Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense

[now disabled]

Oh, I find new stuff all the time. Martial arts is mostly one big extended family tree, I learned not to get hung up on styles a couple whiles ago. There are ways of striking, ways of grappling, and ways of moving. That's really it.

I just forgo things that don't seem to work until I see them work, or even better, feel them work on me, and at that point try to assimilate them into my game if I can. Pretty much the same thing most modern martial artists do I guess.

That the main thing feel them work on you ,,,,and by a person that does and is technically advanced enough to apply them or for that matter know enough that if you counter they can adjust and adapt ....look at a tech and then think ok then run thru it like in drill form to get a feel of it ...then progress from there ....keep it in your own locker that if the opportunity arises then use it you might be surprised at when that chance or opportunity may arise

 

[drop bear]

Funnily enough I do get your point there lol ....what I would ask is the current MMA was that not boiled down for a specific purpose in mind ...ie competition?

Yes but competition is an incredibly important training tool. People who compete get better at the activity they are competing in.

Competitive drivers drive better.
Competitive runners run faster.
Competition works.

Now if someone expands on that to create something for self defence then they have a process that will make better self defences.

 

[Martial D]

Yes but competition is an incredibly important training tool. People who compete get better at the activity they are competing in.

Competitive drivers drive better.
Competitive runners run faster.
Competition works.

Now if someone expands on that to create something for self defence then they have a process that will make better self defences.

Also, people sometimes confuse the competition with the thing itself, which is problematic.

Say I'm super good at building engines fast. Now imagine enough people found that interesting enough to watch, and now we have a competition to see who can assemble the engine the fastest.

Nothing new has been created, it's still people building engines.

 

[drop bear]

Also, people sometimes confuse the competition with the thing itself, which is problematic.

Say I'm super good at building engines fast. Now imagine enough people found that interesting enough to watch, and now we have a competition to see who can assemble the engine the fastest.

Nothing new has been created, it's still people building engines.

you would be creating methods of efficiency. Which is a really important concept.

And pit crews do that in competition.

And what a supprise. We can see consistent training methods at play here.

 

[now disabled]

Yes but competition is an incredibly important training tool. People who compete get better at the activity they are competing in.

Competitive drivers drive better.
Competitive runners run faster.
Competition works.

Now if someone expands on that to create something for self defence then they have a process that will make better self defences.

I agree mostly

How do you or would you go about creating the self defense aspect ? as that is an interesting concept

 

[Steve]

I agree mostly

How do you or would you go about creating the self defense aspect ? as that is an interesting concept

Hint... it start’s with a “c” and ends with an “ompetition”.

 

[drop bear]

I agree mostly

How do you or would you go about creating the self defense aspect ? as that is an interesting concept

You still do theoretical but it is based off practical

You build off what you know works and change the order of priorities to what you think should be.

Then test that in the gym. And in the field.

Then take that information back to the lab and start with new theories based on that information.

Rinse and repeat.

I could roll with say eyegouges, or with punches ort knives or to escape being raped or for handcuff position or two, three on one or even to remove someone's sock.

It just involves changing the victory conditions.

Competition isolates and emphasizes certain aspects of self defence so that you can't escape the using other methods.

So if I am a gella boxer and I do MMA I may be able to be crap at grappling and get away with it for a bit. But eventually I will meet a guy who can do both and I will get bashed.

So I might do grappling competitions where I can't escape grappling and so have to grapple

 

[drop bear]

Just going full speed with someone you don't know changes what works and what doesn't.

And that took me forever to learn because I was never taught it in self defence.

Which is why 6 months of MMA can just charge all over a lot of other systems.

They may only have learned 5 moves that work but they are 5 more moves than me at full speed.

 

[drop bear]

You still do theoretical but it is based off practical

You build off what you know works and change the order of priorities to what you think should be.

Then test that in the gym. And in the field.

Then take that information back to the lab and start with new theories based on that information.

Rinse and repeat.

I could roll with say eyegouges, or with punches ort knives or to escape being raped or for handcuff position or two, three on one or even to remove someone's sock.

It just involves changing the victory conditions.

Competition isolates and emphasizes certain aspects of self defence so that you can't escape the using other methods.

So if I am a gella boxer and I do MMA I may be able to be crap at grappling and get away with it for a bit. But eventually I will meet a guy who can do both and I will get bashed.

So I might do grappling competitions where I can't escape grappling and so have to grapple

And more importantly once you have some practical experience the conversation changes from this weird dogmatic self defence talk to an actual useful discussion of risks and rewards.

 

[gucia6]

Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense?

I would not say that looking at my trainings. Sure we exercise the traditional forms while 'punching the air', but then when we more or less master the movement the instructor explains and shows us the application. And as we go and improve he puts more pressure on that. But still, the basics have to be known.

And anyway, in case of crisis you would not think of your forms, but do anything to defend yourself and escape as soon as possible.

For example, I had grading last week and part of our examination was freeing ourselves from different types of grips. When I looked at others beeing examined my toughts were running wild "omg, what will I do when I am in this and that lock". But when it was my turn, it went smoothly, I did not have time and brains to think if my movements and form are the correct ones

And sparring I find great for development of reflexes and observation ability.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes but competition is an incredibly important training tool. People who compete get better at the activity they are competing in.

Competitive drivers drive better.
Competitive runners run faster.
Competition works.

Now if someone expands on that to create something for self defence then they have a process that will make better self defences.

There remains the question of causality. We know training makes a difference, but does competition actually drive performance, or are better (drivers, runners, boxers, etc.) more likely to compete? I think there's some of both.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Also, people sometimes confuse the competition with the thing itself, which is problematic.

Say I'm super good at building engines fast. Now imagine enough people found that interesting enough to watch, and now we have a competition to see who can assemble the engine the fastest.

Nothing new has been created, it's still people building engines.

And while it is possible to become skilled at the specialization of assembling engines at high speed, but not any good at getting it right enough for actual work, it's most likely that you get better at both.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hint... it start’s with a “c” and ends with an “ompetition”.

That's a circular reply, Steve. He asked how one could go about creating a self-defense aspect to competition.

 

[Steve]

That's a circular reply, Steve. He asked how one could go about creating a self-defense aspect to competition.

it's possible. I don't know for sure that I understand what is meant by self defense aspect. There is a bit of a language barrier here.

 

[Mitlov]

I won't pretend I've read all 800ish posts spanning 14 years, but looking at the first few and the most recent, I think I see a fundamental problem with this thread.

The thread began with an argument that traditional karate isn't effective for self-defense because traditional karate training is based around the assumption of a one-on-one empty-handed face-to-face duel.

Nowadays the argument is that traditional karate isn't effective for self-defense because it doesn't involve competitive, aggressive sparring.

The problem is, "traditional karate" isn't one thing, and each person who is coming here to criticize karate is picking one particular approach to training that they don't like, assuming that it represents all of "traditional karate," and then ragging on it. But traditional karate isn't one thing. It's not standardized in the way that "boxing" or "BJJ" is. When someone tells you they have a ferret as a pet, you know what to expect. When someone tells you they have a dog, it could be anything from a Scottie to a Rottweiler to a Newfoundland. When someone tells you they train at a boxing gym, you know what their training looks like. When someone says they train in traditional karate, it could be anything. It could be all about forms and one-steps. It could have lots of weapon work. It could have lots of sparring and plenty of competition. It could be some combination of these.

You can't pick the one approach that isn't what you want, declare it representative of all of traditional karate, and bash all of traditional karate. It's like how on the last page, this was offered up as representing all of traditional karate:

Sure, there are SOME schools that rely primarily on one-steps like that. But there are other traditional karate schools that look like this:

(skip to 1:25)

And there are some that look like this:

Or like this:

This entire thread is like a thread where half the posters are saying "I don't like dogs because they're small and yappy," and the other half are saying "I don't like dogs because they're big and slobbery." Both are criticizing very specific subsets of dogs, and acting like all dogs are like that. It's not that simple.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

This entire thread is like a thread where half the posters are saying "I don't like dogs because they're small and yappy," and the other half are saying "I don't like dogs because they're big and slobbery." Both are criticizing very specific subsets of dogs, and acting like all dogs are like that. It's not that simple

Well said, I believe that people forget or just do not realize, that 'Karate' is a generic term. When the statement that 'traditional karate doesn't work', is made, the question should be asked which style or system? Are you talking about traditional sport karate, or a karate that focuses on combat? Or, is the claim that no Karate works' being made?

Or, is it just the specific way Karate is taught, that the person has an issue with?

It does confuse me, when I hear people talk about punching in air, do they really think that is how a punch would be performed in a real fight? There are the use of bags, kicking shields, focus mitts, and a double end ball, that I find common in a lot of schools. Bag work is a common thing, my school did it in 80's and its a practice that most still do today.

I also think that some do not know about the fighting forms, as too where you have the basic forms and then the fighting form and applications. Not just the step by step bunkai, but the full speed single and multiple attackers exercise. This is where you see the throws and take downs, that can be found in some systems. This is the meat of any system. And, then you apply it in sparring. Although, you do not see this type of sparring in a lot of today's schools, you do have schools that still practice this way.

The unique thing about Kata, is that the moves are there and with a little bit of work, they can be reverse-engineered, and the self-defense and fighting techniques can be found. But, it is best to find a school that has those fighting forms or at the very least, go hard and fast using those techniques, in your sparring sessions. Those techniques can be practiced just about anywhere true, but the bag work and the hard sparring, are vital parts of any karate system. I think the old style rope on a board shows that.

 

[Steve]

I won't pretend I've read all 800ish posts spanning 14 years, but looking at the first few and the most recent, I think I see a fundamental problem with this thread.

The thread began with an argument that traditional karate isn't effective for self-defense because traditional karate training is based around the assumption of a one-on-one empty-handed face-to-face duel.

Nowadays the argument is that traditional karate isn't effective for self-defense because it doesn't involve competitive, aggressive sparring.

The problem is, "traditional karate" isn't one thing, and each person who is coming here to criticize karate is picking one particular approach to training that they don't like, assuming that it represents all of "traditional karate," and then ragging on it. But traditional karate isn't one thing. It's not standardized in the way that "boxing" or "BJJ" is. When someone tells you they have a ferret as a pet, you know what to expect. When someone tells you they have a dog, it could be anything from a Scottie to a Rottweiler to a Newfoundland. When someone tells you they train at a boxing gym, you know what their training looks like. When someone says they train in traditional karate, it could be anything. It could be all about forms and one-steps. It could have lots of weapon work. It could have lots of sparring and plenty of competition. It could be some combination of these.

You can't pick the one approach that isn't what you want, declare it representative of all of traditional karate, and bash all of traditional karate. It's like how on the last page, this was offered up as representing all of traditional karate:

Sure, there are SOME schools that rely primarily on one-steps like that. But there are other traditional karate schools that look like this:

(skip to 1:25)

And there are some that look like this:

Or like this:

This entire thread is like a thread where half the posters are saying "I don't like dogs because they're small and yappy," and the other half are saying "I don't like dogs because they're big and slobbery." Both are criticizing very specific subsets of dogs, and acting like all dogs are like that. It's not that simple.

I think it's funny that you start by saying you didnt read the entire thread and end by specifically critiquing the entire thread. "I wont pretend to have read the 800ish posts." Vs "this entire thread is like...." Made me laugh and represents quite a mental journey.

I think, if you had taken some time to read the thread, you would find that there is quite a bit of discussion about the various styles of karate and what makes some (like kyokushin) more reliably effective than others.

 

[Mitlov]

I think it's funny that you start by saying you didnt read the entire thread and end by specifically critiquing the entire thread. "I wont pretend to have read the 800ish posts." Vs "this entire thread is like...." Made me laugh and represents quite a mental journey.

I think, if you had taken some time to read the thread, you would find that there is quite a bit of discussion about the various styles of karate and what makes some (like kyokushin) more reliably effective than others.

I have not read every single page but I've read the last several. I think it's a bit silly to say you need to read every post in a 14-year-old thread before being able to comment in that thread.

Do you not consider Kyokushin to be "traditional karate"? How about other karate styles where pad work and free sparring are common facets of training? Because in the last several pages, people are using "traditional karate" and "competition" as antonyms. And I take some issue with those posts.

 

[Steve]

I have not read every single page but I've read the last several. I think it's a bit silly to say you need to read every post in a 14-year-old thread before being able to comment in that thread.

Do you not consider Kyokushin to be "traditional karate"? How about other karate styles where pad work and free sparring are common facets of training? Because in the last several pages, people are using "traditional karate" and "competition" as antonyms. And I take some issue with those posts.

Look, man. You started the post saying, "I won't pretend I've read all 800ish posts spanning 14 years...." You end your post with a sweeping generalization of the entire thread. I'm not saying you have to read every post. I'm saying it's hilarious that in the same post you declare that you haven't read the entire thread and also presume to critique, literally, the entire thread. I mean, you literally say, "This entire thread...." That's genuinely funny.

 

[Martial D]

And while it is possible to become skilled at the specialization of assembling engines at high speed, but not any good at getting it right enough for actual work, it's most likely that you get better at both.

Yes but the competition still isn't isn't the thing you are competing at, which was the point.

For some reason some people are making the distinction between 'competitive' fighting and fighting, and disregarding the former for (????)reasons(???). They are both the same thing.

If anything, the competitive fight is MORE 'real' than the 2 minute chance encounter with the drunken shlub with the haymaker that tires after a minute(most "real" fights)