Shotokan for self defence.

[Mephisto]

Don't believe that for a moment.

Who cares, it's a public forum. Anyone is free to comment on any thread as long as it abides by forum policy.

 

[Flying Crane]

Who cares, it's a public forum. Anyone is free to comment on any thread as long as it abides by forum policy.

Yup, that's what I'm doing.

 

[Mephisto]

Yup, that's what I'm doing.

Yea but you're crying about Hanzou posting in this thread.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yea but you're crying about Hanzou posting in this thread.

You said anyone is free to comment on any thread. That's what I've done.

Are you now crying about me posting in this thread?

 

[jks9199]

All right, folks...

Bring it back on topic. That's the use of Shotokan karate for self defense. Not BJJ. Not who should participate. One of the rules here at MT is to stay on topic...

To refresh your memory, here is the OP:

In an earlier thread a member who claims to be 'highly ranked' in Shotokan was rubbishing it as being pretty much useless for 'real' fighting. My view has been that Shotokan, like most Japanese karate, has moved away from its roots in to a more competition based style of karate but here is an opinion that I came across that gives an alternate opinion.

You’re alone on a city street at night, the prey of an attacker determined to do you in. Without a hint of fear, he approaches you, demanding your money and threatening your life. Will you surrender and add your name to his list of victims? Or will you maintain control, fight back and turn the situation to your advantage?

Grapplers,Thai boxers and mixed-martial arts enthusiasts claim their techniques can help you escape such deadly confrontations — and they’re right. But they’re not your only options. Traditional arts such as shotokan karate can help you repel an attacker just as effectively.

For Street Self-Defense There Is No Better Martial Art Than Shotokan Karate 8211 - Black Belt

We have had numerous discussions on the value of kata, or forms, and again, our 'highly ranked' Shotokan practitioner is dismissive of any value of the kata.

The author of this article has a different view ...

Unfortunately, Rielly sees too many instructors teach self-defense but neglect the basics in favor of free sparring. “This is a mistake,” he warns. “The ability to free-spar or fight well is the result of training and should not be the primary means of training.”

Accordingly, shotokan students learn most of their self-defense moves through forms training. This approach doesn’t make sense to some people — especially beginners — but all shotokan forms are chock-full of self-defense applications.

Hmm! Those of you who have been around MT for some time might recall my comments on advanced beginners.

 

[Brummie]

Although I haven't a clue about shotokan as a style, I do find that nowadays people are constantly questioning the effectiveness of traditional martial arts in a self defence situation.

The way I try to think of it is, should I get attacked or involved in a fight, and the other person is trained in martial arts or fighting, which is probably highly unlikely, then it would be the best disciplined who would come out on top most probably.

However, I do think its unlikely that an attacker or common thug starting a brawl will be trained, or have a reasonable amount of training, therefore, all the hard work, effort and skill that we have learned would give us an advantage to help protect ourselves.

After all, I'd like to think most of us would avoid violence at all costs. And only when no other option is available would we utilise our training.

 

[Paul_D]

Although I haven't a clue about shotokan as a style, I do find that nowadays people are constantly questioning the effectiveness of traditional martial arts in a self defence situation.

I think this is mostly becasue they mistake fighting, MA and SD for the same thing, not realising that not only are they vastly different, but in some cases the skills learnt to be successful in one field can be the exact opposite of the skills required to be successful in the other.

 

[Mephisto]

Although I haven't a clue about shotokan as a style, I do find that nowadays people are constantly questioning the effectiveness of traditional martial arts in a self defence situation.

The way I try to think of it is, should I get attacked or involved in a fight, and the other person is trained in martial arts or fighting, which is probably highly unlikely, then it would be the best disciplined who would come out on top most probably.

However, I do think its unlikely that an attacker or common thug starting a brawl will be trained, or have a reasonable amount of training, therefore, all the hard work, effort and skill that we have learned would give us an advantage to help protect ourselves.

After all, I'd like to think most of us would avoid violence at all costs. And only when no other option is available would we utilise our training.

A thug may be untrained but they may be very familiar with aggression and violence. This is where some TMA fail, they do not prepare the student for an aggressive attack. Compliant training will not prepare you for controlling an aggressive person. Fighting may be different from self defense but it is a crucial component to preparing for self defense. If are accustomed to an aggressive opponent you'll have one more tool for the streets.

 

[Brummie]

Yes having the tool set to deal with an aggressive person, or knowing the correct answer to someone who suddenly launches an attack is important, so pressure testing in any martial arts is a good idea.

However, trusting that when adrenaline kicks in you can remain composed is the real unknown until it happens.

Still, I'd rather learn it, drill and train it, trust in my ability,but hope to never have to use it. Than not know it to stat with.

 

[Paul_D]

A thug may be untrained but they may be very familiar with aggression and violence. This is where some TMA fail, they do not prepare the student for an aggressive attack.

It's also were some MMA fail to deal with an aggressive attack. Look at the recent incident with Cody Gibson in a bar. Yes he is very used to dealing with violence in the cage, but he clearly had no idea how to deal with an drunken thug in a bar as he made basic SD errors as SD doesn't form part of his MMA training. That doesn't mean TMA is any better at dealing with the realities of civilian violence, becasue it isn't but MMA isn't free of the criticism than you are only putting in TMA.

Gibson isn't the only one of course, there are other examples (just are there are just as many examples where MMA has helped with SD).

MMA & TMA are great at what they do, but neither of them are designed to deal with he realities of civilian violence. Saying that one is better or worse at preparing you for SD than the other is like arguing whether apples or oranges are better at being banana's.

Fighting may be different from self defense but it is a crucial component to preparing for self defense. If are accustomed to an aggressive opponent you'll have one more tool for the streets.

Really? Old people don't get attacked by people that want to "fight" them, women don't get attacked by men that want to "fight" them. Fighting is only crucial to SD if fighting is the most likely form of violence you will face (i.e if you are male aged 18-30). The Suzy Lamplaugh Trust teach self defence but don't teach a single physical technique. Iain Abernethy says Self Defence is 95% Awareness and Avoidance 4% Verbal De-Esclation and 1% Physical Techniques. Geoff Thompson's book Dead or Alive: The Ultimate Self Protein Handbook focuses more on Avoidance than it does physical techniques, as does The Little Black Book of Violence.

Men, particularity young men, tend to focus on fighting as it is the most likely form of violence they will face. But for the rest of us it is extremely unlikely. Other area's of violence are much more likely and so fighting is far from crucial for most people as for most people fights are not the form of violence they are most likely to face.

 

[Mephisto]

It's also were some MMA fail to deal with an aggressive attack. Look at the recent incident with Cody Gibson in a bar. Yes he is very used to dealing with violence in the cage, but he clearly had no idea how to deal with an drunken thug in a bar as he made basic SD errors as SD doesn't form part of his MMA training. That doesn't mean TMA is any better at dealing with the realities of civilian violence, becasue it isn't but MMA isn't free of the criticism than you are only putting in TMA.

Gibson isn't the only one of course, there are other examples (just are there are just as many examples where MMA has helped with SD).

MMA & TMA are great at what they do, but neither of them are designed to deal with he realities of civilian violence. Saying that one is better or worse at preparing you for SD than the other is like arguing whether apples or oranges are better at being banana's.


Really? Old people don't get attacked by people that want to "fight" them, women don't get attacked by men that want to "fight" them. Fighting is only crucial to SD if fighting is the most likely form of violence you will face (i.e if you are male aged 18-30). The Suzy Lamplaugh Trust teach self defence but don't teach a single physical technique. Iain Abernethy says Self Defence is 95% Awareness and Avoidance 4% Verbal De-Esclation and 1% Physical Techniques. Geoff Thompson's book Dead or Alive: The Ultimate Self Protein Handbook focuses more on Avoidance than it does physical techniques, as does The Little Black Book of Violence.

Men, particularity young men, tend to focus on fighting as it is the most likely form of violence they will face. But for the rest of us it is extremely unlikely. Other area's of violence are much more likely and so fighting is far from crucial for most people as for most people fights are not the form of violence they are most likely to face.

I disagree that mma doesn't prepare you to handle aggressive opponents. It's what the ring is all about. That being said mma doesn't provide situational awareness training and there are other aspects of real life training it lacks and I don't deny that. What mma does do is prepare you to handle yourself in all ranges of empty hand combat. The frequent transition from one range to the next during training is great for real life fighting.
A lot of self defense focuses on developing street smarts. I agree that deescalation and awareness are key factors to a good self defense strategy. but these are non martial components of self defense. Mma trains the martial components well. I'm not saying mma is better than all TMA. But I will say mma is better for the martial components of self defense than TMA that doesn't spar or train with a resisting opponent.

 

[Paul_D]

That being said mma doesn't provide situational awareness training and there are other aspects of real life training it lacks and I don't deny that.t

That's a better way of explaining it

 

[Mephisto]

That's a better way of explaining it

You can be th best mma fighter but if you're dumb enough to bump chests and argue and do the "monkey dance" that so often precludes a fight you just might not see a sucker punch coming. Street smarts are crucial to solid self defense.

 

[drop bear]

MMA & TMA are great at what they do, but neither of them are designed to deal with he realities of civilian violence. Saying that one is better or worse at preparing you for SD than the other is like arguing whether apples or oranges are better at being banana's.

It depends what system can be modified to fit into different games. So at the bare bones your physical techniques have to work.

The major issue with mmaers looking at some of the self defence stuff is that it really doesn't work. And generally we know it because we have tried it.

You really need both.

 

[drop bear]

I disagree that mma doesn't prepare you to handle aggressive opponents. It's what the ring is all about. That being said mma doesn't provide situational awareness training and there are other aspects of real life training it lacks and I don't deny that. What mma does do is prepare you to handle yourself in all ranges of empty hand combat. The frequent transition from one range to the next during training is great for real life fighting.
A lot of self defense focuses on developing street smarts. I agree that deescalation and awareness are key factors to a good self defense strategy. but these are non martial components of self defense. Mma trains the martial components well. I'm not saying mma is better than all TMA. But I will say mma is better for the martial components of self defense than TMA that doesn't spar or train with a resisting opponent.

I actually do deescalation and awareness. And a lot of what i see in training I have issues with.

 

[Tez3]

I disagree that mma doesn't prepare you to handle aggressive opponents. It's what the ring is all about

Aggressive opponents yes, the person you have trained to fight, who is standing opposite you but if the ref for some unknown reason decided to batter you or a judge or just a random person jumping into the ring attacked you'd be as surprised as hell and taken unawares more so because you are concentrating on your opponent. Just as you would if you were concentrating on your mobile phone taking a call or texting as you were walking down the street and got attacked. I'd suggest that training a full contact style would enable you to be less shocked if you were punched and more likely to be able to respond but really as has been said awareness is the best sort defence you can get and as Iain Abernethy says never discount running away, it's a very valid SD technique.

 

[RTKDCMB]

The Ultimate Self Protein Handbook

What is a 'self protein'?

 

[ShotoNoob]

I'm talking about this;

Those karatekas learned more in 30 seconds of getting their clocks cleaned, than in 30 minutes of doing Kata or Bunkai.

Yes. Context is everything.

|
Please point out the traditional karateka in either of these videos. I can't find them. You see Hanzou, CONTEXT IS, IN FACT, EVERYTHING.

 

[Hanzou]

|
Please point out the traditional karateka in either of these videos. I can't find them. You see Hanzou, CONTEXT IS, IN FACT, EVERYTHING.

First you need to define "traditional karateka" and provide examples. Then you need to point out where in this thread anyone was talking about "traditional karatekas".

 

[Hanzou]

Although I haven't a clue about shotokan as a style, I do find that nowadays people are constantly questioning the effectiveness of traditional martial arts in a self defence situation.

The way I try to think of it is, should I get attacked or involved in a fight, and the other person is trained in martial arts or fighting, which is probably highly unlikely, then it would be the best disciplined who would come out on top most probably.

However, I do think its unlikely that an attacker or common thug starting a brawl will be trained, or have a reasonable amount of training, therefore, all the hard work, effort and skill that we have learned would give us an advantage to help protect ourselves.

After all, I'd like to think most of us would avoid violence at all costs. And only when no other option is available would we utilise our training.

Here's a recent stabbing attack in a subway;

In that situation, my MMA/Bjj training would be far more beneficial and effective than my TMA/Karate training. Hence why people question the latter's effectiveness in a self defense situation.