TimoS
Master of Arts
Ippon Ken said:
I don't know (nor do I really care) what you have against Robert, but I'm just curious as to what in Jussi's post made you think you were right ? Seems to me that Jussi basically confirmed what I was saying all along, that Renshinkan is not an okinawan style, it is japanese style and that it is close to Seibukan, at least technique-wise and that it belongs to Kyan lineage. As I see the argument, you were the one who had a hard time accepting those facts.
Not that it really matters to me anymore, since from beginning of this year we've split away from Renshinkan
T
TCA
Guest
I believe that there are probably some uneffective styles. But, I believe as one matures in their fighting skills, the style become very personal. We tend to adapt our punching, kicking, and throwing skills from what works with our physical abilities. personally, my punching skills would have been honed from prior boxing. My kicking would have come from tae kwon do. My grappling from wrestling. My point, it comes down to how much effort and physical ability you apply. I doubt that there is a purist fighter out there (one who uses the skills only from the style taught).
A
Autocrat
Guest
Firstly... I'm damned impressed with the maturity of postings.... I llok at a lot of forums, and in most, this would have turned damned ugly by the bottom of page 1!
Secondly, I can't beleive how well thought out this thread is... serious answers to most things, without making it all personal.... and honest posts too!
OK, my views and opinions...
As for styles being better for real life situations, I believe any, and I do many any, of the original/traditional styles, and several of the younger forms are quite capable of flattening most people. Even some of the sporting styles that have been born or bred also would do quite well.... the real deciders are the way that the karate is taught, and the way the person developes... I've sparred with people who have trained for years over me, are 2nd Dan or higher, and I've floored them with a simplistic, basic set of moves... then again, last Tuesday saw me get knocked on my A by a 11 year old girl because I misjudged her and walked into a knee kick! (I'm never going to here then end of that, I swear! I can still hear them all laughing!).
So, rather than a particular style, I'd say its how that style is taught and how that person reacts!
Secondly, I can't beleive how well thought out this thread is... serious answers to most things, without making it all personal.... and honest posts too!
OK, my views and opinions...
As for styles being better for real life situations, I believe any, and I do many any, of the original/traditional styles, and several of the younger forms are quite capable of flattening most people. Even some of the sporting styles that have been born or bred also would do quite well.... the real deciders are the way that the karate is taught, and the way the person developes... I've sparred with people who have trained for years over me, are 2nd Dan or higher, and I've floored them with a simplistic, basic set of moves... then again, last Tuesday saw me get knocked on my A by a 11 year old girl because I misjudged her and walked into a knee kick! (I'm never going to here then end of that, I swear! I can still hear them all laughing!).
So, rather than a particular style, I'd say its how that style is taught and how that person reacts!
evenflow1121
2nd Black Belt
To the OP, that is truly a subjective question: I mean really that depends on you and what particular way of fighting you feel comfortable with.
AT the risk of offending, I must say the quality of any given style is directly related to the practitioner. I think it's shortsighted to suggest any one system is better then another.I've seen excellant martial artists in terrible schools and terrible martial artists in great schools. It depends on your own heart, mind, and spirit how effective a "style" could be.
learn any system then make it your own--or not
learn any system then make it your own--or not
searcher
Senior Master
arnisador said:
Yes, style does matter, but in a very minor way. If you are going to get down to it most of the styles of today are just off-shoots of the original two, Shorin-ryu/Shuri-te and Tomari-te and Shorei-ryu/Naha-te. Though there are differences they tend to be IMO a minimum, kata not withstanding. Some may be better at certain techniques or have special forms that make them set apart from the others, but they all have these. It is kind of like a group of house. They may all have different outward appearances or things that make them unique, but when you get down to it they are all similar. That may have been a bad analogy, but I think it makes some sense.
A persons build and their dedication will have more bearing on their ability to make the style work or not. It has only a little bit to do with the specific style.
chinto
Senior Master
I would suggest that any of the older Okinawan styles have proven many times that they are very effective in combat when its for real. but then so have many Chinese systems, and several Japanese jujitsu systems. this also includes several systems from the Philippines, and Indonesia , and other places.
for myself i chose a good solid traditional Okinawan system and I know it works when its for keeps for me.
for myself i chose a good solid traditional Okinawan system and I know it works when its for keeps for me.
Jackthekarateguy
White Belt
I would go for a more okinawan influence, things like Goju or Shorin Ryu. It's all good but in my limited experience Okinawan styles tend to be in closer but it varies hugely from lineage to lineage...
chinto
Senior Master
In the end its the practitioner not the style. That said one style may FIT one practitioner better because its more natural to his innate movement or mentality, and a different one for some one else. but either way some are more proficient do to natural aptitude and or ability with depth perception or coordination or what have you. Either way the practioner is the overriding factor. But I would say some styles are more easily used effectively in self defense then others.
Tired_Yeti
Green Belt
I am basically asking what style is the best for self defense not what style is better than another. But we have to leap out of the traditional shell and face reality and say well which style is indeed better to hold up in the street?
From the beginning, karate was never meant to be locked into styles. That's a 20th century idea that came about when masters like Itosu wanted to make karate appealing to the Japanese public. On a side note, Gichin Funakoshi (founder of Shotokan) hated the idea of separating karate into styles and refused to participate to his dying day. He didn't name his art Shotokan; other people did that.
The point is that karate was always about studying to survive and be effective in a street fight. The past masters studied with each other and shared techniques and ideas. It was the students who came later (in the early 20th century) who began to essentially worship their style's master and lock that style down rigidly. Now we have all these styles and we look at one and say "it's THIS style and it's different from THAT style". The masters never intended that. They were 100% focused on and dedicated to surviving a real, life threatening street fight.
So...the most effective martial art is one that incorporates the most effective principles and techniques from a variety of styles and sources. One system will not work for everyone. You'll need to train in a system that has solid fundamentals and then modify and tweak it as you grow to make it effective for YOU.
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk
TiredYeti... you can't be too tired if you went back three years to dig this one up! Originally started in another decade! Goodness. Isn't it interesting about how the exact same discussions/arguments come up over and over again?
I agree with you, the person who puts in practice is able to perform.
I agree with you, the person who puts in practice is able to perform.
Charlemagne
Black Belt
Interesting points. When I read anything on the history of Karate, it always seems that there is mention of people training with each other as they traveled around, etc, which would seem to support your assertions. A similar attitude can be found today in arts such as BJJ, where many, if not most, instructors have a "train with everyone" mentality.
Tired_Yeti
Green Belt
Yes, and Bruce Lee was very openly supportive of this way of study too. In his book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, he talks about things like western boxing having the most effective punches so he studied their punches, etc.
IMO, martial arts isn't that different from music. The best musicians play with everyone they can and share ideas to learn knew techniques, etc. Personally, I think it's good to learn a solid, well-rounded system with effective fundamentals and then "update" our learning by studying with people from other systems. No system is perfect so I think it's best to try to "go to the experts" and try to get the best of everything. Boxing has great punches, Taekwondo has great kicks, jujitsu has great throws and joint locks, etc. I mean it would take years but I'm just saying gradually to refine our own art to be well rounded.
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk
Tired_Yeti
Green Belt
MAfreak
Purple Belt
i'd say goju ryu because it includes ground fighting; allows it in its "sparring" style (irikumi) and does light contact as well as full contact.
