an exceptional school that updated its self-defense mindset and training methods, without exacting an unnecessary toll, I'd of course recommend that school.  But when considering the other options available today, I wouldn't say generically, "you should learn karate."


Thank you for the additional commments and clarifications.

I guess I evaluate one school at a time and decide if that school has a solid program and approach to training.  Because in my opinion, the approach to training is what matters over the style.  Any style can be trained with appropriate realism and intensity to yield useful results in reasonable amount of time.

I will agree that many people do not train in that way.  People in MMA who may desire competition are more likely to approach their training with that appropriate intensity.  Those who have no interest in competition may be less likely to do so.  But any system has that possibility within it.  But it depends on how it is gone about, and that depends on the school, or even on the individual.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> I appreciate your observations but want to point out one or two things.  You mention not seeing proof of karates effectiveness.  I wonder what proof you need, and how much you have really seen.
> 
> How many people today practice karate around the world?  How many of them have used their skills to effectively defend themselves when needed?  I don’t know the answer to that, these are things that we can never know because nobody is systematically collecting statistics on every fight and every encounter and what every karateka is up to in the world.  So I suggest that you have seen very little and cannot make authoritative statements about all of karate.
> 
> Is it a desire to see karate effectively used in MMA competition? That in no way impresses me one way or the other.  It is a very very very small percentage of the martial arts population that has any interest at all in participating in such competitions.   It is most definitely not the yardstick against which all things need to be measured.
> 
> So, I disagree with your statements, even while I believe that your experiences are real and your opinions are genuine.  There are skilled karateka and there are unskilled karateka.  They all exist.  What may be true for one is not true for another.



We really cant go of the evidence that isn't there. Only off the evidence that is.


----------



## drop bear

Vincent said:


> Just to clarify, I meant that I too am concerned about about the long-term toll of blood-and-guts training.  I don't have any lasting injuries from my training, and I'd like to keep it that way.  Training should be hard, but not at the expense of health or long-term injuries.
> 
> I understand that all karate isn't Shotokan, and that there are other styles that go about things differently.  I also understand that I haven't see all there is to be seen.  That's why I acknowledged that exceptions are out there.  I'm saying that the kind of training and technique one typically sees in karate schools in the US don't seem like a high-probably option for effective self-defense in a reasonable period of time.
> 
> It's not that I have a desire to see karate used effectively in MMA, but that "typical" traditional karate seems far outclassed by MMA and many other approaches as a method of preparing for physical confrontation in the modern world.  The sensibilities of unarmed combat/self-defense have progressed, and I'm far from the only person who doesn't see traditional karate as a high-probability option.  As I said above, I do realize that there are exceptional karateka.  But if my son or nephew wanted to learn effective self-defense for today's realities in a reasonable period of time, traditional karate wouldn't be my recommendation.  If I knew of an exceptional school that updated its self-defense mindset and training methods, without exacting an unnecessary toll, I'd of course recommend that school.  But when considering the other options available today, I wouldn't say generically, "you should learn karate."




It is pretty simple.

Ok. If I wanted to learn to throw a ball. I would start with a big target and put it close.

Then I would progressively use a smaller target that is further away.

And my ball throwing will increase.

I can bring up pretty much any random demo and show you that in this case karate is trained in the reverse.

So we get two white belts and one cant punch and one cant block and their Technique doesn't work and they probably punch each other in the head.

But after a while through drills and training they both learn to give the best feeds to create the best responses.

Or in the case of that ball the target is actually getting bigger and closer. So while it looks like they are increasing their ability. 9you are hitting the target more often)

The only ability that is really increasing is to be a compliant falldown monkey.







So it is not about beating the stuffing out of people. I can do that and still train dumb.





It is about training with honest responses.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is pretty simple.
> 
> Ok. If I wanted to learn to throw a ball. I would start with a big target and put it close.
> 
> Then I would progressively use a smaller target that is further away.
> 
> And my ball throwing will increase.
> 
> I can bring up pretty much any random demo and show you that in this case karate is trained in the reverse.
> 
> So we get two white belts and one cant punch and one cant block and their Technique doesn't work and they probably punch each other in the head.
> 
> But after a while through drills and training they both learn to give the best feeds to create the best responses.
> 
> Or in the case of that ball the target is actually getting bigger and closer. So while it looks like they are increasing their ability. 9you are hitting the target more often)
> 
> The only ability that is really increasing is to be a compliant falldown monkey.


The Karate folks I've sparred weren't falldown monkeys, at all. You had to actually hit them or throw them for that to happen...outside demos.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The Karate folks I've sparred weren't falldown monkeys, at all. You had to actually hit them or throw them for that to happen...outside demos.



it is a concept. Not a reflection on your karate friends.


----------



## dvcochran

Cruentus said:


> Well...besides some of what I think are innacurate details, I'd say the premise is basically wrong.
> 
> First of all, self-defense is up to YOU, not the art. Most of what you need for self-defense you need to get outside of any martial art or sports or reality-based program. Having said that, almost any martial art teaches you attributes that will help you defend yourself...particularly movement, or what I call "the language of movement". All any martial system is, is the study of movement in a CQC situation... and learning that language can be done through Karate, or any viable system with a good instructor.
> 
> So, if you know what it is FOR, karate can be a great system to be in, just like any other...
> 
> PJMOD


I take exception especially with your summary. As a lifetime Martial Artists in 3 styles; 2 traditional, 1 combative, and being a former police officer, I have a hard time seeing where your viewpoint is coming from. Your article sounds more like an advertisement for a business. Very, very one side and narrow minded. Without exception the most important aspect for anyone to learn in depth is what you call the pre-conflict stage. That is the "way of life" most all traditional styles try to teach. I feel this much more dependent on the instructor rather than style or system. I worked with officers who made a conflict out of every call. Like you, they were prejudiced to a belief that the world was out to get them, or they were just an ego freak. Presence is contagious. I remember multiple times arresting guys that always put up a fight with other officers and having little to no trouble. 
A reasonable person is going to quickly figure out if they are in a program that is ineffective for them. Otherwise they are the kind of person who doesn't know enough to care. It sounds like most of your MA experience was very, very superficial. Maybe you never got over your own bad experience. Not a reason to slam everyone else's. Any MA program worth its salt is going to have a healthy amount of "reality based situation" practice. Your comment about an aggressive mindset is the problem with much of this world. Sad article.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> it is a concept. Not a reflection on your karate friends.


It was a generalization - I was presenting some experience counter to it.


----------



## Vincent

drop bear said:


> It is about training with honest responses.


I heard that Anthony Bourdain was a BJJ student, but this was my first time seeing him in action.  Thanks for posting the video, and for your response.


----------



## drop bear

Vincent said:


> I heard that Anthony Bourdain was a BJJ student, but this was my first time seeing him in action.  Thanks for posting the video, and for your response.



I used him because he is old and new to martial arts.

So honest feedback is not the domain of twenty something jocks.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It was a generalization - I was presenting some experience counter to it.



Your experience of random karate friends who can defend takedowns to an unspecified level.

How exactly does that counter anything?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Your experience of random karate friends who can defend takedowns to an unspecified level.
> 
> How exactly does that counter anything?


They were, in fact, pretty random (some folks I knew well, a few I had recently met, etc.). It precisely counters the generalization that Karate folks are "compliant falldown monkeys" who fall down without being actually thrown or knocked down. It actually has nothing to do with takedown defense (not sure where you came up with that), but with the fact that you actually have to take them down or knock them down. On some of them, that's easy (failure of defense). On others, it's pretty hard to do. I don't recall running into one (except relative beginners) who would just fall down without you doing some work, except during odd drills.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> They were, in fact, pretty random (some folks I knew well, a few I had recently met, etc.). It precisely counters the generalization that Karate folks are "compliant falldown monkeys" who fall down without being actually thrown or knocked down. It actually has nothing to do with takedown defense (not sure where you came up with that), but with the fact that you actually have to take them down or knock them down. On some of them, that's easy (failure of defense). On others, it's pretty hard to do. I don't recall running into one (except relative beginners) who would just fall down without you doing some work, except during odd drills.



So you went for a walk and it was flat. So the earth is flat.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you went for a walk and it was flat. So the earth is flat.


So I went for a walk and it was flat, so the Earth has flat places. Might be a lot of them, or only the one I found, but it's certainly not all hilly.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So I went for a walk and it was flat, so the Earth has flat places. Might be a lot of them, or only the one I found, but it's certainly not all hilly.



Wow. Really?

And this is everything that is wrong with martial arts.


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> Wow. Really?
> 
> And this is everything that is wrong with martial arts.[/QUOTE
> 
> You lost me. What the heck are you talking about?


----------



## Buka

Really, Bear, what are you talking about?


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> Really, Bear, what are you talking about?



Ok. I put forwards a concept. Now I am happy to have my concept proven wrong. But "I throw some karate guys around"  just doesn't really cut it.

The issue is this is so commonly used as a martial arts verification. As well as an actual argument for flat earth.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Wow. Really?
> 
> And this is everything that is wrong with martial arts.


LOL. What about my post didn't follow logic? All I stated was the observation - if some part of the Earth is not hilly, then it follows that it cannot all be hilly. How much is "not hilly" is still up for discovery, but we've established that some of it is not.

EDIT: And to the point, if everywhere I walk, I find nothing but flatland, it is a reasonable hypothesis that much of the Earth is "not hilly". If I go somewhere else and find lots of hills and mountains, then I don't suddenly decide there's no flat space on Earth.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. I put forwards a concept. Now I am happy to have my concept proven wrong. But "I throw some karate guys around"  just doesn't really cut it.
> 
> The issue is this is so commonly used as a martial arts verification. As well as an actual argument for flat earth.


You missed the entire point, DB, so maybe I didn't make it clearly. I don't recall running into a Karate practitioner who was a "falldown monkey" by any definition, other than rank beginners. That means my experience with them doesn't match your generalization of them.

I never said none were, but that it seems an unfair generalization. If it wasn't meant as a generalization, then I entirely misread your point.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You missed the entire point, DB, so maybe I didn't make it clearly. I don't recall running into a Karate practitioner who was a "falldown monkey" by any definition, other than rank beginners. That means my experience with them doesn't match your generalization of them.
> 
> I never said none were, but that it seems an unfair generalization. If it wasn't meant as a generalization, then I entirely misread your point.



Ok. so if i throw a ball at a target that gets progressively further away. I will get better at throwing a ball.

Is that a generalisation?

If is throw a ball at a target that progressively gets closer. I will hit the target more often and so appear better at throwing a ball.

Is that a generalisation?

If I trained karate in a manner where the techniques become progressively easier to execute due to the partner being trained to kick punch and fall more appropriately. Would I appear to be better at karate while in fact be a falldown monkey.

Is that a generalisation.

Who were the karate guys you fought?

What did the fight look like? Anything like this for example?





or was it like this?





Would you know if they were fall down monkeys or not?

Is the earth flat or round?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. so if i throw a ball at a target that gets progressively further away. I will get better at throwing a ball.
> 
> Is that a generalisation?
> 
> If is throw a ball at a target that progressively gets closer. I will hit the target more often and so appear better at throwing a ball.
> 
> Is that a generalisation?
> 
> If I trained karate in a manner where the techniques become progressively easier to execute due to the partner being trained to kick punch and fall more appropriately. Would I appear to be better at karate while in fact be a falldown monkey.
> 
> Is that a generalisation.
> 
> Who were the karate guys you fought?
> 
> What did the fight look like? Anything like this for example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or was it like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you know if they were fall down monkeys or not?
> 
> Is the earth flat or round?


You just gotta argue sometimes.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You just gotta argue sometimes.



Yeah, yeah. Us round earthers are poo poo heads.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah, yeah. Us round earthers are poo poo heads.


You're still trying to draw that analogy? I've clarified your error on that. It's like you said the Earth is all hills, and I told you I've run into a bunch of plains. Then you decided I said the Earth isn't round. At best, that is an appeal to extremes.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Yeah, yeah. Us round earthers are poo poo heads.


You know it's only flat earthers that use the term 'round earther'?


----------



## lianxi

Wow - 14 years this thread has been going. Still new here, but would like to advise those with decades of experience to be careful when advising beginners against that first Karate or TKD class just because you may have progressed so far beyond that stage. That first class and phase of learning teaches so much - including the use of forms which teach structure, coordination and especially intention - making the hands and feet do what you want them to do. I knew, first as a white belt, then as a yellow belt in my first year with Uechi master Ihor Rymaruk's Karate class that I wasn't capable of using what I'd learn to fight with it. But I felt that I had learned how to stand and guard, center myself, pay attention and be ready for at least the idea of an opponent - that self-confidence wasn't delusion that I was now a skilled fighter - it was a genuine sense of accomplishment earned as a result of training hard to master movements with my mind and body - it was a solid beginning for me and here I am 33 years later still in love with martial arts. There are a lot of senior martial artists here - please remember where you began when advising those who are new to martial arts and asking for guidance - don't blast them with 30 years of experience all at once. For beginners, it's perfectly OK to start with traditional martial arts training and their forms - all forms are codified systems of martial arts mechanics and movement passed on to us and certainly should be considered as having some inherent value.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

My Shorin Ryu Sensei is retired SWAT, and I promise you, he used karate to good effect during his law enforcement career. He and I were discussing Krav Maga one time, as I trained in it for a few months, and he was of the opinion that Krav Maga is effective, but not unique in its effectiveness. He argued that the effective practitioners of the traditional martial arts employ similar principles as those taught in the more modern, military-based defensive tactics curricula.


----------



## Vincent

Oni_Kadaki said:


> My Shorin Ryu Sensei is retired SWAT, and I promise you, he used karate to good effect during his law enforcement career. He and I were discussing Krav Maga one time, as I trained in it for a few months, and he was of the opinion that Krav Maga is effective, but not unique in its effectiveness. He argued that the effective practitioners of the traditional martial arts employ similar principles as those taught in the more modern, military-based defensive tactics curricula.


As I said above, it's this kind of person who makes me realize that training in traditional martial arts can have real value.  Of course, somebody like your sensei isn't going to settle for just any dojo.  Do you know if his sensei was LE, military, etc.?


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

Vincent said:


> Do you know if his sensei was LE, military, etc.?



 Not to my knowledge, but I do know he tested what he had learned while apprehending people. Basically, he used perps as his own personal test dummies (I will not comment on the morality of this). As such, while the kata are unchanged from the original system, the self defense techniques he teaches are all Shorin Ryu Karate, but tempered by his real-world experience.


----------



## Headhunter

Oni_Kadaki said:


> Not to my knowledge, but I do know he tested what he had learned while apprehending people. Basically, he used perps as his own personal test dummies (I will not comment on the morality of this). As such, while the kata are unchanged from the original system, the self defense techniques he teaches are all Shorin Ryu Karate, but tempered by his real-world experience.


Hey at least he's only doing it on criminals


----------



## Deleted member 34973

The only scenerio that determines whether or not your skill is effective...is reality...not reality based scenerios or combat sports.

Karate does work (as long as its not sport) in real life situations. I know this, because I have used it many times, against just about every type of fighter out there. Boxers, wrestlers, street fighters (real ones, not windmill swingers going for the big hit) and various martial artist. No rules, no regulations and no safety protocols.
And, it directly saved my life many times. Yes, it was the old school way I chose, dangerous, unadvisable...but, I knew and still to this day, believe there is only one way to prove your skill, if you call yourself a fighter.

This myth that Karate doesn't work, is just words spoken, I would be confident in guessing, by a person who has never been in an actual real life scenerio. Or, was trained in sport arts.

But, like every new craze for a new way, they fade and Karate remains.

With that said, not everyone trains for that type of scenerio...there are various reasons, why people train. Some for the exercise, some for the competition, some for the philosophy.

I have learned over the years...that all of these reasons are valid amd shouldn't be frowned upon.

But, to say that combat arts are more effective than traditional arts, without actually testing it, outside the realm of safety protocals, Is simply asinine.

Really, I think competition has clouded the minds of martial artist so much these days, that its the norm to judge arts by competition effectiveness. When in reality, it can not be denied that it is enveloped by a safety net. As are reality based combat scenerios.

Its getting old...that much is certain.


----------



## drop bear

Guthrie said:


> The only scenerio that determines whether or not your skill is effective...is reality...not reality based scenerios or combat sports.
> 
> Karate does work (as long as its not sport) in real life situations. I know this, because I have used it many times, against just about every type of fighter out there. Boxers, wrestlers, street fighters (real ones, not windmill swingers going for the big hit) and various martial artist. No rules, no regulations and no safety protocols.
> And, it directly saved my life many times. Yes, it was the old school way I chose, dangerous, unadvisable...but, I knew and still to this day, believe there is only one way to prove your skill, if you call yourself a fighter.
> 
> This myth that Karate doesn't work, is just words spoken, I would be confident in guessing, by a person who has never been in an actual real life scenerio. Or, was trained in sport arts.
> 
> But, like every new craze for a new way, they fade and Karate remains.
> 
> With that said, not everyone trains for that type of scenerio...there are various reasons, why people train. Some for the exercise, some for the competition, some for the philosophy.
> 
> I have learned over the years...that all of these reasons are valid amd shouldn't be frowned upon.
> 
> But, to say that combat arts are more effective than traditional arts, without actually testing it, outside the realm of safety protocals, Is simply asinine.
> 
> Really, I think competition has clouded the minds of martial artist so much these days, that its the norm to judge arts by competition effectiveness. When in reality, it can not be denied that it is enveloped by a safety net. As are reality based combat scenerios.
> 
> Its getting old...that much is certain.



There is quite a few examples of combat sports being used successfully in self defence though.

I mean if we went just off that the evidence would still lean towards combat sports being more effective.


----------



## Deleted member 34973

There are quite a few examples of traditional arts as well, being shown to be effective.

But, it really depends on the scenerio and the threat involved. That and it depends on the individual using whatever system.

Combat Sport-was created for sport and entertainment. Hence the name Combat Sport.Therefore, by its very nature, and at its creation and inception it is incomplete as a real scenerio self-defense program.

That goes for sport Karate as well, in actual effective Karate, there are punches, kicks, knees, elbows, takedowns and grappling. Several of these were banned when sport karate became popular and due to that, we have seen over the last 30yrs...the degradation of Karate.

Sure, combat sport brought some of that back..but you can already see the decline of functional techniques...due to the limitations, that sports put on any art. And you can see, as well, the false sense of security, that Karateka's had in the late 80's and 90's...that led to the replacement of one sport art with another sport just reclassified as combat sport.

Really, in my opinion, watching these combat sports...looks like the workings of an inexperienced street fighter.

A barrage and flurry of punches and kicks, to try to get your opponent on the ground, so you can pound. But in reality...that doesn't take a whole lot of skill. Just about anyone can pull that off. Even people who have never fought a day in there life.

Another thing you will find...is videos of Combat Sport Artist, getting laid out by an average joe.

Yes, it really depends on the individual and the experience they have developed over the years in real scenerios.

There are many variables to deal with in reality...not so much in Combat Sport, Karate sport or any other sport art. The variables are not present

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy some sport arts..but I would never train in any sport art, for reality self-defense.

Of course all of this is based on my own personal experience. So, really its worth about two sh@ts and giggle.


----------



## drop bear

Guthrie said:


> There are quite a few examples of traditional arts as well, being shown to be effective.
> 
> But, it really depends on the scenerio and the threat involved. That and it depends on the individual using whatever system.
> 
> Combat Sport-was created for sport and entertainment. Hence the name Combat Sport.Therefore, by its very nature, and at its creation and inception it is incomplete as a real scenerio self-defense program.
> 
> That goes for sport Karate as well, in actual effective Karate, there are punches, kicks, knees, elbows, takedowns and grappling. Several of these were banned when sport karate became popular and due to that, we have seen over the last 30yrs...the degradation of Karate.
> 
> Sure, combat sport brought some of that back..but you can already see the decline of functional techniques...due to the limitations, that sports put on any art. And you can see, as well, the false sense of security, that Karateka's had in the late 80's and 90's...that led to the replacement of one sport art with another sport just reclassified as combat sport.
> 
> Really, in my opinion, watching these combat sports...looks like the workings of an inexperienced street fighter.
> 
> A barrage and flurry of punches and kicks, to try to get your opponent on the ground, so you can pound. But in reality...that doesn't take a whole lot of skill. Just about anyone can pull that off. Even people who have never fought a day in there life.
> 
> Another thing you will find...is videos of Combat Sport Artist, getting laid out by an average joe.
> 
> Yes, it really depends on the individual and the experience they have developed over the years in real scenerios.
> 
> There are many variables to deal with in reality...not so much in Combat Sport, Karate sport or any other sport art. The variables are not present
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I enjoy some sport arts..but I would never train in any sport art, for reality self-defense.
> 
> Of course all of this is based on my own personal experience. So, really its worth about two sh@ts and giggle.



Fair enough find us five real world examples of karate being used in a fight.


----------



## drop bear

Here we go 5 real world examp,es of boxing effectively used in fights.


Criminal stupidity - the day two muggers tried to rob Jack Dempsey - Boxing Monthly






Female boxer fought off two hooded muggers and floored one with a right hook

Pictured: The battered and bruised face of a burglar who got on the wrong side of a 72-year-old former boxer | Daily Mail Online


----------



## _Simon_

drop bear said:


> Fair enough find us five real world examples of karate being used in a fight.


Ah but of course! I really think these three suffice...


----------



## drop bear

_Simon_ said:


> Ah but of course! I really think these three suffice...



I do want to learn the exploding head crane kick.


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> There is quite a few examples of combat sports being used successfully in self defence though.
> 
> I mean if we went just off that the evidence would still lean towards combat sports being more effective.


It has nothing to do with the the style. It's all about the person....do you really believe Jason Thacker from the ultImate fighter series 1 could beat any high level traditional style fighter. All this "oh combat sports work better or traditional works better" I can't believe all that rubbish is still going on that people are still that ignorant. Anything has the potential to work as long as it's trained properly and the person has a good skill level


----------



## Martial D

It's not that combat sports are necessarily better for fighting, its that their training is WAY better for fighting. It follows MMA produces better fighters. 

Take a group of guys that peaks their cardio and other physical attributes, trains contact all day long to get used to actual attacks, and doesn't waste time on things that arent directly combat applicable.

Take another group of guys that do the literal opposite.

The mechanics of the style is rather secondary at that point.


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> Fair enough find us five real world examples of karate being used in a fight.


Define karate being used in a fight.  If I’m seeing punches coming at me and I’m moving out of the way and punching back, does that count?  If a guy’s coming at me and I hit before he has a chance and KO him right there, does that count?

Or do I have to do some predetermined and complicated move that involves a backfist, reverse punch and jumping kick for it to count as karate?

A friend of mine who was a college basketball player asked if I could fight without using what I learned in karate.  I asked him if he could play pickup basketball without using anything he learned in organized basketball at any level.


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> Define karate being used in a fight.  If I’m seeing punches coming at me and I’m moving out of the way and punching back, does that count?  If a guy’s coming at me and I hit before he has a chance and KO him right there, does that count?
> 
> Or do I have to do some predetermined and complicated move that involves a backfist, reverse punch and jumping kick for it to count as karate?
> 
> A friend of mine who was a college basketball player asked if I could fight without using what I learned in karate.  I asked him if he could play pickup basketball without using anything he learned in organized basketball at any level.



Five guys who new karate who stopped muggers or something. Like I did with boxing.

The point is if the evidence is street. Show evidence.

Has anybody noticed where things work there is evidence of it.

This is why if I wanted someone to believe a plane flies. I can show them a flying plane.


I don't have to convince people with clever rationalisation. Because that works against the idea that a great hunk of steel can fly.


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> It has nothing to do with the the style. It's all about the person....do you really believe Jason Thacker from the ultImate fighter series 1 could beat any high level traditional style fighter. All this "oh combat sports work better or traditional works better" I can't believe all that rubbish is still going on that people are still that ignorant. Anything has the potential to work as long as it's trained properly and the person has a good skill level



Absolutely. Training in fact has no effect at all.

Some people are naturally good and some are not.

Sport is a training method by the way.


----------



## Deleted member 34973

drop bear said:


> Here we go 5 real world examp,es of boxing effectively used in fights.
> 
> 
> Criminal stupidity - the day two muggers tried to rob Jack Dempsey - Boxing Monthly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Female boxer fought off two hooded muggers and floored one with a right hook
> 
> Pictured: The battered and bruised face of a burglar who got on the wrong side of a 72-year-old former boxer | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Sure here are three off the top of my head. Not exactly sure how to upload a vid yet, so links. Is there a tutorial section?
> 
> By the way Drop Bear, those vids were hilarious, I still watch the Jim Carrey one. lol


----------



## Deleted member 34973

Never mind on the the tutorial....yeah sometimes I am ignorant with this tech


----------



## Buka

_Simon_ said:


> Ah but of course! I really think these three suffice...



That top one, the one with the two guys in black gis? I'm practicing that whole RiverDance combo move right now. It is sooo the balls.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Buka said:


> That top one, the one with the two guys in black gis? I'm practicing that whole RiverDance combo move right now. It is sooo the balls.


I believe that's Gangnam Style, not Riverdance.


----------



## _Simon_

Buka said:


> That top one, the one with the two guys in black gis? I'm practicing that whole RiverDance combo move right now. It is sooo the balls.


Hahaha! Awesome


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> This is why if I wanted someone to believe a plane flies. I can show them a flying plane.
> 
> 
> I don't have to convince people with clever rationalisation. Because that works against the idea that a great hunk of steel can fly.



There's not much steel at all in an aeroplane...

But apart from that, this is an interesting point.

I can look at data and say that an aeroplane can fly because the engines provide enough thrust to move it fast enough for the wings to provide sufficient lift (due to the shape being effectively half a venturi that causes a depression above the wing) for it to fly.

I don't need to see a flying aeroplane to believe that they can fly, because I have enough related theoretical knowledge to understand and accept the process.


So, TMA in a fight situation?


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> There's not much steel at all in an aeroplane...
> 
> But apart from that, this is an interesting point.
> 
> I can look at data and say that an aeroplane can fly because the engines provide enough thrust to move it fast enough for the wings to provide sufficient lift (due to the shape being effectively half a venturi that causes a depression above the wing) for it to fly.
> 
> I don't need to see a flying aeroplane to believe that they can fly, because I have enough related theoretical knowledge to understand and accept the process.
> 
> 
> So, TMA in a fight situation?



Yes. But most people don't have the grounding to understand how a plane flies. 

Or how a fight works.

And gets the theoretical knowledge wrong. 

For example giving too much weight to the idea that a system that is successful within a rule set is somehow not successful when the rules are removed.

And not enough weight towards the idea that is successful in a context. Is at least successful somewhere.


----------



## hoshin1600

im just wondering ...if MMA is the only thing that actually works,  what have people been doing for the last few thousand years?  you know before the 1990's when MMA was invented.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> For example giving too much weight to the idea that a system that is successful within a rule set is somehow not successful when the rules are removed.


but TKD is very successful within its rule set.  so would it be any different than your MMA argument?


----------



## JR 137

Buka said:


> That top one, the one with the two guys in black gis? I'm practicing that whole RiverDance combo move right now. It is sooo the balls.


Figuratively and literally


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> but TKD is very successful within its rule set.  so would it be any different than your MMA argument?



Yeah. So you look at TKD. And break down all the situations where it is successful.

If TKD gets to a stand up range where they can engage in kicks they will probably win that exchange. So in a self defence curcumstance you could get to a kick range and be reasonably expected to win the exchange from there.

Just like if a BJJer gets you on the deck or a boxer gets in punching range.

This is fairly predictably in any curcumstance. This isnt street sport. Just a dynamic that will happen anywhere.

So if a red hot TKDer fights a red hot MMAer. Kicks are probably going to be the deciding factor.









Now if you look at MMA there are just more situations that a person can be succseful at. And so it gives a better indication of a persons overall ability.

Lets compare this with self defense only. And karate cos that is the thread.





This is being succesful in no situations what so ever. Because there is no self defence scenario where a person will atack you with a prearranged attack and then let you tee off on them.


----------



## drop bear

hoshin1600 said:


> im just wondering ...if MMA is the only thing that actually works,  what have people been doing for the last few thousand years?  you know before the 1990's when MMA was invented.



I know right.




This mostly.

and this if you were ethnic.





These two guys were legitimately responsible for most of the hard men and gangsters before MMA.


----------



## Deleted member 34973

hoshin1600 said:


> im just wondering ...if MMA is the only thing that actually works,  what have people been doing for the last few thousand years?  you know before the 1990's when MMA was invented.


Take that statement with a grain of salt. Only MMA guys are saying that.


----------



## Steve

The actual data ive seen leads to two conclusions.   First is that physical fighting skills are not essential to practical self defense .  two, if you want to learn to fight, competitive sports are the most reliable, accessible and consistent way to do this.   Everything else is anecdotal.


----------



## Hanzou

hoshin1600 said:


> im just wondering ...if MMA is the only thing that actually works,  what have people been doing for the last few thousand years?  you know before the 1990's when MMA was invented.



MMA has been around for thousands of years. The mixing of regional styles, challenge matches, and bitter competition between different schools of martial arts isn't anything new.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> MMA has been around for thousands of years. The mixing of regional styles, challenge matches, and bitter competition between different schools of martial arts isn't anything new.




The claim could be made by your statement then .............that all martial Arts are MMA ...........and according to your other threads MMA is the best !!! so .......are we again not twisting things to suit what you rely to and in different threads?


----------



## Martial D

hoshin1600 said:


> im just wondering ...if MMA is the only thing that actually works,  what have people been doing for the last few thousand years?  you know before the 1990's when MMA was invented.


The same stuff. MMA is just martial arts boiled down. People have been doing mui thai forever, wrestling forever, striking and grappling forever. Hell, pankration is basically MMA and it was the very first Olympic sport if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> The same stuff. MMA is just martial arts boiled down. People have been doing mui thai forever, wrestling forever, striking and grappling forever. Hell, pankration is basically MMA and it was the very first Olympic sport if I'm not mistaken.



Funnily enough I do get your point there lol ....what I would ask is the current MMA was that not boiled down for a specific purpose in mind ...ie competition?


----------



## Hanzou

now disabled said:


> The claim could be made by your statement then .............that all martial Arts are MMA ...........and according to your other threads MMA is the best !!! so .......are we again not twisting things to suit what you rely to and in different threads?



Technically yes. Choy Li Fut is a MMA, but it isn't modern MMA. That's the difference.


----------



## now disabled

Hanzou said:


> Technically yes. Choy Li Fut is a MMA, but it isn't modern MMA. That's the difference.




You really must either be a walking encyclopedia on MA you know all these styles and arts you keep quoting ...or google is red hot lol


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Funnily enough I do get your point there lol ....what I would ask is the current MMA was that not boiled down for a specific purpose in mind ...ie competition?



Someone else mentioned that far too muh emphasis is placed on this, and I agree. A lot of people seem to think there is this wide divide between fighting in a cage or ring and fighting in 'the street'. There really isn't. In fact, a cage is worse, because in 'the street' an altercation is generally a couple of blows, that might not even land, that is usually broken up, or at the very least stops when the aggressor gets tired which happens rather quickly for most people that don't fight much.

Contrasted with a cage where both parties will continue to be aggressive until the fight ends in one fighter being stopped by the other, or the 15-20 mins runs out. No street fight lasts 15 or 20 mins.

Sure, there is a limited set of extra tools. Nut shots, biting, scratching, eye pokes etc but none of that will be an advantage when its available to both parties. 

So in short, to answer your question, it's already boiled down to 'fighting' That you can compete at fighting is really a side note.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Someone else mentioned that far too muh emphasis is placed on this, and I agree. A lot of people seem to think there is this wide divide between fighting in a cage or ring and fighting in 'the street'. There really isn't. In fact, a cage is worse, because in 'the street' an altercation is generally a couple of blows, that might not even land, that is usually broken up, or at the very least stops when the aggressor gets tired which happens rather quickly for most people that don't fight much.
> 
> Contrasted with a cage where both parties will continue to be aggressive until the fight ends in one fighter being stopped by the other, or the 15-20 mins runs out. No street fight lasts 15 or 20 mins.
> 
> Sure, there is a limited set of extra tools. Nut shots, biting, scratching, eye pokes etc but none of that will be an advantage when its available to both parties.
> 
> So in short, to answer your question, it's already boiled down to 'fighting' That you can compete at fighting is really a side note.



I do get your point ...maybe we just look at it form different angles 

I guess it cause I just really don't have much interest in the cage fighting scene I just look on things differently


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> I do get your point ...maybe we just look at it form different angles
> 
> I guess it cause I just really don't have much interest in the cage fighting scene I just look on things differently


I can respect that.

I don't either as a matter of fact. Im way too old to get in there with those young bulls.

I just have a love for the martial sciences and the fighting game.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> I can respect that.
> 
> I don't either as a matter of fact. Im way too old to get in there with those young bulls.
> 
> I just have a love for the martial sciences and the fighting game.




My advice and it is not being nasty is what a teacher of mine told me ....look beyond ...look to each side ...look behind...look under every tech as when you have done that then you may (I not meaning you )  understand ...if not then ask and then do it again until you see the what where and why ......and some things may surprise


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> My advice and it is not being nasty is what a teacher of mine told me ....look beyond ...look to each side ...look behind...look under every tech as when you have done that then you may (I not meaning you )  understand ...if not then ask and then do it again until you see the what where and why ......and some things may surprise


Oh, I find new stuff all the time. Martial arts is mostly one big extended family tree, I learned not to get hung up on styles a couple whiles ago. There are ways of striking, ways of grappling, and ways of moving. That's really it.

I just forgo things that don't seem to work until I see them work, or even better, feel them work _on me_, and at that point try to assimilate them into my game if I can. Pretty much the same thing most modern martial artists do I guess.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Oh, I find new stuff all the time. Martial arts is mostly one big extended family tree, I learned not to get hung up on styles a couple whiles ago. There are ways of striking, ways of grappling, and ways of moving. That's really it.
> 
> I just forgo things that don't seem to work until I see them work, or even better, feel them work _on me_, and at that point try to assimilate them into my game if I can. Pretty much the same thing most modern martial artists do I guess.




That the main thing feel them work on you ,,,,and by a person that does and is technically advanced enough to apply them or for that matter know enough that if you counter they can adjust and adapt ....look at a tech and then think ok then run thru it like in drill form to get a feel of it ...then progress from there ....keep it in your own locker that if the opportunity arises then use it you might be surprised at when that chance or opportunity may arise


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> Funnily enough I do get your point there lol ....what I would ask is the current MMA was that not boiled down for a specific purpose in mind ...ie competition?



Yes but competition is an incredibly important training tool.  People who compete get better at the activity they are competing in.

Competitive drivers drive better.
Competitive runners run faster.
Competition works.

Now if someone expands on that to create something for self defence then they have a process that will make better self defences.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Yes but competition is an incredibly important training tool.  People who compete get better at the activity they are competing in.
> 
> Competitive drivers drive better.
> Competitive runners run faster.
> Competition works.
> 
> Now if someone expands on that to create something for self defence then they have a process that will make better self defences.


Also, people sometimes confuse the competition with the thing itself, which is problematic.

Say I'm super good at building engines fast. Now imagine enough people found that interesting enough to watch, and now we have a competition to see who can assemble the engine the fastest.

Nothing new has been created, it's still people building engines.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Also, people sometimes confuse the competition with the thing itself, which is problematic.
> 
> Say I'm super good at building engines fast. Now imagine enough people found that interesting enough to watch, and now we have a competition to see who can assemble the engine the fastest.
> 
> Nothing new has been created, it's still people building engines.



you would be creating methods of efficiency. Which is a really important concept.

And pit crews do that in competition.

And what a supprise. We can see consistent training methods at play here.


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> Yes but competition is an incredibly important training tool.  People who compete get better at the activity they are competing in.
> 
> Competitive drivers drive better.
> Competitive runners run faster.
> Competition works.
> 
> Now if someone expands on that to create something for self defence then they have a process that will make better self defences.



I agree mostly 

How do you or would you go about creating the self defense aspect ? as that is an interesting concept


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> I agree mostly
> 
> How do you or would you go about creating the self defense aspect ? as that is an interesting concept


Hint... it start’s with a “c” and ends with an “ompetition”.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> I agree mostly
> 
> How do you or would you go about creating the self defense aspect ? as that is an interesting concept



You still do theoretical but it is based off practical

You build off what you know works and change the order of priorities to what you think should be.

Then test that in the gym. And in the field.

Then take that information back to the lab and start with new theories based on that information.

Rinse and repeat.

I could roll with say eyegouges, or with punches ort knives or to escape being raped or for handcuff position or two, three on one or even to remove someone's sock.

It just involves changing the victory conditions.

Competition isolates and emphasizes certain aspects of self defence so that you can't escape the using other methods.

So if I am a gella boxer and I do MMA I may be able to be crap at grappling and get away with it for a bit. But eventually I will meet a guy who can do both and I will get bashed.

So I might do grappling competitions where I can't escape grappling and so have to grapple


----------



## drop bear

Just going full speed with someone you don't know changes what works and what doesn't. 

And that took me forever to learn because I was never taught it in self defence.

Which is why 6 months of MMA can just charge all over a lot of other systems.

They may only have learned 5 moves that work but they are 5 more moves than me at full speed.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> You still do theoretical but it is based off practical
> 
> You build off what you know works and change the order of priorities to what you think should be.
> 
> Then test that in the gym. And in the field.
> 
> Then take that information back to the lab and start with new theories based on that information.
> 
> Rinse and repeat.
> 
> I could roll with say eyegouges, or with punches ort knives or to escape being raped or for handcuff position or two, three on one or even to remove someone's sock.
> 
> It just involves changing the victory conditions.
> 
> Competition isolates and emphasizes certain aspects of self defence so that you can't escape the using other methods.
> 
> So if I am a gella boxer and I do MMA I may be able to be crap at grappling and get away with it for a bit. But eventually I will meet a guy who can do both and I will get bashed.
> 
> So I might do grappling competitions where I can't escape grappling and so have to grapple



And more importantly once you have some practical experience the conversation changes from this weird dogmatic self defence talk to an actual useful discussion of risks and rewards.


----------



## gucia6

*Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense?
*
I would not say that looking at my trainings. Sure we exercise the traditional forms while 'punching the air', but then when we more or less master the movement the instructor explains and shows us the application. And as we go and improve he puts more pressure on that. But still, the basics have to be known.

And anyway, in case of crisis you would not think of your forms, but do anything to defend yourself and escape as soon as possible. 

For example, I had grading last week and part of our examination was freeing ourselves from different types of grips. When I looked at others beeing examined my toughts were running wild "omg, what will I do when I am in this and that lock". But when it was my turn, it went smoothly, I did not have time and brains to think if my movements and form are the correct ones 

And sparring I find great for development of reflexes and observation ability.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yes but competition is an incredibly important training tool.  People who compete get better at the activity they are competing in.
> 
> Competitive drivers drive better.
> Competitive runners run faster.
> Competition works.
> 
> Now if someone expands on that to create something for self defence then they have a process that will make better self defences.


There remains the question of causality. We know training makes a difference, but does competition actually drive performance, or are better (drivers, runners, boxers, etc.) more likely to compete? I think there's some of both.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Also, people sometimes confuse the competition with the thing itself, which is problematic.
> 
> Say I'm super good at building engines fast. Now imagine enough people found that interesting enough to watch, and now we have a competition to see who can assemble the engine the fastest.
> 
> Nothing new has been created, it's still people building engines.


And while it is _possible _to become skilled at the specialization of assembling engines at high speed, but not any good at getting it right enough for actual work, it's most likely that you get better at both.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Hint... it start’s with a “c” and ends with an “ompetition”.


That's a circular reply, Steve. He asked how one could go about creating a self-defense aspect to competition.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That's a circular reply, Steve. He asked how one could go about creating a self-defense aspect to competition.


it's possible.  I don't know for sure that I  understand what is meant by self defense aspect.   There is a bit of a language barrier here.


----------



## Mitlov

I won't pretend I've read all 800ish posts spanning 14 years, but looking at the first few and the most recent, I think I see a fundamental problem with this thread.  

The thread began with an argument that traditional karate isn't effective for self-defense because traditional karate training is based around the assumption of a one-on-one empty-handed face-to-face duel.

Nowadays the argument is that traditional karate isn't effective for self-defense because it doesn't involve competitive, aggressive sparring.

The problem is, "traditional karate" isn't one thing, and each person who is coming here to criticize karate is picking one particular approach to training that they don't like, assuming that it represents all of "traditional karate," and then ragging on it.  But traditional karate isn't one thing.  It's not standardized in the way that "boxing" or "BJJ" is.  When someone tells you they have a ferret as a pet, you know what to expect.  When someone tells you they have a dog, it could be anything from a Scottie to a Rottweiler to a Newfoundland.  When someone tells you they train at a boxing gym, you know what their training looks like.  When someone says they train in traditional karate, it could be anything.  It could be all about forms and one-steps.  It could have lots of weapon work.  It could have lots of sparring and plenty of competition.  It could be some combination of these.

You can't pick the one approach that isn't what you want, declare it representative of all of traditional karate, and bash all of traditional karate.  It's like how on the last page, this was offered up as representing all of traditional karate:






Sure, there are SOME schools that rely primarily on one-steps like that.  But there are other traditional karate schools that look like this:





 (skip to 1:25)

And there are some that look like this:






Or like this:






This entire thread is like a thread where half the posters are saying "I don't like dogs because they're small and yappy," and the other half are saying "I don't like dogs because they're big and slobbery."  Both are criticizing very specific subsets of dogs, and acting like all dogs are like that.  It's not that simple.


----------



## Deleted member 34973

Mitlov said:


> This entire thread is like a thread where half the posters are saying "I don't like dogs because they're small and yappy," and the other half are saying "I don't like dogs because they're big and slobbery." Both are criticizing very specific subsets of dogs, and acting like all dogs are like that. It's not that simple




Well said, I believe that people forget or just do not realize, that 'Karate' is a generic term. When the statement that 'traditional karate doesn't work', is made, the question should be asked which style or system? Are you talking about traditional sport karate, or a karate that focuses on combat? Or, is the claim that no Karate works' being made?

Or, is it just the specific way Karate is taught, that the person has an issue with?

It does confuse me, when I hear people talk about punching in air, do they really think that is how a punch would be performed in a real fight? There are the use of bags, kicking shields, focus mitts, and a double end ball, that I find common in a lot of schools. Bag work is a common thing, my school did it in 80's and its a practice that most still do today.

 I also think that some do not know about the fighting forms, as too where you have the basic forms and then the fighting form and applications. Not just the step by step bunkai, but the full speed single and multiple attackers exercise. This is where you see the throws and take downs, that can be found in some systems. This is the meat of any system. And, then you apply it in sparring. Although, you do not see this type of sparring in a lot of today's schools, you do have schools that still practice this way.

The unique thing about Kata, is that the moves are there and with a little bit of work, they can be reverse-engineered, and the self-defense and fighting techniques can be found. But, it is best to find a school that has those fighting forms or at the very least, go hard and fast using those techniques, in your sparring sessions. Those techniques can be practiced just about anywhere true, but the bag work and the hard sparring, are vital parts of any karate system. I think the old style rope on a board shows that.


----------



## Steve

Mitlov said:


> I won't pretend I've read all 800ish posts spanning 14 years, but looking at the first few and the most recent, I think I see a fundamental problem with this thread.
> 
> The thread began with an argument that traditional karate isn't effective for self-defense because traditional karate training is based around the assumption of a one-on-one empty-handed face-to-face duel.
> 
> Nowadays the argument is that traditional karate isn't effective for self-defense because it doesn't involve competitive, aggressive sparring.
> 
> The problem is, "traditional karate" isn't one thing, and each person who is coming here to criticize karate is picking one particular approach to training that they don't like, assuming that it represents all of "traditional karate," and then ragging on it.  But traditional karate isn't one thing.  It's not standardized in the way that "boxing" or "BJJ" is.  When someone tells you they have a ferret as a pet, you know what to expect.  When someone tells you they have a dog, it could be anything from a Scottie to a Rottweiler to a Newfoundland.  When someone tells you they train at a boxing gym, you know what their training looks like.  When someone says they train in traditional karate, it could be anything.  It could be all about forms and one-steps.  It could have lots of weapon work.  It could have lots of sparring and plenty of competition.  It could be some combination of these.
> 
> You can't pick the one approach that isn't what you want, declare it representative of all of traditional karate, and bash all of traditional karate.  It's like how on the last page, this was offered up as representing all of traditional karate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, there are SOME schools that rely primarily on one-steps like that.  But there are other traditional karate schools that look like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (skip to 1:25)
> 
> And there are some that look like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire thread is like a thread where half the posters are saying "I don't like dogs because they're small and yappy," and the other half are saying "I don't like dogs because they're big and slobbery."  Both are criticizing very specific subsets of dogs, and acting like all dogs are like that.  It's not that simple.


I think it's funny that you start by saying you didnt read the entire thread and end by specifically critiquing the entire thread.  "I wont pretend to have read the 800ish posts." Vs "this entire thread is like...."  Made me laugh and represents quite a mental journey.

I think, if you had taken some time to read the thread, you would find that there is quite a bit of discussion about the various styles of karate and what makes some (like kyokushin) more reliably effective than others.


----------



## Mitlov

Steve said:


> I think it's funny that you start by saying you didnt read the entire thread and end by specifically critiquing the entire thread.  "I wont pretend to have read the 800ish posts." Vs "this entire thread is like...."  Made me laugh and represents quite a mental journey.
> 
> I think, if you had taken some time to read the thread, you would find that there is quite a bit of discussion about the various styles of karate and what makes some (like kyokushin) more reliably effective than others.



I have not read every single page but I've read the last several.  I think it's a bit silly to say you need to read every post in a 14-year-old thread before being able to comment in that thread.

Do you not consider Kyokushin to be "traditional karate"?  How about other karate styles where pad work and free sparring are common facets of training?  Because in the last several pages, people are using "traditional karate" and "competition" as antonyms.  And I take some issue with those posts.


----------



## Steve

Mitlov said:


> I have not read every single page but I've read the last several.  I think it's a bit silly to say you need to read every post in a 14-year-old thread before being able to comment in that thread.
> 
> Do you not consider Kyokushin to be "traditional karate"?  How about other karate styles where pad work and free sparring are common facets of training?  Because in the last several pages, people are using "traditional karate" and "competition" as antonyms.  And I take some issue with those posts.


Look, man.  You started the post saying, "I won't pretend I've read all 800ish posts spanning 14 years...."  You end your post with a sweeping generalization of the entire thread.   I'm not saying you have to read every post.  I'm saying it's hilarious that in the same post you declare that you haven't read the entire thread and also presume to critique, literally, the entire thread.  I mean, you literally say, "This *entire* thread...."  That's genuinely funny.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> And while it is _possible _to become skilled at the specialization of assembling engines at high speed, but not any good at getting it right enough for actual work, it's most likely that you get better at both.


Yes but the competition still isn't isn't the thing you are competing at, which was the point.

For some reason some people are making the distinction between 'competitive' fighting and fighting, and disregarding the former for (????)reasons(???). They are both the same thing.

If anything, the competitive fight is MORE 'real' than the 2 minute chance encounter with the drunken shlub with the haymaker that tires after a minute(most "real" fights)


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> Yes but the competition still isn't isn't the thing you are competing at, which was the point.
> 
> For some reason some people are making the distinction between 'competitive' fighting and fighting, and disregarding the former for (????)reasons(???). They are both the same thing.
> 
> If anything, the competitive fight is MORE 'real' than the 2 minute chance encounter with the drunken shlub with the haymaker that tires after a minute(most "real" fights)


Totally.  A professional firefighter is THE guy I want at my BBQ when my neighbor sets his deck on fire trying to fry a turkey.


----------



## Mitlov

Steve said:


> Totally.  A professional firefighter is THE guy I want at my BBQ when my neighbor sets his deck on fire trying to fry a turkey.



Though many of those professional firefighters have no involvement in firefighter competition, and those competitions are far from the be-all-end-all of practical firefighting training.


----------



## Steve

Mitlov said:


> Though many of those professional firefighters have no involvement in firefighter competition, and those competitions are far from the be-all-end-all of practical firefighting training.


ah, I can see how you might be confused.   professional firefighters fight fires. Professional fighters fight.  Professional self defense experts do what?  They generally teach... something.  Karate, maybe?


----------



## Michele123

I may be ay off here.  I’ve read the whole thread but here is a lot in his thread.  There seems to be a lot of criticism of kata.  To me, kata is like the alphabet.  Does knowing the alphabet mean that you can immediately start spelling?  No.  But it’s a large stepping stone.  You need to know your letters before you can put them together to make words.  The alphabet is a string of letters put together, seem Nguyen at random but isn’t a word itself.  However, the alphabet helps people to remember all the letters available to make words.  How many of you occasionally sing part of the alphabet in your head when alphabetizing something?

Likewise, I see kata as a way to practice and remember specific techniques.  It helps to teach transitions and encourages a person to think about application.  Would you do a specific kata in a fight?  Hardly.  But the refining of techniques, the transitions of one to another, and of course the techniques themselves are the building blocks to application.  They are the letters, if you will.  As such, they are valuable when understood as such and used appropriately.

Just my 2¢


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Flying Crane

I personally think that a whole lot of people need to get over themselves and stop worrying about how everyone else is training.

If what you do works for you and you enjoy it, then keep doing it.  

The rest is immaterial.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> I personally think that a whole lot of people need to get over themselves and stop worrying about how everyone else is training.
> 
> If what you do works for you and you enjoy it, then keep doing it.
> 
> The rest is immaterial.


It would sure make the discussion forum dull, like a bunch of teenagers at a party, sitting around in the same room quietly reading reddit.  

There’s no reason one cannot discuss martial arts on a macro level, and not give one **** what you do or how you train.   It’s pretty easy, actually.


----------



## Steve

Michele123 said:


> I may be ay off here.  I’ve read the whole thread but here is a lot in his thread.  There seems to be a lot of criticism of kata.  To me, kata is like the alphabet.  Does knowing the alphabet mean that you can immediately start spelling?  No.  But it’s a large stepping stone.  You need to know your letters before you can put them together to make words.  The alphabet is a string of letters put together, seem Nguyen at random but isn’t a word itself.  However, the alphabet helps people to remember all the letters available to make words.  How many of you occasionally sing part of the alphabet in your head when alphabetizing something?
> 
> Likewise, I see kata as a way to practice and remember specific techniques.  It helps to teach transitions and encourages a person to think about application.  Would you do a specific kata in a fight?  Hardly.  But the refining of techniques, the transitions of one to another, and of course the techniques themselves are the building blocks to application.  They are the letters, if you will.  As such, they are valuable when understood as such and used appropriately.
> 
> Just my 2¢
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


you can learn the alphabet of a language in a few days, But you will never understand that language until you speak it, with other people who are fluent.   Fighting is like that, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Yes but the competition still isn't isn't the thing you are competing at, which was the point.
> 
> For some reason some people are making the distinction between 'competitive' fighting and fighting, and disregarding the former for (????)reasons(???). They are both the same thing.
> 
> If anything, the competitive fight is MORE 'real' than the 2 minute chance encounter with the drunken shlub with the haymaker that tires after a minute(most "real" fights)


Agreed. I've said before - and doubtless will again - that there's more overlap than difference between "street" and something like MMA. Training for hard competition should build skills that are useful in physically defending yourself outside that competition.


----------



## Mitlov

Steve said:


> It would sure make the discussion forum dull, like a bunch of teenagers at a party, sitting around in the same room quietly reading reddit.
> 
> There’s no reason one cannot discuss martial arts on a macro level, and not give one **** what you do or how you train.   It’s pretty easy, actually.



I doubt any of the karateka here want a forum where there's no debate at a macro level.  But I think there's are huge differences between (1) treating karate as a singular monolithic thing, and acknowledging that there are a whole host of different training approaches and teaching styles within "karate," and (2) saying "karate is not effective, and people should quit karate and train in MMA [or whatever] instead," and saying "here are more effective and less effective ways of training in karate for X particular goal."

It's not that karateka want no debate about karate at a macro level.  It's about knowing the difference between style-bashing and constructive, nuanced debate about particular training methods for particular goals.


----------



## Steve

Mitlov said:


> I doubt any of the karateka here want a forum where there's no debate at a macro level.  But I think there's are huge differences between (1) treating karate as a singular monolithic thing, and acknowledging that there are a whole host of different training approaches and teaching styles within "karate," and (2) saying "karate is not effective, and people should quit karate and train in MMA [or whatever] instead," and saying "here are more effective and less effective ways of training in karate for X particular goal."
> 
> It's not that karateka want no debate about karate at a macro level.  It's about knowing the difference between style-bashing and constructive, nuanced debate about particular training methods for particular goals.


I think you’re right.  But you’re saying it like it’s not an obvious given.   

Im pretty sure, if you took some time in this thread and in most others, you’d find plenty of examples of people being more specific, and not treating karate as a singular, monolithic thing.   I said so earlier, and it seems like you just ignored it.  

Also, I’m pretty sure no one is suggesting anyone quit anything.  If you’re looking to learn how to fight and don’t do any fighting, you are probably going to be disappointed, but that’s truly your problem and no one else’s.    Now, if you do train in one of the styles of karate known to produce solid fighters, such as kyokushin, good in ya.   

If you’re going to last around here, I’d recommend getting that chip off your shoulder.   There are a lot of different perspectives around here.   I’m sure you’ll find plenty to legitimately get worked up about.  I just don’t think this is one of them.


----------



## Mitlov

Steve said:


> I think you’re right.  But you’re saying it like it’s not an obvious given.
> 
> Im pretty sure, if you took some time in this thread and in most others, you’d find plenty of examples of people being more specific, and not treating karate as a singular, monolithic thing.   I said so earlier, and it seems like you just ignored it.
> 
> Also, I’m pretty sure no one is suggesting anyone quit anything.  If you’re looking to learn how to fight and don’t do any fighting, you are probably going to be disappointed, but that’s truly your problem and no one else’s.    Now, if you do train in one of the styles of karate known to produce solid fighters, such as kyokushin, good in ya.
> 
> If you’re going to last around here, I’d recommend getting that chip off your shoulder.   There are a lot of different perspectives around here.   I’m sure you’ll find plenty to legitimately get worked up about.  I just don’t think this is one of them.



While some of the recent posts in this thread distinguish between different types of karate, many others do not, like DropBear's post where he showed video of unrealistic one-steps and held it up as representative of all karate.  Or your sarcastic quip "ah, I can see how you might be confused. professional firefighters fight fires. Professional fighters fight. Professional self defense experts do what? They generally teach... something. Karate, maybe?"

I'm not worried about "making it here."  If you're worried about it, feel free to check my post history in this forum, the TKD, and the general forum.  I think I'm getting along just fine with most people.  I will admit that people who post in Style X forums (when they don't even train in Style X) about how Style X is inferior to Style Y, are a pet peeve of mine.  Like I said, constructive nuanced discussion doesn't bother me even if it's critical.  Sarcastic quips about entire styles and stereotyping aren't my favorite.  But it's not like I'm screaming to the mods or anything, I'm just saying "come on guys, are these sorts of comments actually productive?"

If you're asking about my personal background, been doing one thing or another since 1995.  I currently train in Chuck Norris' offshoot of Tang Soo Do.  At my local club, padwork is a significant staple of daily practice, and free-sparring practice is weekly (our competition rules are point-stop, but our in-club sparring practice is much more continuous, with the intensity of contact dialed up or dialed down depending on who you're sparring with).  Before that, I've previously trained in Shotokan karate (liked the body mechanics, but not the approach to class structure with the relative lack of padwork and free-sparring in my particular JKA region) and TKD (had an absolute blast, and I knew full well that the sparring rules weren't "realistic" and it didn't keep me up at night).  Also spent about eight years training and competing in Olympic-style epee fencing.

My two sons train at the same school I train at, which is a blast.  I appreciate that this style can be dialed up or down in intensity to fit the ages and fitness levels of the individuals involved, instead of being either "mellow for everyone" or "competitive fight training for everyone."  The level of contact I'm personally comfortable with isn't remotely appropriate for my nine-year-old son, for example, nor would it be appropriate for a sixty-something with preexisting back or joint problems.

Since you mentioned Kyokushin, I have a ton of respect for it, I love watching videos from Kyokushin competition on YouTube (from a spectator perspective, it's probably my favorite combat sport), and I definitely would consider trying it out sometime if it was local to me (it isn't).  At the same time, a lot of non-karate people have the attitude that the _only_ worthwhile styles of karate are knockdown karate, and I don't agree with that at all.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> I think you’re right.  But you’re saying it like it’s not an obvious given.
> 
> Im pretty sure, if you took some time in this thread and in most others, you’d find plenty of examples of people being more specific, and not treating karate as a singular, monolithic thing.   I said so earlier, and it seems like you just ignored it.
> 
> Also, I’m pretty sure no one is suggesting anyone quit anything.  If you’re looking to learn how to fight and don’t do any fighting, you are probably going to be disappointed, but that’s truly your problem and no one else’s.    Now, if you do train in one of the styles of karate known to produce solid fighters, such as kyokushin, good in ya.
> 
> If you’re going to last around here, I’d recommend getting that chip off your shoulder.   There are a lot of different perspectives around here.   I’m sure you’ll find plenty to legitimately get worked up about.  I just don’t think this is one of them.



Oh, I don’t know. If I was new here I’d probably be all worked up about what you said a couple of posts back. When you said...

“Professional fighters fight. Profession self defense experts do what. They generally teach...something. Karate, maybe.”

Probably tongue in cheek, you being such a scamp and all, but kind of a shot against us Karate guys.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> Oh, I don’t know. If I was new here I’d probably be all worked up about what you said a couple of posts back. When you said...
> 
> “Professional fighters fight. Profession self defense experts do what. They generally teach...something. Karate, maybe.”
> 
> Probably tongue in cheek, you being such a scamp and all, but kind of a shot against us Karate guys.


Maybe so.  I could have said rbsd, ninjutsu, karate, wing chun.   I am a bit of a scamp.   I said karate, because this is a thread about karate and self defense.

Edit.  To be more clear, it could be any style.   You can’t teach self defense, because you can’t practice it.   You can teach karate.  You can teach mma.   Self defense is an abstract.


----------



## Steve

Mitlov said:


> While some of the recent posts in this thread distinguish between different types of karate, many others do not, like DropBear's post where he showed video of unrealistic one-steps and held it up as representative of all karate.  Or your sarcastic quip "ah, I can see how you might be confused. professional firefighters fight fires. Professional fighters fight. Professional self defense experts do what? They generally teach... something. Karate, maybe?"
> 
> I'm not worried about "making it here."  If you're worried about it, feel free to check my post history in this forum, the TKD, and the general forum.  I think I'm getting along just fine with most people.  I will admit that people who post in Style X forums (when they don't even train in Style X) about how Style X is inferior to Style Y, are a pet peeve of mine.  Like I said, constructive nuanced discussion doesn't bother me even if it's critical.  Sarcastic quips about entire styles and stereotyping aren't my favorite.  But it's not like I'm screaming to the mods or anything, I'm just saying "come on guys, are these sorts of comments actually productive?"
> 
> If you're asking about my personal background, been doing one thing or another since 1995.  I currently train in Chuck Norris' offshoot of Tang Soo Do.  At my local club, padwork is a significant staple of daily practice, and free-sparring practice is weekly (our competition rules are point-stop, but our in-club sparring practice is much more continuous, with the intensity of contact dialed up or dialed down depending on who you're sparring with).  Before that, I've previously trained in Shotokan karate (liked the body mechanics, but not the approach to class structure with the relative lack of padwork and free-sparring in my particular JKA region) and TKD (had an absolute blast, and I knew full well that the sparring rules weren't "realistic" and it didn't keep me up at night).  Also spent about eight years training and competing in Olympic-style epee fencing.
> 
> My two sons train at the same school I train at, which is a blast.  I appreciate that this style can be dialed up or down in intensity to fit the ages and fitness levels of the individuals involved, instead of being either "mellow for everyone" or "competitive fight training for everyone."  The level of contact I'm personally comfortable with isn't remotely appropriate for my nine-year-old son, for example, nor would it be appropriate for a sixty-something with preexisting back or joint problems.
> 
> Since you mentioned Kyokushin, I have a ton of respect for it, I love watching videos from Kyokushin competition on YouTube (from a spectator perspective, it's probably my favorite combat sport), and I definitely would consider trying it out sometime if it was local to me (it isn't).  At the same time, a lot of non-karate people have the attitude that the _only_ worthwhile styles of karate are knockdown karate, and I don't agree with that at all.


Yeah, I went back to read your other posts.  You’ve come a long way from extolling the virtues of machida and his radical new approach to training shotokan karate.   Something must have happened recently that really got under your skin, because you’re posting like the typical, disrespected newbie.   

I think any style you want to train and enjoy is fine for you.   But you aren’t going to get very good at doing something unless you do that thing.  

And, fwiw, I would never ask what your background is.   I don’t want or expect your resume.  I’m responding to your general demeanor.  

I have always wanted to learn to fence.   It looks like a blast.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> I personally think that a whole lot of people need to get over themselves and stop worrying about how everyone else is training.
> 
> If what you do works for you and you enjoy it, then keep doing it.
> 
> The rest is immaterial.



I agree. Which is why I have become a tai chi instructor.

So we are totally like brothers now.


----------



## Mitlov

Steve said:


> Yeah, I went back to read your other posts.  You’ve come a long way from extolling the virtues of machida and his radical new approach to training shotokan karate.   Something must have happened recently that really got under your skin, because you’re posting like the typical, disrespected newbie.
> 
> I think any style you want to train and enjoy is fine for you.   But you aren’t going to get very good at doing something unless you do that thing.
> 
> And, fwiw, I would never ask what your background is.   I don’t want or expect your resume.  I’m responding to your general demeanor.
> 
> I have always wanted to learn to fence.   It looks like a blast.



Maybe my posts in this thread sound like "a disrespected newbie."  And maybe a couple posters in this thread are coming off as the typical BJJ or MMA enthusiasts who troll karate forums for fun (see the post directly above this one). Maybe it's a little bit of both.  Hopefully in neither your case or mine it's a reflection of our intent or our overall approach to talking about martial arts.

I disagree that you "can't teach self defense" just because you can't exactly replicate it in training.  You can't exactly replicate being in space until you're there, but we still find ways to approximate it for purposes of training astronauts.  They're imperfect but better than nothing.

Fighting ability comes from resistant, alive training with realistic parameters.  But that's not always the same as sport competition.  It sometimes is, sometimes isn't.  You can have resistant, alive training with realistic parameters without sport competition (law enforcement defensive tactics training springs to mind as a common example), and you can have combat sport competition where the parameters and tactics of the combat sport severely limit its defensive utility (fencing training for a fistfight is an extreme example, but BJJ against a knife is another one).


----------



## drop bear

Mitlov said:


> Maybe my posts in this thread sound like "a disrespected newbie."  And maybe a couple posters in this thread are coming off as the typical BJJ or MMA enthusiasts who troll karate forums for fun (see the post directly above this one). Maybe it's a little bit of both.  Hopefully in neither your case or mine it's a reflection of our intent or our overall approach to talking about martial arts.
> 
> I disagree that you "can't teach self defense" just because you can't exactly replicate it in training.  You can't exactly replicate being in space until you're there, but we still find ways to approximate it for purposes of training astronauts.  They're imperfect but better than nothing.
> 
> Fighting ability comes from resistant, alive training with realistic parameters.  But that's not always the same as sport competition.  It sometimes is, sometimes isn't.  You can have resistant, alive training with realistic parameters without sport competition (law enforcement defensive tactics training springs to mind as a common example), and you can have combat sport competition where the parameters and tactics of the combat sport severely limit its defensive utility (fencing training for a fistfight is an extreme example, but BJJ against a knife is another one).



Competition is quality control for live testing. It sets the skill level.

Otherwise there is too much variance to get a consistent result.


----------



## Steve

Mitlov said:


> Maybe my posts in this thread sound like "a disrespected newbie."  And maybe a couple posters in this thread are coming off as the typical BJJ or MMA enthusiasts who troll karate forums for fun (see the post directly above this one). Maybe it's a little bit of both.  Hopefully in neither your case or mine it's a reflection of our intent or our overall approach to talking about martial arts.
> 
> I disagree that you "can't teach self defense" just because you can't exactly replicate it in training.  You can't exactly replicate being in space until you're there, but we still find ways to approximate it for purposes of training astronauts.  They're imperfect but better than nothing.
> 
> Fighting ability comes from resistant, alive training with realistic parameters.  But that's not always the same as sport competition.  It sometimes is, sometimes isn't.  You can have resistant, alive training with realistic parameters without sport competition (law enforcement defensive tactics training springs to mind as a common example), and you can have combat sport competition where the parameters and tactics of the combat sport severely limit its defensive utility (fencing training for a fistfight is an extreme example, but BJJ against a knife is another one).


Are all of the people who learn self defense Leo?  I think most aren’t.   Any example of effective training programs will be intrinsically linked to the application of those techniques.


----------



## Mitlov

drop bear said:


> Competition is quality control for live testing. It sets the skill level.
> 
> Otherwise there is too much variance to get a consistent result.



Competition may introduce an aspect of "quality control," but it also injects into live testing the desire to engage in, for lack of a better term, exploitation of those rules in a way that makes no sense outside of those rules.  I mean stuff like the flick in modern fencing (which, as classical fencers point out, makes no sense with an actual blade instead of an electronic scoring tip), how Greco-Roman wrestlers will deliberately try to stay face down on the ground like at 4:25 here, etc.






I'm going to offer two examples of live karate training against a resistant opponent.  One is based around competition rule-set.  One is based around a "push each other but don't injure each other" informal approach.  Which of these two examples do you think is better at building practical fighting skill?  Competition is certainly not inherently bad, but it's not inherently better either, at least in my opinion.


----------



## Steve

In the absence of another application, competition is the best option.   Said the other way,  most people are not cops or bouncers or professionally violent people.  

 Training in a school without competition is like learning to walk a tightrope, with the tightrope laying on the ground.   If you fall, no biggie, because you can’t actually fall.   And the tension of the tightrope is off, because you aren’t actually walking a tightrope.  You are approximating the experience of tightrope walking by putting a rope in between you and the ground and calling it good.

Now, you can wrap this training up in the trappings of tightrope walking, with the entire cirque de Soleil vibe...  tights, shoes, acrobats in the back, and really stirring music. 

Training to fight without application is like training to walk the tightrope, hoping that one day, without warning, you are 200 ft in the air with no net, and can make it from one side of the rope to the other without falling. 

Competition is the net.  OJT is another net.   You don’t expect a private fresh out of boot camp to lead the platoon.   You can’t reasonably expect a black belt to fight. 

The key is to avoid getting caught up in individual anecdotes.  On an individual level, you can find an example of anything.   On a large scale, however, it’s pretty clear which training models produce reliable results, and they all have consistent traits regardless of the window dressing.


----------



## Steve

Mitlov said:


> Competition may introduce an aspect of "quality control," but it also injects into live testing the desire to engage in, for lack of a better term, exploitation of those rules in a way that makes no sense outside of those rules.  I mean stuff like the flick in modern fencing (which, as classical fencers point out, makes no sense with an actual blade instead of an electronic scoring tip), how Greco-Roman wrestlers will deliberately try to stay face down on the ground like at 4:25 here, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to offer two examples of live karate training against a resistant opponent.  One is based around competition rule-set.  One is based around a "push each other but don't injure each other" informal approach.  Which of these two examples do you think is better at building practical fighting skill?  Competition is certainly not inherently bad, but it's not inherently better either, at least in my opinion.


I think the athletes in the second clip will be better prepared than the guys in the first.    Nothing wrong with what the guys were doing, but that’s good training, not good application.  I’d hope that the women in the second clip also train like the men in the first.


----------



## drop bear

Mitlov said:


> Competition may introduce an aspect of "quality control," but it also injects into live testing the desire to engage in, for lack of a better term, exploitation of those rules in a way that makes no sense outside of those rules.  I mean stuff like the flick in modern fencing (which, as classical fencers point out, makes no sense with an actual blade instead of an electronic scoring tip), how Greco-Roman wrestlers will deliberately try to stay face down on the ground like at 4:25 here, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to offer two examples of live karate training against a resistant opponent.  One is based around competition rule-set.  One is based around a "push each other but don't injure each other" informal approach.  Which of these two examples do you think is better at building practical fighting skill?  Competition is certainly not inherently bad, but it's not inherently better either, at least in my opinion.



You should be able to do both. Rule sets develop the ability to problem solve.


----------



## Mitlov

Steve said:


> I think the athletes in the second clip will be better prepared than the guys in the first.    Nothing wrong with what the guys were doing, but that’s good training, not good application.  I’d hope that the women in the second clip also train like the men in the first.





drop bear said:


> You should be able to do both. Rule sets develop the ability to problem solve.



There's technical sparring within a competitive rule set, and technical sparring not constrained by the competitive rule set.  Every competitive club does the former, but the more focused on competition a club is, the less likely the latter is to ever occur.  That's why you never see boxers at a boxing gym using kicks or takedowns during technical sparring, right?

If you're competing at an international level, you are obviously doing lots of technical sparring, but likely none outside of your competitive rule set.  Jack of all trades is master of none, and all that  This is true of boxing, it's true of Olympic style fencing, it's true of WKF karate (the clubs that also train in continuous sparring are not going to be at the top of the competitive circuit), and it's true of Kyokushin (the clubs that also train in head-punching and defense thereto are not going to be at the top of the competitive circuit).

Focusing your training on winning competition almost always means not diluting your training with stuff that isn't applicable to your competitive rule set.  The people in the former video can complete in the latter, but likely won't dominate.  The people who are focused on winning the latter are not going to dilute their training with the former.


----------



## drop bear

Mitlov said:


> There's technical sparring within a competitive rule set, and technical sparring not constrained by the competitive rule set.  Every competitive club does the former, but the more focused on competition a club is, the less likely the latter is to ever occur.  That's why you never see boxers at a boxing gym using kicks or takedowns during technical sparring, right?
> 
> If you're competing at an international level, you are obviously doing lots of technical sparring, but likely none outside of your competitive rule set.  Jack of all trades is master of none, and all that  This is true of boxing, it's true of Olympic style fencing, it's true of WKF karate (the clubs that also train in continuous sparring are not going to be at the top of the competitive circuit), and it's true of Kyokushin (the clubs that also train in head-punching and defense thereto are not going to be at the top of the competitive circuit).
> 
> Focusing your training on winning competition almost always means not diluting your training with stuff that isn't applicable to your competitive rule set.  The people in the former video can complete in the latter, but likely won't dominate.  The people who are focused on winning the latter are not going to dilute their training with the former.



You don't find champion, boxers, kick boxers wrestlers, mmaers or jitsers at your local self defence sparring either. 

So their self defence focused sparring validates its success on guys that can't fight. 

Which means you get all these gifts you wouldn't get from a guy who knew how to box kickbox and so on.


----------



## drop bear

Mitlov said:


> Focusing your training on winning competition almost always means not diluting your training with stuff that isn't applicable to your competitive rule set. The people in the former video can complete in the latter, but likely won't dominate. The people who are focused on winning the latter are not going to dilute their training with the former.



And no. I haven't found that to be the case. I can't think of a sports club that doesn't also do self defence.

That is why schools like BJJ have the bully proof and cop systems.

Our local karate champion is also a pretty mean jitser. 

One of our boxers single legged me the other day.

And one of our jitsers swung off a rope to pass guard.


----------



## Steve

Mitlov said:


> There's technical sparring within a competitive rule set, and technical sparring not constrained by the competitive rule set.  Every competitive club does the former, but the more focused on competition a club is, the less likely the latter is to ever occur.  That's why you never see boxers at a boxing gym using kicks or takedowns during technical sparring, right?
> 
> If you're competing at an international level, you are obviously doing lots of technical sparring, but likely none outside of your competitive rule set.  Jack of all trades is master of none, and all that  This is true of boxing, it's true of Olympic style fencing, it's true of WKF karate (the clubs that also train in continuous sparring are not going to be at the top of the competitive circuit), and it's true of Kyokushin (the clubs that also train in head-punching and defense thereto are not going to be at the top of the competitive circuit).
> 
> Focusing your training on winning competition almost always means not diluting your training with stuff that isn't applicable to your competitive rule set.  The people in the former video can complete in the latter, but likely won't dominate.  The people who are focused on winning the latter are not going to dilute their training with the former.


That’s true.   If a boxer is interested in self defense, he or she would be well advised to expand the focus of his or her training.   The key is that this person is building on well developed skills.

You’re missing my point, I think because you’re focusing on what you think I’m saying and not what I’m actually saying.   I’m not talking about the quality of the training.   I’m talking about what happens after training.


----------



## gucia6

Steve said:


> Maybe so.  I could have said rbsd, ninjutsu, karate, wing chun.   I am a bit of a scamp.   I said karate, because this is a thread about karate and self defense.
> 
> Edit.  To be more clear, it could be any style.   You can’t teach self defense, because you can’t practice it.   You can teach karate.  You can teach mma.   Self defense is an abstract.


I think the most important is to realize what self defense is?

I was taught by my father (ex-policeman) since I was little girl, that in case I ever was assaulted I should run as a wind and if I was not able to do so, I should kick, scratch, bite, do anything that would let me free myself (and especially this scratching stays in my memory, so that there is piece of opponents body behind the fingernails for the DNA testing... jeez ).

At my school even thou we practice karate and jujitsu forms and have some light sparring it is just "for fun" and rather to practice limits of own body movements. But part of our curriculum is self defense teaching and the main point of it is "Run from danger if you can. Engage only if you have no choice and do anything you can to get away."

Two different sources told decades away, but having the same meaning. And maybe MA does not teach self-defense directly it gives  you more chances for self defensing in real life situation thanks to improved flexibility, strength, reflexes, etc.


----------



## Deleted member 34973

Mitlov said:


> Maybe



You will find that its always pretty much the same individuals, regurgitating the same spill. Just avoid them...it will be far more pleasant.

Unfortunately, they have pretty much ran off most of the knowledgeable people...with their competition mantra.

Good luck to you.


----------



## Martial D

Guthrie said:


> regurgitating the same spill. .



Irony is great, isn't it? In your what, 1 week here? You've made the exact same post about 50 times.


----------



## Steve

gucia6 said:


> I think the most important is to realize what self defense is?
> 
> I was taught by my father (ex-policeman) since I was little girl, that in case I ever was assaulted I should run as a wind and if I was not able to do so, I should kick, scratch, bite, do anything that would let me free myself (and especially this scratching stays in my memory, so that there is piece of opponents body behind the fingernails for the DNA testing... jeez ).
> 
> At my school even thou we practice karate and jujitsu forms and have some light sparring it is just "for fun" and rather to practice limits of own body movements. But part of our curriculum is self defense teaching and the main point of it is "Run from danger if you can. Engage only if you have no choice and do anything you can to get away."
> 
> Two different sources told decades away, but having the same meaning. And maybe MA does not teach self-defense directly it gives  you more chances for self defensing in real life situation thanks to improved flexibility, strength, reflexes, etc.


That’s a tough question.  What is self defense?  Really depends on who you ask and when.   I don’t disagree with the advise, though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You don't find champion, boxers, kick boxers wrestlers, mmaers or jitsers at your local self defence sparring either.
> 
> So their self defence focused sparring validates its success on guys that can't fight.
> 
> Which means you get all these gifts you wouldn't get from a guy who knew how to box kickbox and so on.


There's a HUGE gap between champion competitors and "guys that can't fight". Lots of people in that gap.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> There's a HUGE gap between champion competitors and "guys that can't fight". Lots of people in that gap.



There is a trickle down effect in martial arts though. So the champions influence the guys who can fight who influence the guys who can't.

So then a person who can't fight is still at least moving in the right direction and being influenced by people wh have a working knowledge of their own artform.

I mean we get this on here all the time when someone comes in and says he is training his own made up system with his friends in the back yard.

And all the posters who argue these points about not needing this top down competency suddenly flip and say you can't progress effectively like that.

This Idea behind competition is the same as the idea than you can't train yourself in a vacuum. There has to be an external testing mechanism.

if I spar like this and even if i towel up everyone in the room. I wont get any good. I will just get better than these guys.






And yes there is a huge gap. And that is my point. Even getting a guy with some sort of functional fighting skill would do a class a world of wonders.

The dud from this class. Whould improve that krav class a thousand percent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There is a trickle down effect in martial arts though. So the champions influence the guys who can fight who influence the guys who can't.
> 
> So then a person who can't fight is still at least moving in the right direction and being influenced by people wh have a working knowledge of their own artform.
> 
> I mean we get this on here all the time when someone comes in and says he is training his own made up system with his friends in the back yard.
> 
> And all the posters who argue these points about not needing this top down competency suddenly flip and say you can't progress effectively like that.
> 
> This Idea behind competition is the same as the idea than you can't train yourself in a vacuum. There has to be an external testing mechanism.
> 
> if I spar like this and even if i towel up everyone in the room. I wont get any good. I will just get better than these guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes there is a huge gap. And that is my point. Even getting a guy with some sort of functional fighting skill would do a class a world of wonders.
> 
> The dud from this class. Whould improve that krav class a thousand percent.


Agreed. But that doesn’t change the fact that not having champions around doesn’t mean people are training only with guys who can’t fight, a binary proposition in your previous post. 

It’s a good idea to get around - even intermittently - folks who get more application time. Whether that’s competitors or guys like the prison guard I got to train with last week.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. But that doesn’t change the fact that not having champions around doesn’t mean people are training only with guys who can’t fight, a binary proposition in your previous post.
> 
> It’s a good idea to get around - even intermittently - folks who get more application time. Whether that’s competitors or guys like the prison guard I got to train with last week.


Good idea, sure.  Might expose some skill gaps, but you can't develop skill through osmosis.   What you describe above could work if the exposire to these folks is frequent, regular, and competitive.  In iother words, you won't get much benefit from a friendly sharing of ideas.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. But that doesn’t change the fact that not having champions around doesn’t mean people are training only with guys who can’t fight, a binary proposition in your previous post.
> 
> It’s a good idea to get around - even intermittently - folks who get more application time. Whether that’s competitors or guys like the prison guard I got to train with last week.



honestly rule of thumb. it kind of does.


----------



## hoshin1600

drop bear said:


> if I spar like this and even if i towel up everyone in the room. I wont get any good. I will just get better than these guys.


I think the difficult part for some people is having the experience. I feel many people will watch the clips you posted and not even recognize there is a difference and how that difference manifests itself.  The shotokan/TKD thread and clip show an even greater gap.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Good idea, sure.  Might expose some skill gaps, but you can't develop skill through osmosis.   What you describe above could work if the exposire to these folks is frequent, regular, and competitive.  In iother words, you won't get much benefit from a friendly sharing of ideas.


Getting around them won't fix skill gaps, but can confirm or disconfirm where you think you are with your ability. If the standard of training is good, intermittent confirmation is useful. If the training isn't good, the intermittent disconfirmation won't do much good, except to suggest something needs changing. Friendly exchanges of ideas have a different value - agreed, though I'd argue with good training there's a lot to be gained from that friendly exchange from a distinctly different source.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Getting around them won't fix skill gaps, but can confirm or disconfirm where you think you are with your ability. If the standard of training is good, intermittent confirmation is useful. If the training isn't good, the intermittent disconfirmation won't do much good, except to suggest something needs changing. Friendly exchanges of ideas have a different value - agreed, though I'd argue with good training there's a lot to be gained from that friendly exchange from a distinctly different source.


I think there's very limited value in this.  Look at thr tkd vs karate video thread.   They were sparring but it was very polite and civilized.   That isn't application .  it's fun and can be great from a relationship perspective. But it isn't all that useful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> honestly rule of thumb. it kind of does.


Perhaps in your experience. I've run into a number of folks who were "good" but not champions, nor anything like it. Some had competed and did..okay. Others hadn't (or hadn't much, or not in a while). I'd agree that there's typically a gap between groups that train with and around champions and those that don't, but a lot of non-champions manage to be pretty good.


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> There is a trickle down effect in martial arts though. So the champions influence the guys who can fight who influence the guys who can't.
> 
> So then a person who can't fight is still at least moving in the right direction and being influenced by people wh have a working knowledge of their own artform.
> 
> I mean we get this on here all the time when someone comes in and says he is training his own made up system with his friends in the back yard.
> 
> And all the posters who argue these points about not needing this top down competency suddenly flip and say you can't progress effectively like that.
> 
> This Idea behind competition is the same as the idea than you can't train yourself in a vacuum. There has to be an external testing mechanism.
> 
> if I spar like this and even if i towel up everyone in the room. I wont get any good. I will just get better than these guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes there is a huge gap. And that is my point. Even getting a guy with some sort of functional fighting skill would do a class a world of wonders.
> 
> The dud from this class. Whould improve that krav class a thousand percent.


The problem with criticizing videos like the first one is we have zero context.  They could be guys gearing up for the first time ever.  They could be following the directions of the teacher telling them 10% speed and power.  Or this could be their best effort and best fighters.  We have no idea.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m just as guilty of criticizing videos like that as the next guy.


----------



## Deleted member 34973

Martial D said:


> Irony is great, isn't it? In your what, 1 week here? You've made the exact same post about 50 times.



B.S..but you are definitely one of the bad ones. Thankfully...there is an ignore button for abusive bullies like yourself..


----------



## Steve

Guthrie said:


> B.S..but you are definitely one of the bad ones. Thankfully...there is an ignore button for abusive bullies like yourself..


I think you have an unconventional definition of the word 'bully.'


----------

