TSDTexan
Master of Arts
That's awesome !!!
Problems with "traditional arts" part 2
- Thread starter KPM
- Start date
That's awesome !!!
Anarax
Master Black Belt
I think it's very uncommon and will usually be found at bad schools. Early on in my MA training kung fu students kept getting me with a leg kick and it was frustrating. After sparring I asked the instructor how to deal with leg kicks, he refused to offer any help or guidance. I can't say with certainty that it was based on some secretive dynamic of the style itself, or more so his personal preference to not give technical advice when asked.
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
two books by Marc De Bremaeker
I recommend "Stopkicks" and "Lowkicks".
Low kicks, because they should be in everyone's arsenal. And you will be able to kick low in your 80s.
And stopkicks.... a sub-art of kicking.... that should be kept secret.
My TKD friends hate sparing with me, because I can do every kick they can (but I don't) and yet I get a huge string of laughs as I systematically shut theirs down... and force them out of their comfort zone into punching. Which they admit they are bad at.
The ITF guys not so much, and they like to get throws off too.
And when they get rattled... its time to start tossing and throwing them.
Which looks a little like this.
Of course the solution is to have better hand game...
but that would be too much like karate for the Korean 1000 year old MA. (insert cheeky winkyface)
Most TKD kwans have overemphasized kicking, to the detriment of the art. For tournament scoring reasons.
The counter to just about every kick is a lowkick.
Here is some info you may want to incorporate.
Last edited:
Anarax
Master Black Belt
I appreciate the advice, but that was a very long time ago. Thankfully I've had amazing MA instructors since then and they taught me how to deal with leg kicks. FYI. I learned the kung fu students had no grappling game, so I just used single and double leg take-downs to nullify their leg kicks.
What an absolutely fantastically misinformed and downright incorrect comment.
It's actually astounding in how much it's being wrong.
Utterly, completely wrong.
It's so wrong I could legitimately name it Wrongy McWrongface. And then give it a badge that says "look at me, I'm wrong". After that, I could parade it around town proclaiming through a megaphone how wrong it is and people would laugh and point and throw rotten fruit at it.
As @jobo said, it's even physically impossible for it to have happened since at the time there was no rail link between England and mainland Europe, much less anything near "direct".
Did this happen when Hitler was governer-president of England?
Now, the British don't exactly have an unblemished history, and I'm certainly not going to deny that as a country things were done that I don't agree with and would never defend.
But really, you saying that England was the country responsible for the Jewish genocide that took place during ww2 is honestly a great big shining beacon of ignorance stuck to your head.
The best bit was how you totally ignored Jobo's comment.
(Of course, maybe you actually really did mean Germany and it was just a typo - I mean, the words look so similar.)
hoshin1600
Senior Master
jobo
Grandmaster
But you replied to my comments when you posted that blatant lie about the uk complicity in the holocaust
I like what Tiger Schulmann did. He evolved and took what was once Karate based and now teaches Muay Thai and BJJ. Probably one of the best chains that actually have good quality. I truly believe not all systems or styles are equal and some absolutely need modification to work in a modern fight.
Take several individuals that train for a year in Boxing or MT and several that train in a traditional WC or Karate. With high confidence the boxers will win because the art is better.
The only way to make WC work well is to modify it and youāll find thatās what the good ones do like Adam Chan, Tony Watts or Sifu Och.
Take several individuals that train for a year in Boxing or MT and several that train in a traditional WC or Karate. With high confidence the boxers will win because the art is better.
The only way to make WC work well is to modify it and youāll find thatās what the good ones do like Adam Chan, Tony Watts or Sifu Och.
In boxing, there are two things that seem to aid it, and one is inherent to the art (as it is today). Firstly, they're specialists. They really only have to learn punches and defenses against punches (plus the footwork, etc. that goes with that). Put 100 hours into learning punches, etc., then compare that to 100 hours of learning punches, kicks, etc. Clearly one will be more efficient for starting. The other advantage is in the training methods commonly used, and those can be employed by any art. They test what they do against each other. Whether in formal competition or not, this is a useful tool. This increases efficiency and such.
There is another area that's harder to figure out how to discuss. There are some things kept in Karate because, well, people like them. Some of those things aren't terribly efficient from a "learn to fight" standpoint, but they interest people so might be considered efficient from a "teach more people some skills" standpoint.
So, if we compared two people - a boxer and a Karateka who received "typical" Karate training - both having 100 hours of training time in a single year, how would they compare? Dunno. Would be interesting to find out. I suspect the boxer would be the superior fighter under most rulesets. But what if you trained the Karateka specifically for that end, rather than following what's typical (whatever that would be)? If the Karateka trained specifically for the upcoming competition for a year (as did the boxer), we might see a different, more evenly-matched, outcome.
This is very true.
For a striking art that doesn't have hook punch, uppercut, roundhouse kick, side kick, foot sweep, the striking art ability is limited.
It's not that hard to have a compete set of the striking tools in your toolbox. If you integrate the missing tools during your life time, you student won't have to do that.
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
One thing you left out about the boxer is the insane training regimen, and body conditioning.
Karate-ka usually doesn't train as athletically as Boxers. Nor do most brands of Karate do the conditioning of the body to withstand constant heavy blows to the body.
Your Shotokan tag karate guys dont do this.
So that should be factored in which leads us to ask:
What type of karate?
Goju, or Uechi ryu?
Kyokushin or another standup hardstyle?
Or Karate branch that competes in Kudo where all the sweeps, throws and locking are present.
Which is it... percussive karate, or grappling with strikes karate?
When taken to the endgame 15 to 20 years in...
15,000 to 20,000 thousand hours...
Would Mayweather done well in the UFC against an in his prime George St Pierre, Andy Hug, Joe Lewis Or Wonderboy Thompson?
Or a Prime Morio Higaonna or Kiyohide Shinjo (Mr 9 time All Okinawa Full Contact kumite, Undefeated Champ.)
How about in a no rules, NHB, no referee scenario.
On the street.
After such a long time, the boxing specialist has an opponent who has a vast arsenal, with depth of experience and will begin to find grappling is outside of his boxing skillset.
In much the same way groundfighting forced Standup strikers to evolve.
The 'Te practitioner stands between the Boxer, and the Judoka. Neither Boxer or Thrower Pure but a mixture of both.
Last edited:
MetalBoar
Black Belt
I think there are a lot of good points here.
I respect boxing by itself and I think there is also a lot of value in boxing techniques applied more broadly for use in other competitive martial sports, self defense, etc. If you really want to learn stand up striking with the hands it's hard to argue with boxing. I've done a little training in boxing and would definitely do more in the right circumstances.
That being said, I've sparred with people who were OK, if not great, boxers, who were actually fairly poor at free style sparring even if no kicks or ground work was allowed. They were too habituated to expect a particular rule set, big gloves, etc. and had a hard time adapting. I've also sparred with boxers who could clean my clock regardless of the rule set. I've never run into a boxer who wasn't at least kind of competent in a stand up contest, but I think a lot of that is training methodology and self selection.
Training:
@gpseymour touched on this, boxers do test what they've been studying and they specialize. There are real learning benefits to having a limited tool set (not a criticism) and trying it out on a resisting opponent. A limited tool set means that you actually have a chance to get good at what you do. One of the first MA styles I studied had what seemed like an infinite number of techniques and I never felt like there was time to get a handle on any of them. Boxing does not have this problem. Boxing also tends to have pretty intense training routines - a lot of cardio, a lot of bag work, it's hard to be in less than reasonable shape and still be a practicing boxer.
Boxing gyms are also far more frequently professional operations with trainers dedicated to really developing skills in their fighters. They want to produce winning fighters and take them pro, not make money off of a high volume continuous stream of hobbyists. Of course, walking distance from my house is a "boxing school" that doesn't do any sparring at all - just bag work and other drills focused on fitness. If we count that as boxing, which we should if we count "Tai Chi for health" as TCMA, I expect there are a lot of unskilled "boxers" out there.
Self selection:
You don't get a lot of people drawn to boxing who aren't OK with getting hit and hitting others. Because the training is intense, you don't get a lot of casual hobbyists in boxing, and those you do get either become serious or drop out.
Do these things make boxing a better art or do these things mean that it's more likely that the average person who is drawn to boxing and can stick with it is going to be a better fighter than the average practitioner of other arts? It's an important distinction when judging what is "best".
I also think gpseymour's point above ^^^ is really relevant to a lot of people and I know it is to me. Personally, I don't care if I'm training in some hypothetically "best" art. I want to do something that's fun and interesting. I'm not interested in learning something that's so watered down or re-focused that it no longer has reasonable combat applications, but I'll be honest, I'm nearly 50 and live in the US, if I felt like my life was regularly threatened I'd spend my time practicing with a hand gun.
Martial D
Senior Master
But we don't see that, at all. Karatekas that fight successfully in competition against non karatekas are a unicorn.
Sure, you could argue that most of them don't train right to prepare for actual fighting, but I don't think that's the case. I find it more likely that there is a higher skill bar to reach a level of practical functionality . .much higher...in things like Karate, Wing Chun, TKD, aikido etc etc than things like boxing or Mui Thai, that is, you will need much much more training, and of a wholly different sort than the typical fare.
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
I guess that makes, Choki Mutobu, Raymond "real deal" Daniels, Wonderboy Thompson, Machida and Andy Hug unicorns.
K1, and Shootfighting saw a number karateka thriving against other styles and arts.
There are plenty of Karate vs Muy Thai fights in which Karate make themselves known.
There are many fights on record of Karate against TKD, WC, Judo.
I think it would be better to say... Karateka are Uncommon in the competitive sport fighting scene.
At least in the semi-pro to pro level.
Yes, pre fight training methodologies play a huge role in that. While Karate can be made to work at a competitive combative sports discipline, that was never the intented purpose of it.
Karate was primarily intended to be a means of defense for self or others, and to reduce or eliminate becoming killed or injured in a fight, and as means of protecting targets as bodyguards, or subduing and controlling a suspected criminal by the Ryukyu officials (usually from the Pechin class) charged with enforcing the laws of the kingdom.
Last edited:
Actually, I didn't leave that out. That was my point about using similar training methods. Often, when folks compare sport-oriented arts like boxing, they compare me (30-40 years of relatively traditional MA training) to a serious amateur boxer with 5 years of experience and 10-20 recorded fights. They ignore that the amateur boxer they're citing is training for serious competition, and is putting in more effort and time into both his training and his fitness than I am. Yeah, in 5 years of intense training and fitness commitment, someone can become a better fighter than probably 10-20 years of less-intense training. As I age, my ability to keep up with a highly fit 20-something or 30-something decreases each year. As does my ability to maintain intensity, because my body is kind of crap. And I train in methods that are designed to allow me to maintain my training for a lifetime, so compromise some "right now" readiness.
Method of training matters, IMO, more than style. It's arguable whether method of training is part of a style, but I don't think it is. It's possible to train most arts with quite different methods, without losing the principles of the style. If the techniques are generally effective, then changing training methods (even adding or removing forms work) and testing outcomes more shouldn't change the art.
It should be. Time becomes an issue, as does commitment. If students won't train hard during regular drills, then it's hard to get enough fitness built into training time for those attending 2-3 hours a week (2 classes). I can deliver the same class to two pairs of students. If one student in one pair is slow and lethargic, that pair will probably never even get out of breath (the same would be true if that pair gets really intellectual and technical that day). If the other pair go at it with intensity, they'll get to sweat and get some real fitness benefit out of just training. Two different results from the same training session, same drills, etc. I've never found a reliable way to change that outcome.
Oh there is a higher skill bar - you're back to the specialization point. I don't think any of us would argue it's easier to learn an effective punch than an effective kick, and (to over-simplify it) the Karateka is learning both. Balance, alone, makes the kick more complex and difficult - and exposed. If I wasn't building a foundation for longer learning, I'd probably teach something for the first few months that would look a little like boxing. Footwork, punching, and related defense makes a reasonable start at self-defense, and can be achieved faster than adding in takedowns, ground defense, throws, kicks, etc.
I don't think the issue is that Karate was designed for SD. I suspect the larger issue is that Karate's curriculum and approach was largely developed for long-term study. If you started someone in their youth (when they don't really need the skills yet), you have years to get them to some useful level. And if you're not training for elite competition, there's really no need to focus down to just a small number of most-effective (or most-efficient) techniques - you have time to develop a larger range of techniques, which is more flexible perhaps, and definitely more interesting to some people.
now disabled
Master Black Belt
I don't think you can, You as the teacher can set things up but it is up to the individuals to put into it what they want, You cannot force them to go harder or longer or faster etc you can advise cajole and nudge but in the end it their choice and their path, you only provide the route map
