Define your style of Karate

[DaveB]

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

So essentially your techniques occupy the centre line?

 

[Touch Of Death]

So essentially your techniques occupy the centre line?

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

 

[DaveB]

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

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

 

[DaveB]

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

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

 

[Touch Of Death]

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

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

 

[Touch Of Death]

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

 

[MatsumuraKarate]

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

 

[DaveB]

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

How do you limit the opponent through movement?

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

 

[Buka]

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

How I move -

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

How that movement fits into a fight. -

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

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

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

 

[ShotoNoob]

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

 

[ShotoNoob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Star Dragon]

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

Some of its defining elements:

• Emphasis on circular stepping.
• Emphasis on 45° angular stepping.
• Fluidity of motion.
  
• Stances are comparatively high and mobile.
  
• Application of Dim Mak/Kyusho-jitsu.
• Blend of striking and grappling applications, with the former being stressed.
• Kicks generally held low.
  
• Ki training exercises.
• Emphasis on training with equipment.
  
• Partner training with protective gear.
  
• Openness to new ideas and insights.
• Inclusion of spiritual concepts.

 

[DaveB]

How I move -

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

How that movement fits into a fight. -

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

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

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

Hi Buka, thanks for replying.

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

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

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

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

 

[DaveB]

Hello Star Dragon. Thanks for replying.

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

 

[Star Dragon]

Hello Star Dragon. Thanks for replying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Buka]

Hi Buka, thanks for replying.

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

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

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

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

Hi Dave,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Touch Of Death]

Hi Dave,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Star Dragon]

Some additional remarks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this is clear now.

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

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

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

 

[Buka]

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

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

 

[DaveB]

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

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

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