Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense

[seasoned]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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!

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.