Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense

[Steve]

I'm not an expert on Karate or any other art, nor did I ever claim to be. I participate in a Kempo system that integrates Danzan Ryu Jiu-Jitsu, I also go to a Judo class twice a week, and I love reading about the history and philosophy behind all arts, that's about as close to "expert" as I get. If anything I guess I would call myself an enthusiast. I replied because the author, while focusing on karate, was aiming his point of view on pretty much all traditional arts and I felt his analysis was highly biased and unfair. I never once attacked BJJ in any fashion so I don't understand the hostility here. All I said is that it came from Judo, which came from Jujutsu which is a fact. I think it's ignorant to put aside this lineage and anyone who watches the separate systems closely can easily see the similarities. See how you lumped in Tae Kwon Do, Shotokan Karate, and Okinawan Karate all together? That's exactly what I did with Jujutsu, Judo, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.

I did that on purpose, specifically because people commonly lump them together, and I've been around enough people who ARE informed about these arts to know that it would be ignorant of me to do the same myself. Once again, I didn't lump them together. What I did was promise that I wouldn't do so.

I still believe that even modern Judo and BJJ are culturally and technically different enough that lumping them together is misleading.

I don't even understand why we're arguing or why you're behaving so hostile.

Not trying to be hostile. I tend to be pretty blunt, but I'm not angry or trying to be overly hostile. I disagree, but if I came off as hostile, I apologize.

I wasn't "writing off" anything, I was saying that differences in systems are results from different ideas or interpretations being introduced which is exactly how it happened other it would all still be called Jujutsu. Granted there have been changes made over the years but as you yourself stated, they were all derived from the same root.

Okay. I guess we'll have to just disagree on this. Chalking up the cultural, philosophical and technical differences between jujutsu, modern judo and BJJ to "differences of interpretation" is, IMO, writing it off. It's a matter of scope, sort of like saying that the difference between classical music and rap is just a difference of interpretation.

Do you for whatever reason not like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu being associated with the arts it came from?

I have no problem with the association, and in fact often describe BJJ to laymen as being a close cousin to Judo. In a conversation with other martial artists, however, I have higher expectations.

Again, to a laymen, I've heard people from the bujinkan tell people they study jujutsu or even karate. That doesn't mean it's true... it's simply a matter of convenience. Gets the point across at a very cursory level. But I'd presume that most people here understand that there is a much more pronounced difference between budo taijutsu and jujutsu, even if we don't understand fully what those differences are.

Or is it because I called it a "sport art"? In which case I was merely using the language that the author used and i feel that Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is just as effective as any other art. Again, I don't see the point in arguing on this.

don't have a problem with that at all. The sport is what makes it awesome!

 

[Benevolentbob]

I did that on purpose, specifically because people commonly lump them together, and I've been around enough people who ARE informed about these arts to know that it would be ignorant of me to do the same myself. Once again, I didn't lump them together. What I did was promise that I wouldn't do so.

I still believe that even modern Judo and BJJ are culturally and technically different enough that lumping them together is misleading. Not trying to be hostile. I tend to be pretty blunt, but I'm not angry or trying to be overly hostile. I disagree, but if I came off as hostile, I apologize. Okay. I guess we'll have to just disagree on this. Chalking up the cultural, philosophical and technical differences between jujutsu, modern judo and BJJ to "differences of interpretation" is, IMO, writing it off. It's a matter of scope, sort of like saying that the difference between classical music and rap is just a difference of interpretation. I have no problem with the association, and in fact often describe BJJ to laymen as being a close cousin to Judo. In a conversation with other martial artists, however, I have higher expectations.

Again, to a laymen, I've heard people from the bujinkan tell people they study jujutsu or even karate. That doesn't mean it's true... it's simply a matter of convenience. Gets the point across at a very cursory level. But I'd presume that most people here understand that there is a much more pronounced difference between budo taijutsu and jujutsu, even if we don't understand fully what those differences are. don't have a problem with that at all. The sport is what makes it awesome!

Ah thanks for that reply it clarifies a lot. I can understand your stances, I think we just have different ways of viewing things and certainly assign entirely different values for words like interpretation. I think this easily made for a mis-communication of sorts. As for lumping arts together, I acknowledge that arts such as Tae Kwon Do and Shotokan Karate can be noticeably different, but maybe as a result from my love of the history I always look for the linking concepts.

 

[Martin h]

Kyokushin was developed by Oyama, a Korean who moved to Japan, studied under Funakoshi and established his style of karate in 1964.

Just a narrowminded factual correction.
Kyokushin as a style was formally named&founded 1957. It was created but still unnamed in 1953, back then it was just called "Oyama dojo karate-jutsu".
What was founded in 1964 was the international kyokushin organization, and that was becauase the style had spread so much that a formal international organization was needed.

Also Oyama began his karate study under Funakoshi (in 1938 when he was 15/16 years old), and got 2´d dan from him. But some time during the War he switched to Gojuryu under Gogen Yamaguchi (initially training under SoNei Chu, but later under Gogen himself) and got 8th Dan under him. This was before Gogen split out with goju kai

 

[K-man]

Just a narrowminded factual correction.
Kyokushin as a style was formally named&founded 1957. It was created but still unnamed in 1953, back then it was just called "Oyama dojo karate-jutsu".
What was founded in 1964 was the international kyokushin organization, and that was becauase the style had spread so much that a formal international organization was needed.

Also Oyama began his karate study under Funakoshi (in 1938 when he was 15/16 years old), and got 2´d dan from him. But some time during the War he switched to Gojuryu under Gogen Yamaguchi (initially training under SoNei Chu, but later under Gogen himself) and got 8th Dan under him. This was before Gogen split out with goju kai

Yamaguchi set up Goju Kai in 1935 (he registered it with the Butoku-kai after the war) and had already introduced Jiyu kumite earlier, something you don't have in Okinawan Goju. Oyama would never have seen 'traditional' Goju Ryu karate as the karate that was introduced to Japan by Funakoshi and others was modified to make it suitable for the schools and universities.

Yamaguchi really put karate on the international map by introducing competion but this is totally at odds with traditional training. Kyokushin took this competition to a new level with full contact. :asian:

 

[chinto]

Then by your own definition, there is no traditional karate.

Every karate school claims to perform their kata in the traditional manner. Yet very few know the combative applications to this kata. If this is the case, they are not traditional, since they have lost the original intent of their kata.

Every karate school claims to be a traditional school because they have the traditional kata. Yet each school performs it completely differently. A different performance would seem to reflect a diverging application to the kata's motions, yet if the variation is not applicable through combat, then it is not traditional.

Further, the farther back we go, we find that kata were often tailored to each individual student to meet their training needs. Thus, the only traditional would seem to be the change of karate, its ability to adapt & grow.

Thus, the stagnancy you advocate of kata performance, as if they were a dance, is not traditional karate, but rather a symptom of the ossification of training methods, the development of slavish worship of a "master", rather than an ownership & continued development of the art.

LOL have you ever even trained at a karate dojo?

 

[chinto]

This is a huge fallacy.

It does not matter what karate was or where it was used.

Your training is what matters.

If you are not training for the battlefield yourself, utilizing the methods that karate's forebears were, you cannot say that YOUR KARATE is effective for battlefield combat. The same goes for "the street".



All martial arts are not the same.

Either your training is applicable in a live environment, or it is not.



Once removed from the necessity of live combat, it is actually very easy for martial arts to survive. They become stagnant & traditional, and exist for reasons other than combat. The Koryu of Japan are a perfect example of this.



Kano's Judo took on all comers in open, unregulated combat & defeated the so-called "self-defense" schools of jujutsu of the time, because of the emphasis on randori & live training, rather than the dead, static training you are referring to.



Completely incorrect, and why the US Army bases much of its hand-to-hand curriculum off of Brazilian JJ.

LOL the army is doing the stupid politically correct thing in its use of BJJ. hell they were told to tone down the old LINE and other systems they had taught! it was "to violent and merciless" sheesh. combat has nothing to do with the UFC or sport matches with good lighting and a ref. they never come in singles and while your doing BJJ his buddy will kick your head, ribs and kidneys in killing you.

have you ever been in combat? ever had a fight where to loose was to die?
I unfortunately have. Karate saved my life then, and I didnt know hardly anything compared to now. ( I still know very little really compared to what I can learn in the future.)

 

[Em MacIntosh]

I only really make use of stances like seisan-dachi (similar to zenkutsu-dachi) or shigo-dachi (similar to kiba-dachi) as part of a dedicated strike. Remember that you hit them with your body, your limb is just a lever to make contact. You're all aware of oi-zuki, the equivalent with shigo-dachi is shigo-zuki. The name of the technique implies the stance as a fundamental part of the technique (though I've never heard of shigo-empi, which works on the same principal so...). Choko-zuki certainly isn't the same as oi-zuki. Unless it's part of a strike, I normally wouldn't adopt a "traditional" stance. I wouldn't adopt a forward leaning stance or a back stance. I might adopt something similar but it will be flexible to meet my opponent's energy (depending on circumstance), probably somewhere in the middle, fluctuating with my sensitivity to my opponent.

 

[Leon026]

Apologies for resurrecting this thread - I came across this while searching google, and felt the need to register on the forums and reply.

A bit about myself - I was born in Tokyo and grew up there until I was 18 years old. I started Shotokan Karate when I was 8. I am currently 2nd dan, and my father is 3rd dan (and has been for the past 20+ years), and this October I'll be entering my first official amateur MMA fight. I have been practicing Shotokan Karate for 20 years now, of which I can safely say that the last 4 years of Karate has been more of my own evolved style, Maeda-ryu Sogo Karate rather than pure traditional shotokan karate. I am also in the French army, and am a part-time assistant instructor of hand-to-hand combat at the infantry/artillery school in Draguignan, France. To me, while I have a 2nd dan according to both the Japanese Karate Federation and Japan Karate Association, it has little meaning to me - but I'll talk more about his throughout the post.

One of the arguments I come across often, is that traditional karate is "a joke", a "waste of time", and "doesnt work". But I think we forget multiple aspects of the martial art.

We forget that karate is an old art, and Shotokan itself dating to the 1900s, and we shall not even mention how old Ryukyu Karate is. But the main difference that we conveniently forget between today and 1900, is the difference in communication and training. Today, with a click of my finger and some typing, I can search google for Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and instantly see an MMA video of BJJ used in UFC. I can go to a Muay Thai gym, go learn Kung-fu, all the while reading an article on Pencak Silat on my iPad, and watch "how to" videos on how to do a Gogoplata for MMA. Back in those days, the transfer of knowledge was person to person. Back in those days, according to Miyamoto Musashi's biography, kenjutsu schools would train once a MONTH. Today, I train 2-4 times a week. I can go see a nutritionist, and I know that physically, I am in better shape than people living in the 1800s. If we look at history of the Bakufu and the Meiji Restoration, we know that after the unification of Japan by Tokugawa Ieyasu, the numbers of real ronin and samurai that were trained in the old ways of kenjutsu were very slim, and the majority of so-called ronin were nothing more than thugs with swords who had little practical training. Karate, much like the other Japanese martial arts were in a similar position. Meaning - people that were moderately trained in karate were deadly efficient against common thugs who had *zero* training nor knowledge of the art. Against a person who is *completely* ignorant (this nowadays is no longer possible due to all the movies and video games featuring martial arts), even a simple Jodan Gyaku-zuki is going work incredibly well. And it did, hence the concept of sen-no-sen, tying of breaking the enemy's attack with a simultaneous strike. Against someone with no training, it worked.

We also notice people claim that karate has not evolved. I would ask, is this the fault of the martial art, or the fault of the people training in the art? I feel that most people that practice karate, are only engaged in copy-cat karate. They copy the movements and kata that their teacher tells them to do, who in turn was taught to copy his master's kata. How is that possibly adapted and going to work? Teach a person to do mawashi-geri, and tell that it's effective because a high kick to the head works, just means you'll end up wit ha 5 foot tall person attempt to use a mawashi geri in a fight. A 5 foot tall person, no matter how trained, is not going to do a powerful mawashi geri against a 6 foot tall fighter and come out successful. Just because the person chose (or was not taught) to adapt karate to their physique, does not put Karate at fault for being "non-adapted".

People are also very obsessed with belt color, but that is a trend I've noticed in both Japan and in Europe where I live now. I think we all forget that a black belt means little - a black belt merely states that one has mastered the BASICS of karate to an acceptable level. This is part of the business model for dojos - telling people that it is only after having trained for 5 years and finally acquired a black belt that they can now really learn karate, is not going to make them happy and keep paying. No, by telling them that a black belt signifies you are a "great fighter", will people keep paying each month. That is the fault of the modern world and modern teaching practices where people's ego must be fulfilled, hence why there are so many black belt factories. They can wear a black belt, but it means nothing if they can't display a minimum understanding of the concept of the art.

But there is a fundamental difference between modern day teachers, and then-grand masters. The main difference is the willingness to explore and innovate. Take Oyama Masatatsu as example - started first with traditional Shotokan and Goju-ryu karate, he left to explore, and returned with Kyokushin. To some, kyokushin is the ultimate form of karate. To me, kyokushin is a logical expansion of Shotokan, but unfortunately modern Kyokushin has turned into a form of karate that has thrown away the precision and speed of traditional karate and replaced it with brute force, along with bad habits in the form of lack of upper defense.

It is my belief however, that a martial art is not "strong" because the art is passed down, but because the person has mastered its basics, went off to test his art against others, and went off to expand his art into something that is adapted to his physique.

Some will claim that the cost-benefit ration in terms of time, karate is very low, compared to perhaps "MMA" that can be "learned" in a matter of months. Indeed, army combative hand-to-hand technique follows the train of thought of rendering it as easy as possible to learn and being the most effective. I have had the chance to meet the person that invented the french army's special forces CQC - the C4 (Combat corps a corps adapté aux combattant), and after much discussion, we both agreed that the CQC level of the basic soldier was poor, but at least it was "better" than the average enemy they might encounter. Army CQC technique teaching isnt to make soldiers hand to hand combat machines, but to make the overall level of army soldiers better than average. Similarly, if you look at MMA, while there are the odd geniuses of technique (Ernesto Hoost comes into mind), the vast majority seem very average. This is of course assuming that MMA and UFC is an accurate representation to the real deal, when we know it isnt. Real life does not have rules. In real life, I am free to strike the throat and gouge the eyes, or burst ear drums. I am also free to kick a downed opponent and strike behind the head with an elbow. These are examples that are part of the MMA "rules". MMA is a sport, and I think we should observe that.

Sports karate has no chance in UFC. An MMA fighter has no chance in a Judo competition, and neither can claim to be 'better' in real life, unless the practitioner has experienced a real life encounter. We can train for it, but claiming that one style is better than the other is absurd - the concept of equal level on equal person does not exist. Would this equal comparison result in a short 60kg Pencak Silat practitioner matched up against a 100kg Judoka? It is fruitless, and I think that rather than worrying about which style is best, one should be more devoted into becoming the best he can be in his style, and exploring other styles to see how he can incorporate techniques that may be deficient in his base style.

Kata, which many people see as an obligation, and I have had a young (3-4 years of karate young) practitioner tell me that my form of karate was wrong, because with Kata he could defeat the enemy, is a double edged sword. Kata can perhaps be "unnecessary" to some, and I would agree that practicing kata does not make one better in a fight. However, kata is the expression of perfectionism, which ties into karate : the perfection of the art to kill. Kata therefore, is about body conditioning and training towards the goal of perfection. Doing kata for the sake of doing kata, is just copy-cat karate, and will never get you anywhere.

I also find the "one strike one kill" to be amusing. Because the claim its existence and non-existence, is akin to completely missing the point of karate. Besides the debate of whether it is possible or not to kill in one hit, of which I find largely uninteresting and besides the point, the essence of karate is not one strike one kill, but each strike being heavy and precise. That, is karate. Karate is not Jeet Kune Do. Karate is not Wing Chun. Karate is not Capoeira nor Pecak Silat. Karate is, essentially, a low SPM (strikes per minute) art. The idea is that there are no wasted movements. Each movement is precise, weighted, and has a purpose. It is because each strike is weighted and precise, that the concept of "one strike one kill" came into fruition, but we should not be taking that literally.

So why study karate at all? *shrug*, who knows. I started it because my father forced me to start it. Why not study BJJ, Muay Thai? No reason not to, and nothing stopping from people to explore other styles. The only true ultimate style, is the style that is adapted to the student's physiology, technique and mindset. Claiming there is one ultimate style is pure ignorance. I have no intention in claiming that karate is the be all and end all, but after 20 years of karate, my body has grown and has adapted to karate. Thus karate is MY ultimate style.

It is however the student's role to explore the martial art, and the role of the teacher to assist in the student's exploration of the art. Even if this means sparring against other styles and learning from them. This is essentially why I have started learning BJJ to incorporate simple and efficient Ne Waza ground technique into my karate to make more adapted. It is why I have spent years mastering the Gedan Mawashi-geri that is not taught in traditional Shotokan. Karate means empty hand, it does not have to be literally translated into "empty hand while standing, following certain rulesets". If a martial art is to be used for self defense, no matter which art and style, the trainee must understand and be prepared to take into account his art will never be the answer to the definite hand to hand combat. The answer? 42. "42" is just as valid as an answer to claiming which art is superior. Unless one tests his art against others, claiming it because so and so on TV fought someone else in UFC is hardly a good answer. A person's body should be adapted to his martial art, and vice versa should the martial art be adapted to the person.

Yes, it may take years to find out that you're not adapted to your current art, but claiming that karate takes too long just shows impatience, or a non-understanding, or a non-adapted body. Could always just go and learn Krav Maga I suppose.

Karate is an efficient and effective fighting technique if the person who uses karate, is an efficient and effective fighter.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

People are also very obsessed with belt color, but that is a trend I've noticed in both Japan and in Europe where I live now. I think we all forget that a black belt means little - a black belt merely states that one has mastered the BASICS of karate to an acceptable level. This is part of the business model for dojos - telling people that it is only after having trained for 5 years and finally acquired a black belt that they can now really learn karate, is not going to make them happy and keep paying. No, by telling them that a black belt signifies you are a "great fighter", will people keep paying each month. That is the fault of the modern world and modern teaching practices where people's ego must be fulfilled, hence why there are so many black belt factories. They can wear a black belt, but it means nothing if they can't display a minimum understanding of the concept of the art.

Glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

 

[ETinCYQX]

Written by someone with very little understanding of the martial arts. One of those people who never bothered to learn a system in its entirety, instead relying on the UFC to tell him what works. Muay Thai, boxing, BJJ is the canned answer for this type of person. And for the most part anyone deriding the use of katas/forms in training doesn't understand the art enough.

I say this as a huge MMA and kickboxing fan who went through exactly the same phase as the article's author.

 

[Cayuga Karate]

ETinCYQX wrote:

And for the most part anyone deriding the use of katas/forms in training doesn't understand the art enough.

Vast numbers of karate students learn kata with no application.

Is the training in kata good conditioning, whether or not specific sequences can be used in fighting? I believe it is.

Are there specific instances in kata where even jaded MMA students can look at some applications and concur that they could be used in a number of fighting scenarios, (maybe not in the ring against a skilled attacker, but in the street against someone less skilled)? I believe this is true.

Those two statements do not, IMO, mean that quite a number of movements in kata don't really translate all that well into actual empty hand fighting. Until posters take the effort to prove otherwise, I, like so many students of other arts remain unconvinced that much of kata maps to actual fighting.

There are certainly many karateka that are able to use small snippets of kata and often come up with pretty good ideas, and to make them effective, they have to add movements not found in the kata. But the sequences from which many movements are extracted still don't appear to make any sense in actual fighting.

Most challenging to those who believe there are good fighting applications for all kata movements are the numerous instances of sequences of 3 or 4 steps forward. For example the initial forward sequences in the Pinans/Heians. Can anyone point to any online example of these being used in realistic fighting examples. When I ask this question online in forums such as MT, I get silence.

One can find numerous online examples of these kata sequences that are done in a way that in no way resembles actual fighting. But when one asks posters for applications for kata sequences that do map to actual fighting, one typically gets the quite common reply of "We have good realistic fighting concepts in my system/dojo but we can't show it online because it is not allowed. You see, our applications are still a big secret."

Another common reply is "go do a youtube search, and you'll find good fighting". Another common answer is "so and so trained in Jiujitsu (or Aikido, or Chi Na, or Wing Chun...) and he has DVDs you can buy that shows these movements with good applications." Another answer is "I trained at Master ...'s seminar, and he taught some bunkai for a half dozen kata sequences, so I have concluded that he must have good applications for all his movements."

When I try to engage karate posters, I find it useful to post video of the applications that are out there on youtube, and ask if they are representative of the great fighting that they are referring to. A common answer is: "no, that is not what I am talking about."

There is an old expression, "seeing is believing." If karateka want the world to believe that the movements in kata (the full sequences, not just tiny snippets) have real world application, then they should be prepared to defend that position. It is just all too easy to say "kata is a textbook, an encyclopedia of fighting" or "in my system, if the basics are taught correctly, then the yudanshu are able to figure out how to use the movements," or "so and so's website has all the answers."

It would be so much more helpful if those arguing that the long sequences in kata can provide for good fighting would be willing to provide some links of specific kata application. Not just tiny pieces of kata taken out of their sequences with all manner of additional strikes/locks/takedowns not found in the kata added to make them useful.

It would be interesting if karate posters didn't hide behind secrecy and old tired phrases such as "anyone deriding the use of katas/forms in training doesn't understand the art enough". I have a simple response. Prove it. Provide evidence. Where's the bunkai.

One group that gets particularly incensed by my requests for examples are the students of Goju. Now I will argue that the structure of many Goju forms do lend a number of concepts to be used for good fighting. But again there are broad sections of kata that do not appear to map to fighting.

Do we look to Morio Higaonna's fighting examples where, in good karate fashion, he uses a single counter strike on almost every technique, and in good karate fashion is typically attacked by a single right lunge punch, something so uncommon in actual fighting. Karateka can denigrate MMA all they like, but the cage has proven again and again, this whole concept of single counterstrikes, especially to the torso, is a simply rotten fighting strategy. Or shall we look to the more modern Goju interpretations where the arm movements of kata are divorced from their stances and movements in different directions, and applied in a continuous stream forward against a single attacker. Is it efffective?. It appears to be. Do these movements truly map to the kata? No, plain and simple, no. The kata are modified beyond all recognition to redirect all arm movements in one forward flowing sequence.

One might think I am critical of this kind of effort. Absolutely not. I do commend the effort. Trying to make some of these patterns useful requires some real creativity. The more the better. But the extremes that are taken in modifying the kata for useful fighting helps to demonstrate the point that many kata sequences appear not to be all that well designed for empty hand fighting.

Would any kata enthusiast like to post links to 5 popular Okinawan kata, and I will request examples of what three specific sequences mean. Then the kata enthusiast would point to online examples, or put something online? Just three sequences. This shouldn't be all that hard for posters here to video something quickly with a friend and post it to youtube.

I expect silence. Why? Partially due to my experience on these forums. But primary because as much as karateka like to say otherwise, much of kata does not map to actual fighting. Saying over and over again that the emperor has a beautiful gold robe doesn't change the fact that he is indeed buck naked.

I am fine with that. I am a kata enthusiast, and I enjoy greatly working on a few examples of kata that do map reasonably well to actual fighting. And I enjoy practicing kata for other benefits that it brings. Strength, speed, balance. It makes me a better fighter, even if I can't use much of sequences in empty hand fighting. That's fine with me.

As I age, kata helps keep me strong, fast, rooted, yet agile at the same time. It helps to keep my core strong so that my upper body and legs can work in unison to deliver energy to a target. It allows me to approach training with a meditative quality. It makes the journey of my martial arts training a more rewarding and enjoyable one.

But my passion for kata does not blind me to the obvious realities of many of the movements I practice. They just don't map all that well to empty hand fighting. And to get that kind of training, I find it necessary to mix in standard Muay Thai/boxing combinations, as well as common BJJ ground-fighting training.

Regarding kata application, tt would surprise me if someone would accept my offer above (links to 5 common kata online.) But I don't expect any surprises here.

-Cayuga Karate

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I am fine with that. I am a kata enthusiast, and I enjoy greatly working on a few examples of kata that do map reasonably well to actual fighting. And I enjoy practicing kata for other benefits that it brings. Strength, speed, balance.It makes me a better fighter, even if I can't use much of sequences in empty hand fighting. That's fine with me.

As I age, kata helps keep me strong, fast, rooted, yet agile at the same time. It helps to keep my core strong so that my upper body and legs can work in unison to deliver energy to a target. It allows me to approach training with a meditative quality. It makes the journey of my martial arts training a more rewarding and enjoyable one.

I think that this part of your post sums up the benefits of forms, regardless of the art practiced.

 

[Tez3]

Apologies for resurrecting this thread - I came across this while searching google, and felt the need to register on the forums and reply.

A bit about myself - I was born in Tokyo and grew up there until I was 18 years old. I started Shotokan Karate when I was 8. I am currently 2nd dan, and my father is 3rd dan (and has been for the past 20+ years), and this October I'll be entering my first official amateur MMA fight. I have been practicing Shotokan Karate for 20 years now, of which I can safely say that the last 4 years of Karate has been more of my own evolved style, Maeda-ryu Sogo Karate rather than pure traditional shotokan karate. I am also in the French army, and am a part-time assistant instructor of hand-to-hand combat at the infantry/artillery school in Draguignan, France. To me, while I have a 2nd dan according to both the Japanese Karate Federation and Japan Karate Association, it has little meaning to me - but I'll talk more about his throughout the post.

One of the arguments I come across often, is that traditional karate is "a joke", a "waste of time", and "doesnt work". But I think we forget multiple aspects of the martial art.

We forget that karate is an old art, and Shotokan itself dating to the 1900s, and we shall not even mention how old Ryukyu Karate is. But the main difference that we conveniently forget between today and 1900, is the difference in communication and training. Today, with a click of my finger and some typing, I can search google for Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and instantly see an MMA video of BJJ used in UFC. I can go to a Muay Thai gym, go learn Kung-fu, all the while reading an article on Pencak Silat on my iPad, and watch "how to" videos on how to do a Gogoplata for MMA. Back in those days, the transfer of knowledge was person to person. Back in those days, according to Miyamoto Musashi's biography, kenjutsu schools would train once a MONTH. Today, I train 2-4 times a week. I can go see a nutritionist, and I know that physically, I am in better shape than people living in the 1800s. If we look at history of the Bakufu and the Meiji Restoration, we know that after the unification of Japan by Tokugawa Ieyasu, the numbers of real ronin and samurai that were trained in the old ways of kenjutsu were very slim, and the majority of so-called ronin were nothing more than thugs with swords who had little practical training. Karate, much like the other Japanese martial arts were in a similar position. Meaning - people that were moderately trained in karate were deadly efficient against common thugs who had *zero* training nor knowledge of the art. Against a person who is *completely* ignorant (this nowadays is no longer possible due to all the movies and video games featuring martial arts), even a simple Jodan Gyaku-zuki is going work incredibly well. And it did, hence the concept of sen-no-sen, tying of breaking the enemy's attack with a simultaneous strike. Against someone with no training, it worked.

We also notice people claim that karate has not evolved. I would ask, is this the fault of the martial art, or the fault of the people training in the art? I feel that most people that practice karate, are only engaged in copy-cat karate. They copy the movements and kata that their teacher tells them to do, who in turn was taught to copy his master's kata. How is that possibly adapted and going to work? Teach a person to do mawashi-geri, and tell that it's effective because a high kick to the head works, just means you'll end up wit ha 5 foot tall person attempt to use a mawashi geri in a fight. A 5 foot tall person, no matter how trained, is not going to do a powerful mawashi geri against a 6 foot tall fighter and come out successful. Just because the person chose (or was not taught) to adapt karate to their physique, does not put Karate at fault for being "non-adapted".

People are also very obsessed with belt color, but that is a trend I've noticed in both Japan and in Europe where I live now. I think we all forget that a black belt means little - a black belt merely states that one has mastered the BASICS of karate to an acceptable level. This is part of the business model for dojos - telling people that it is only after having trained for 5 years and finally acquired a black belt that they can now really learn karate, is not going to make them happy and keep paying. No, by telling them that a black belt signifies you are a "great fighter", will people keep paying each month. That is the fault of the modern world and modern teaching practices where people's ego must be fulfilled, hence why there are so many black belt factories. They can wear a black belt, but it means nothing if they can't display a minimum understanding of the concept of the art.

But there is a fundamental difference between modern day teachers, and then-grand masters. The main difference is the willingness to explore and innovate. Take Oyama Masatatsu as example - started first with traditional Shotokan and Goju-ryu karate, he left to explore, and returned with Kyokushin. To some, kyokushin is the ultimate form of karate. To me, kyokushin is a logical expansion of Shotokan, but unfortunately modern Kyokushin has turned into a form of karate that has thrown away the precision and speed of traditional karate and replaced it with brute force, along with bad habits in the form of lack of upper defense.

It is my belief however, that a martial art is not "strong" because the art is passed down, but because the person has mastered its basics, went off to test his art against others, and went off to expand his art into something that is adapted to his physique.

Some will claim that the cost-benefit ration in terms of time, karate is very low, compared to perhaps "MMA" that can be "learned" in a matter of months. Indeed, army combative hand-to-hand technique follows the train of thought of rendering it as easy as possible to learn and being the most effective. I have had the chance to meet the person that invented the french army's special forces CQC - the C4 (Combat corps a corps adapté aux combattant), and after much discussion, we both agreed that the CQC level of the basic soldier was poor, but at least it was "better" than the average enemy they might encounter. Army CQC technique teaching isnt to make soldiers hand to hand combat machines, but to make the overall level of army soldiers better than average. Similarly, if you look at MMA, while there are the odd geniuses of technique (Ernesto Hoost comes into mind), the vast majority seem very average. This is of course assuming that MMA and UFC is an accurate representation to the real deal, when we know it isnt. Real life does not have rules. In real life, I am free to strike the throat and gouge the eyes, or burst ear drums. I am also free to kick a downed opponent and strike behind the head with an elbow. These are examples that are part of the MMA "rules". MMA is a sport, and I think we should observe that.

Sports karate has no chance in UFC. An MMA fighter has no chance in a Judo competition, and neither can claim to be 'better' in real life, unless the practitioner has experienced a real life encounter. We can train for it, but claiming that one style is better than the other is absurd - the concept of equal level on equal person does not exist. Would this equal comparison result in a short 60kg Pencak Silat practitioner matched up against a 100kg Judoka? It is fruitless, and I think that rather than worrying about which style is best, one should be more devoted into becoming the best he can be in his style, and exploring other styles to see how he can incorporate techniques that may be deficient in his base style.

Kata, which many people see as an obligation, and I have had a young (3-4 years of karate young) practitioner tell me that my form of karate was wrong, because with Kata he could defeat the enemy, is a double edged sword. Kata can perhaps be "unnecessary" to some, and I would agree that practicing kata does not make one better in a fight. However, kata is the expression of perfectionism, which ties into karate : the perfection of the art to kill. Kata therefore, is about body conditioning and training towards the goal of perfection. Doing kata for the sake of doing kata, is just copy-cat karate, and will never get you anywhere.

I also find the "one strike one kill" to be amusing. Because the claim its existence and non-existence, is akin to completely missing the point of karate. Besides the debate of whether it is possible or not to kill in one hit, of which I find largely uninteresting and besides the point, the essence of karate is not one strike one kill, but each strike being heavy and precise. That, is karate. Karate is not Jeet Kune Do. Karate is not Wing Chun. Karate is not Capoeira nor Pecak Silat. Karate is, essentially, a low SPM (strikes per minute) art. The idea is that there are no wasted movements. Each movement is precise, weighted, and has a purpose. It is because each strike is weighted and precise, that the concept of "one strike one kill" came into fruition, but we should not be taking that literally.

So why study karate at all? *shrug*, who knows. I started it because my father forced me to start it. Why not study BJJ, Muay Thai? No reason not to, and nothing stopping from people to explore other styles. The only true ultimate style, is the style that is adapted to the student's physiology, technique and mindset. Claiming there is one ultimate style is pure ignorance. I have no intention in claiming that karate is the be all and end all, but after 20 years of karate, my body has grown and has adapted to karate. Thus karate is MY ultimate style.

It is however the student's role to explore the martial art, and the role of the teacher to assist in the student's exploration of the art. Even if this means sparring against other styles and learning from them. This is essentially why I have started learning BJJ to incorporate simple and efficient Ne Waza ground technique into my karate to make more adapted. It is why I have spent years mastering the Gedan Mawashi-geri that is not taught in traditional Shotokan. Karate means empty hand, it does not have to be literally translated into "empty hand while standing, following certain rulesets". If a martial art is to be used for self defense, no matter which art and style, the trainee must understand and be prepared to take into account his art will never be the answer to the definite hand to hand combat. The answer? 42. "42" is just as valid as an answer to claiming which art is superior. Unless one tests his art against others, claiming it because so and so on TV fought someone else in UFC is hardly a good answer. A person's body should be adapted to his martial art, and vice versa should the martial art be adapted to the person.

Yes, it may take years to find out that you're not adapted to your current art, but claiming that karate takes too long just shows impatience, or a non-understanding, or a non-adapted body. Could always just go and learn Krav Maga I suppose.

Karate is an efficient and effective fighting technique if the person who uses karate, is an efficient and effective fighter.

Good post Leon. You are staying in a very beautiful place, I've gone past it often as we stay either in Grimaud or La Garde Freinet. Who do you train MMA with? I know the Schiavo brothers aren't too far away and I assume Karl Amoussou is in America?

 

[K-man]

Those two statements do not, IMO, mean that quite a number of movements in kata don't really translate all that well into actual empty hand fighting. Until posters take the effort to prove otherwise, I, like so many students of other arts remain unconvinced that much of kata maps to actual fighting.

That is exactly how they can be used.

There are certainly many karateka that are able to use small snippets of kata and often come up with pretty good ideas, and to make them effective, they have to add movements not found in the kata. But the sequences from which many movements are extracted still don't appear to make any sense in actual fighting.

No additional moves are required with the exception that after a low strike hands may return to kamae.

Most challenging to those who believe there are good fighting applications for all kata movements are the numerous instances of sequences of 3 or 4 steps forward. For example the initial forward sequences in the Pinans/Heians. Can anyone point to any online example of these being used in realistic fighting examples. When I ask this question online in forums such as MT, I get silence.

Short answer ... Yes. I'll give details below.

One can find numerous online examples of these kata sequences that are done in a way that in no way resembles actual fighting. But when one asks posters for applications for kata sequences that do map to actual fighting, one typically gets the quite common reply of "We have good realistic fighting concepts in my system/dojo but we can't show it online because it is not allowed. You see, our applications are still a big secret."

I am not at liberty to post my material because I had special permission to video for my own use. However detailed video is available on line.

Another common reply is "go do a youtube search, and you'll find good fighting". Another common answer is "so and so trained in Jiujitsu (or Aikido, or Chi Na, or Wing Chun...) and he has DVDs you can buy that shows these movements with good applications." Another answer is "I trained at Master ...'s seminar, and he taught some bunkai for a half dozen kata sequences, so I have concluded that he must have good applications for all his movements."

What I am referring to is not available on YouTube.

There is an old expression, "seeing is believing." If karateka want the world to believe that the movements in kata (the full sequences, not just tiny snippets) have real world application, then they should be prepared to defend that position. It is just all too easy to say "kata is a textbook, an encyclopedia of fighting" or "in my system, if the basics are taught correctly, then the yudanshu are able to figure out how to use the movements," or "so and so's website has all the answers."

To a certain extent that is true, but unless someone has been shown how the sequence works, regardless of rank you will find it difficult to work out a sequence by yourself.

It would be so much more helpful if those arguing that the long sequences in kata can provide for good fighting would be willing to provide some links of specific kata application. Not just tiny pieces of kata taken out of their sequences with all manner of additional strikes/locks/takedowns not found in the kata added to make them useful.

Even the material available on line is a basic form. The way the material is presented lends itself to interpret techniques in different ways, if you have the knowledge to do so. Nothing is added to the kata.

It would be interesting if karate posters didn't hide behind secrecy and old tired phrases such as "anyone deriding the use of katas/forms in training doesn't understand the art enough". I have a simple response. Prove it. Provide evidence. Where's the bunkai.

There is no secrecy. I teach ths from white belt.

One group that gets particularly incensed by my requests for examples are the students of Goju. Now I will argue that the structure of many Goju forms do lend a number of concepts to be used for good fighting. But again there are broad sections of kata that do not appear to map to fighting.

Tell me what part and I'll see if I can provide an explanation.

Do we look to Morio Higaonna's fighting examples where, in good karate fashion, he uses a single counter strike on almost every technique, and in good karate fashion is typically attacked by a single right lunge punch, something so uncommon in actual fighting. Karateka can denigrate MMA all they like, but the cage has proven again and again, this whole concept of single counterstrikes, especially to the torso, is a simply rotten fighting strategy. Or shall we look to the more modern Goju interpretations where the arm movements of kata are divorced from their stances and movements in different directions, and applied in a continuous stream forward against a single attacker. Is it efffective?. It appears to be. Do these movements truly map to the kata? No, plain and simple, no. The kata are modified beyond all recognition to redirect all arm movements in one forward flowing sequence.

Morio Higaonna doesn't teach contiguous bunkai. His bunkai is similar to that that we started doing about 30 years ago. All it is is a simple explanation for individual techniques.

One might think I am critical of this kind of effort. Absolutely not. I do commend the effort. Trying to make some of these patterns useful requires some real creativity. The more the better. But the extremes that are taken in modifying the kata for useful fighting helps to demonstrate the point that many kata sequences appear not to be all that well designed for empty hand fighting.

Yes, it really creative, but when you actually see it, it all falls into place.

Would any kata enthusiast like to post links to 5 popular Okinawan kata, and I will request examples of what three specific sequences mean. Then the kata enthusiast would point to online examples, or put something online? Just three sequences. This shouldn't be all that hard for posters here to video something quickly with a friend and post it to youtube.

I'll give you the choice. Gekisei, Saifa, Seyunchin, Shisoshin or Sanseru.

I expect silence. Why? Partially due to my experience on these forums. But primary because as much as karateka like to say otherwise, much of kata does not map to actual fighting. Saying over and over again that the emperor has a beautiful gold robe doesn't change the fact that he is indeed buck naked.

Ball's in your court.

Regarding kata application, tt would surprise me if someone would accept my offer above (links to 5 common kata online.) But I don't expect any surprises here.

-Cayuga Karate

I think it is against forum rules to promote other sites but the site I am referring to above has an annaul subscription and I am happy to give the information via PM.

Cayuga, I leave for a three week holiday today so won't be able to respond quickly. I will have my IPad so I will try to keep in contact.

 

[K-man]

Don't you just hate it when you rush, then find misspelled words or words that spellcheck has changed. Sorry folks for the bad spelling in the above post.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm not a karate guy, but I do practice a very traditional kung fu method that relies heavily on forms practice to develop the skills and principles of our system. Hope that's close enough for some comments...

Vast numbers of karate students learn kata with no application.

this may be true, but it doesn't mean application doesn't exist in the kata. It just means that, as you stated and I point out the obvious, Vast numbers of karate students learn kata with no application. that's all it means. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a shame, they are missing out. Their instructors, or their instructor's instructors, failed to teach them. Or they were incapable of learning it. Whatever the case.

Those two statements do not, IMO, mean that quite a number of movements in kata don't really translate all that well into actual empty hand fighting. Until posters take the effort to prove otherwise, I, like so many students of other arts remain unconvinced that much of kata maps to actual fighting.

honestly, as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to remain unconvinced. It's not an obligation that any of us carry, to convince you. It doesn't matter what you think and it doesn't matter if you think that forever. It doesn't change anything for us nor for the methods that we practice, whether you are convinced or not.

There are certainly many karateka that are able to use small snippets of kata and often come up with pretty good ideas, and to make them effective, they have to add movements not found in the kata. But the sequences from which many movements are extracted still don't appear to make any sense in actual fighting.

Regarding the bolded portion, this is true but that doesn't mean it isn't from the kata. This mean seem a paradox to you, but that's OK. You don't need to be convinced and we are not obligated to convince you nor explain this to your satisfaction. I will simply say that often movements are suggestive of several different useful options, and you need to be insightful enough as well as properly educated, to be able to understand and recognize those options. And they often do require some alteration or adjustment to capitalize on those option. Knowledge within kata is usually not served to you on a silver platter. If you are accustomed to silver platter treatment, then kata will remain frustrating for you. Again, you don't need to be convinced, and neither do you need to do kata. Yo are welcome to train with other methods.

Regarding the last sentence in the above quote: just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

One can find numerous online examples of these kata sequences that are done in a way that in no way resembles actual fighting. But when one asks posters for applications for kata sequences that do map to actual fighting, one typically gets the quite common reply of "We have good realistic fighting concepts in my system/dojo but we can't show it online because it is not allowed. You see, our applications are still a big secret."

And what does "actual fighting" look like? Again, just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Just because you don't think it looks like "actual fighting" doesn't mean it's not useful in fighting.

There is an old expression, "seeing is believing." If karateka want the world to believe that the movements in kata (the full sequences, not just tiny snippets) have real world application, then they should be prepared to defend that position. It is just all too easy to say "kata is a textbook, an encyclopedia of fighting" or "in my system, if the basics are taught correctly, then the yudanshu are able to figure out how to use the movements," or "so and so's website has all the answers."

I might be getting repetitous, but there's an older expression that goes: "I don't give a rat's *** what you think about it, one way or the other, and I don't need to convince you." I suspect the vast majority of karateka (and kung fu people) don't care what the uneducated "world" may think of what they do. In fact, I prefer to let people underestimate what I do. Let people like yourself think it's no good. Go ahead, perpetuate that belief. It works for me.

It would be so much more helpful if those arguing that the long sequences in kata can provide for good fighting would be willing to provide some links of specific kata application. Not just tiny pieces of kata taken out of their sequences with all manner of additional strikes/locks/takedowns not found in the kata added to make them useful.

ah, "if it doesn't exist on the internet, or on Youtube, it doesn't exist in the world..." Sorry, some of these things just don't get across in the written form nor on video, nor in a quick discussion without a fair bit of background understanding and familiarity with the system. That's not the same as saying "it's too secret to share". Rather it's just saying, "you lack the background to understand what I'm telling you, and I cannot give you that background in the quick and easy format that you seem to be looking for, so you are gonna have to settle with...you just won't get it". Either that or you need to train with a knowledgeable instructor for a couple years, and then you might get it.

It would be interesting if karate posters didn't hide behind secrecy and old tired phrases such as "anyone deriding the use of katas/forms in training doesn't understand the art enough". I have a simple response. Prove it. Provide evidence. Where's the bunkai.

what! for YOU? Nah, I don't feel like it.

The rest of what you wrote doesn't merit comment.

 

[K-man]

Cayuga, I know how much research and thought that you have put into your martial arts so I have to disagree with some of the sentiment directed at you. I have often considered kata as a system that includes weapons but have not had time to follow that line. In light of your research into kata and the short spear I have difficulty understanding your opposition to considering that kata might be a total fighting system. However, I am looking forward to seeing your response to my earlier post. Don't expect video because I don't 'do' video but I will give you an explanation. (The other thing to bear in mind is that it has cost us considerably to learn what we have learned and I doubt anyone would appreciate me putting it all out for everyone to use.)

 

[Leon026]

Good post Leon. You are staying in a very beautiful place, I've gone past it often as we stay either in Grimaud or La Garde Freinet. Who do you train MMA with? I know the Schiavo brothers aren't too far away and I assume Karl Amoussou is in America?

I train MMA with Sebastien Guiet, and the people from HB Academy - more so working on my ground technique and submission defense.






I think that the way we look at kata is perhaps... the reverse of how it was intended. The idea many of us have, is that kata is based off of real combat, thus naturally, kata should be applicable to real combat. However, if you bear in mind my first post above about the level of karate and how kenjutsu (as example) was taught in the 1800s, we would have an idea that karate (or any martial art for that matter) was taught once a month or so. Perhaps more often closer to the 1930s, but nevertheless it wouldnt be hyper regulated and information on training technique and all sorts of training support (nutritionists, books, youtube, internet) didn't exist. My natural conclusion therefore, was that kata should be viewed as a textbook/exercise book. Homework, if you will. You don't learn how to apply calculus in every day life, and I for one, have never calculated anything in the line of x^2 + x + 1 = y in my life. Ever. But, we still did it because it made us work our maths.... and because the course dictated that you do the homework. I believe Kata in Karate is similar. You *can* have real-life application if the correct situation crops up where you can directly apply Kata; just as much as I'm sure a real-life situation helped create the kata in the first place. But Kata imo, is essentially training material. Tekki-shodan, for example, should be viewed as prime training material foor kiba dachi and therefore thigh strengthening.

Its a textbook / exercise book, where you repeat kata ad infinitum when the teacher isn't there to teach you new techniques or guide you. Kata, is something you can repeat and work on on your own - and with a little self discipline such as lowering your overall height, increasing snap, having the feet properly angled etc, are all ways of "working" without the teacher being physically there in person to smack you if your feet arent properly aligned. Kata is useful as training material, as an exercise that should be repeated to perfection, naturally, but as a way to continue training when the teacher is not present. But I think obsessing in trying to find the direct and "true" application of kata, or the *need* to apply bunkai to real life, is akin to trying to apply the x^2 + x + 1 = y function in a history class, and claiming its ******** because it doesnt apply. Yes, it doesnt apply, but it certainly played an important part in math class, and perhaps indirectly assisted you in being able to manage your budget through Excel.

 

[TimoS]

Tekki-shodan, for example, should be viewed as prime training material foor kiba dachi and therefore thigh strengthening.

No, it is good training material for self defence situations. Just an example, the first combination for Tekki/Naifanchi shodan: imagine some one attacking you with haymaker punch. You step in, block the punch and then respond with an elbow strike (or three). Doesn't sound like material for thigh strenghtening to me.
Strengthening exercises are totally different.

 

[seasoned]

The stances are relevant for self defense within the kata, and the thighs just happen to get a strengthening workout as a by product............