Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense

[OC Kid]

I think this guy is just "another flavor of the week". When Bruce Lee was famous JKD was the bomb, then Seagal and akido was the bomb, and on and on and on.. Its all good. Its up to the individual. As a instructor I tell my students I can teach you but I cant make you learn.

It some guy just tryng to sell his system.

 

[Ceicei]

In your post Ceicei, you mentioned that this spawned a mamoth thread of heated discussion...

I am sure that many of the reactions to the article were similar to the ones above. If so, how did Mr. Mann defend his theories and what finally became of the thread....

Regards,
Walt

Mr. Mann didn't post the thread. It was a user from that other website who obtained the article. I would have liked to know how Mr. Mann would make his rebuttals. I have found his article on several other websites too.

Basically, the reactions were similar (as far as martial artists go), but there was a different flavor. Since many of the people on that other website were primarily from United Kingdom, they had a different view of self defense. I don't know if it just a cultural difference between the Americans and the Europeans. :idunno:

- Ceicei

 

[Pacificshore]

Basically, the reactions were similar (as far as martial artists go), but there was a different flavor. Since many of the people on that other website were primarily from United Kingdom, they had a different view of self defense. I don't know if it just a cultural difference between the Americans and the Europeans. :idunno - Ceicei

You probably hit the nail on the head w/a cultural difference regarding SD in the UK Ceicei. I mean after all practically any sort of weapon is outlawed back there, and many seem to talk about wanting to be "street" effective :idunno:

 

[Hwoarang_tkd26]

What a load of rot, what I could read of it.
Firstly the history is all wrong. The original art of te (of you want to get very traditional) was dying out, so was modified to make it 'safer' and introduced into the okinawan school system as a form of physical education. The katas were the repository of these techniques and were modified to mask their true intent in order to be safe for school students to be taught. However masters were taught the keys and techniques for discovering the true purpose and application, and passed these on to those they deemed able to learn. Trouble was that so many didnt learn, and went off to form their own schools teaching kata without any idea of application. What is being criticized here is not traditional karate, but sport karate.
Traditional karate should contain aspects the grappling art of Tuite, and Kyusho Jitsu, the study of vital strike points. Sadly, these are all but passed from the art.

Traditional karate - real traditional karate, is a most thorough self defence system. Alas, you would be hard pressed to find it.

Interesting post, I have never known or ever herd of something such as this, but it makes sense.

 

[RRouuselot]

Interesting post, I have never known or ever herd of something such as this, but it makes sense.

Probably because the information is totally inaccurate.



Actually that time period saw more people openly practice Karate than any other time before it, even before it was introduced into the school system. Introducing karate into the Okinawan school system was meant as a preparation for future military service and a form of physical conditioning.
It sure beats the hell out of "radio taiso" which was fairly common form of exercise at the time.

 

[Kizaru]

Hello, Real fighting is fast, no rules, anything goes. Karate does not teach you to bite,scratch,spit in to the eyes, and karate is not set-up to....

Hello? You need someone to teach you to "bite, scratch and spit into the eyes"?

You need practice biting? Try beef jerky.

Scratching? Roll around in poison ivy, or hang out with some mosquitoes.

Spitting? Eat a big watermelon or take up the fine art of chewing tobacco.

 

[RRouuselot]

Hello? You need someone to teach you to "bite, scratch and spit into the eyes"?

You need practice biting? Try beef jerky.

Scratching? Roll around in poison ivy, or hang out with some mosquitoes.

Spitting? Eat a big watermelon or take up the fine art of chewing tobacco.

Spitting, biting, scratching???

Sounds like a "girlyman" way to fight......if you have good karate technique you won't have to resort to such fighting methods.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

sounds to me like the guy writing the article missed the whole point of MA training........jeez i guess he sure showed gogen yamaguchi and mas oyama a thing or two.
he's the guy at the back of the class that takes a months worth of lesson's and then starts the greatest self defense style in the world.......what a load

shawn

 

[rox]

I don't practice Karate(yet), but I can say that the writer of the article has misunderstood many concepts of traditional martial arts.

First of all, a blow might not kill one, but FOR SURE it can knock him out... Any atack to vital areas will put one into serious trouble for life... An atack to the throat, for instance, is common in non-sport karate isn't it?

I really like the counter-gun stuff in styles like Krav Maga, but the article author has showed great disrespect AND lack of knowledge... Most traditional arts schools that I've seen have counter-knife and counter-staff techniques.

And the part where he puts other martial arts over karate really shows that he's only trying to discredit TMAs. I guess he owns a "reality-based" school and gets lots of money talking karate is ineffective.

 

[Simon Curran]

You probably hit the nail on the head w/a cultural difference regarding SD in the UK Ceicei. I mean after all practically any sort of weapon is outlawed back there, and many seem to talk about wanting to be "street" effective :idunno:

Nothing personal, but to assume that in a country where weapons are illegal, than weapons don't exist is quite naiive.
Trust me when I say to you that criminals are criminals where ever you are in the world, there are still people in the UK who get stabbed/shot/bludgeoned to death...
But anyway back on topic, it has been said by many others already, but in my opinion it is not the style, but the practitioner who makes the difference, to give an example;
In 1984 during the miners strike in Yorkshire UK, where I was raised, a local Shotokan black belt was sent to prison for having killed a man with his bare hands (kara-te anybody...) in a riot situation, although it is not a terrorist attack etc. I defy most people to not think of themselves as being in a fight for their lives if they are stuck in the middle of a riot, again as an example, my dad is a police officer (getting on a bit now...) who was awarded a commendation for bravery, when him and his partner were the first 2 officers in attendance at a riot involving 500 people, like I said, try telling me that you aren't going to be thinking you may not get home alive in that situation.
Right climbing down from my soapbox now...

 

[TonyM.]

OK. I'm old enough not to care. That article was blatant nonsense written by someone with something to sell.

 

[Autocrat]

Erm...... did anyone catch what style the author did, where they did it, who tutored them, how long they practised, how serious they took it etc?

I ask because it read as if it was written by a disgruntled 20 something who never got above orange belt/7th Kyu because they were useless...... shame really.



As for the Sporting martial arts being better than traditional... and defence courses being best of all.... I've never known a self defence course longer than 8 hours in total... well... as I'm no t permitted to swear... I'll say 1111122233344533 to it!

Most sporting styles miss out on the defensive systems and highlight the flashier moves which tend to leave you open... though if the hit you - you know it! and as for self defence course... most seldomly run for morethan 5 seessions, and the majority have less than 10 hours training... how does that count for training?



Do you think it would be possible to invite the authour to come and talk to us? OR VISIT US? I do traditional karate, as well as kung fu (is there a better term yet for that style?), kickboxing as well... and I've never had a problem being attacked and surviving.....



So, shame on the author... nice effort, but the basis sounded bias.... aw, poor person probably did karate, gobbed off and got their head kicked in.. (*evil grin*) shame!

 

[Tremble]

.

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.

No explanation of the author's experience in Karate.

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.

I guess he reccomended Pottery classes instead.

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.

From this we gather he's had some experience of Karate, but no indication of how much, while he lumps other arts into his waste paper basket in the same sentence. We have the statement that styles are more important than people, Bruce Lee inevitably get's name dropped. I've already got the idea this is someone less than 20 years old, who has never been in a fight in his life.

"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

My pet peeve; quote someone else. In this case, a complete moron.

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.

We have a nice sweeping generalisation and a contradictory statement there. I don't even care for the way it is phrased; "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). "

Note the use of 'weasel words', followed by the contradiction; "muaythai is the modernized style of Thailand's fighting systems from the 14th Century."

Sensationalist claptrap!

 

[JAMJTX]

This is just too lenghty to respond to it all. This appears to be written by someone who either never studied traditional karate, or just does not understand it.

If you study a traditonal system, such as Goju Ryu, Shito Ryu or Shindo Jinen Ryu, you will learn quite highly effective self defense. These styles include training in various ranges: kicking, punching, grappling and even ground fighting.

To say that traditional karate styles have not addressed modern weapons is also wrong. Perhaps not all teachers get into modern weapons, but an awful lot do. One of the best seminars I ever attended for police oriented self defense, which included pistol disarms, was taught by a Kyokushin teacher.

Brazilian Jujitsu as an alternative? Please! BJJ is a great sport. But sports will get you killed in the street. BJJ is great in a one-on-one situation but is useless against muliple attackers. Training in karate my not guarantee you will defeat multiple attackers, but atleast there is training in strategy and techniques.

I'm going to have to end here. Like I said, the original article is just too long and ill-informed to answer in full. It's best that it just be ignored.

 

[Hand Sword]

Wow! This author is definitely not worth responding to, but, I'm at work, on the 3rd shift, and bored, so, here goes.

I think everyone here, or worth any kind of martial art salt knows that it isn't the style, or system, but, the individual. So, attacking traditional Karate is wrong. Along these lines, think of old masters that had great reputations as fighters. They proved themselves then,and had nothing but training in a TKS as a foundation. Also, they are many accounts of average people successfully defending themselves using "Karate", myself one being one of them. Does the author think if some one kicked him in his groin, elbowed his jaw, or palmed his nose, it would be ineffective? He should remember that Reality based arts, and MMA use "traditional" techniques.

 

[pstarr]

This fellow needs to get himself into a full tilt boogie smackdown in a biker bar....

 

[twendkata71]

the person that wrote this article really does not know what they are talking about and has not trained in serious formal training.
It is a free country and a person has a right to say whatever they want. Just shows ignorance.

 

[Hand Sword]

In full agreement.

 

[eyebeams]

1. The One-Strike Kill

Not traditional, except in Japanese styles changed to ape Japanese Gendai Budo.

2. Waiting for The Attack

Not traditional. "No first attack" refers to forming the intention to attack, not actually executing the attack.

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.

Not traditional for Okinawan karate.

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.

I don't see what this has to do with self-protection.

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 has a physiological and psychological function. Zen or Taoist methods aren't necessary.

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!

No, he was performing the three key elements of meditation:
1) Breath control.
2) Visualization.
3) Control of conscious thought.

Specific cultural and religious baggae isn't necessary to "meditate."

6. Breaking Objects can Break You!

Heavy breaking isn't really "traditional."

7. The Kata Crutch

There's some truth to this. Kata really should come last, not first. Functional basics trained with resistance comes first.

8. Karate Doesn't Prepare You for the Street

Some agreement, but karate wasn't regularly practiced indoors until the 20th century. The "adrenaline dump" thing is covered by many people, and jurisdictional law can't really be taught in an international martial tradition.

Most basics do not really use "fine motor skills," either.

9. Karate Makes you Stiff and Rigid

Sometimes true.

10. Karate is Ineffective Against Modern Weapons

Karate's not designed for modern weapons. Neither is BJJ or Muay Thai.

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

Some truth to this.

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.

1) Can't do sleeve techniques without a gi top unless you want to rip your shirt. The gi bottom provides pands that don't rip. The belt keeps the top in. Shoes sound fine.

2) Or you could just make them as narrow as they are supposed to be.

3) Kata are useful after learning spontaneous, functional skills as a way to continue to develop those skills without direct instruction. They keep you from being stuck in a rut while shadowboxing or sparring.

4) Already done in many cases.

5) Already done if you don't focus on kata too soon. Punches and kicks are not that complicated.

6) Already present in many cases. Karate doesn't have full-on groundwork, so people should cross-train.

7) Again, cross-train instead of criticising karate for not having something it has rarely ever been claimed to have.
​

 

[twendkata71]

I have trained in both Traditional and ecclectic styles of karate and other martial arts. I still like the traditional arts. As far as fighting skill goes that really is dependant on how much you put into your art. How well you develop your skills.
People who criticize and downplay the martial arts weither traditional or ecclectic are generally too lazy to put the time in to actually train long enough to develop any real skill. So to them it doesn't work or seems too hard, or whatever.:mst: