Define your style of Karate

[Star Dragon]

Exactly, principles are the whole point. Martial arts are a collection of principles that we try to ingrain through training. But as you can see very few people can clearly express what the principles of their chosen art are. That is not a dig at anyone; we "do" martial arts so training is what we associate with the activity, but training in anything is only ever a means to an end.

Your integration of the side stance to facilitate the tactics of evasive footwork and angular entry is precisely the kind of detail I was trying to illicit.

Many simply start training what is presented to them by others uncritically and never give too much thought to it. That's fine, we don't all need to be researchers and scientists. However, I always try to understand the principles that are underlying a style. It's just the way my mind works.

For one thing, I think it greatly accelerates the learning process. Plus, that way, I was able to devise my own style from first principles. Perhaps you are trying to do the same, to one degree or another?

Talking about my fighting stance, yes, it's essentially a side stance or horse stance, but at a slight angle to the opponent (not that I would stay there long ). While the legs remain bent, the back foot may be positioned with the heel lifted off the ground and oriented forward. However, this isn't always the case.

 

[DaveB]

[QUOTE ="Buka, post: 1725521, member: 26001"]Hi Dave,

For power we utilice fast twitch rotation of the core muscles, regardless of direction in which the strike is traveling. Straight punches, hooks, uppercuts or kicks, it all comes down to core twitch for us. If a core happens to be out of shape - well, heck, you shouldn't be fighting in my opinion.
We punch more like a boxer than anything else. As such, the ball of the back foot in a strike from the back hand, drives the punch - at the exact same time as the core twitch. If we (most of my guys) are throwing a jab, it depends on what kind of jab. For instance - one of those fast head snappers that's meant to measure or interupt his beats, or a good stiff arm jab that's meant to intercept, stop (or slow down) and hurt him. The movements will be different, as will the footwork, and especially what might follow.
The more advanced students like to say that they "punch or kick from their ***" meaning they utilize the drive from the legs, hips and glutes.
We also use various footworks to close or open distance and change angles. That comes from core twitch as well. Like the old fashioned blitz.

And, yes, I know all too well about blitzing against a judo guy. Everytime I've played with a judo guy he's wiped the floor with me. Everytime.

As for "does your style advocate letting the opponent close and then trying them up, or do you practice more ranged interception. Do you stand side on, square or half way between.

It depends on what you like, or more precisely, what kind of fighter you are. Different guys I train with do it different ways. I don't think it's a matter of choice, I feel it's based on your strengths/weaknesses, skill sets....and what you work the hell out of.
I like to fight in the kitchen, as we use to say, real close in, I want to be able to smell your breath. So...I'd rather have the opponent coming in like a train than having him slowly stalk. I love to intercept, especially a larger opponent. It throws them so out of synch.

As for stance, we teach beginners a boxing stance. From there they develop the stances you mentioned. But we don't use side stances much anymore. They're okay if you're karate point fighting - and have a really good front leg side and hook kick, but they're countered easy and used against the side stance fighter by limiting him. Some of our guys point fight, some kickbox, we grapple and we box. So it depends on who's doing what that day.....and what stance they like and against whom.

For this - So when you (Buka) say that you don't like to fit into a fight, that may well be a valid tactic, but how do the teachings of your martial art make that work for you?

We teachadaptability over everything else. Position over technique, tactics and strategy over technique, principles over technique, but adaptability over everything. When people train in stand up fighting, they tend to train at the distance that's most comfortable for them to throw their techniques to the best of their ability. When people get into fights repeatedly outside, besides being a thug, they tend to use the same distance/ambush/set up that's always worked for them. We like to take them out of that distance, out of that comfort zone. When you throw a strike at me- I'm moving, always throwing back. I may very well get hit, but I'm not going to get hit in the comfortable spot where you like to throw from, you'll have to adjust, but I'm moving as you do (still striking, you ain't getting no free lunch here) - because I'm trying to gain position. And I'm going to get it, too.

How do you guys fight? What does the end result of American kempo, Goju Ryu or whatever style you do, look like to the trained observer?

We box, we punch and kick, we grapple and at times mix it up. But we always start pure grappling from the ground instead of standing. It's easier and safer, at least to me.
To the trained observer - depends. A lot would say we move like kickboxers, but the people saying that haven't actually kickboxed.(which I find amusing) If you have kickboxed you would say, "No, not quite, it's different".
There's a certain cadence/timing to kickboxing. A certain cadence in actual knock out fighting competition, and a different cadence to kickbox training. Having done plenty of both, that's not it. So, again, depends on the actual training of the observer.
When we do our version of what would be considered MMA (but it's not because I'm not letting them kill each other with elbows and knees to the face) the cadence in movement is different because of shooting (or any other way you want to take him down) than it is without shooting.

I think a trained eye would declare it an eclectic style of movement. But I've always hated that term.

Sorry for the long post, I tend to talk a lot.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I presume your adaptation approach is a personal development as opposed to a specific method?

What style do you practice?

 

[Oldbear343]

I teach very simplified, barebones style, with an emphasis on rooted stances, block/counter, low kicks,, and sweeps/throws, but there is also transitional movement and some stop - hit stuff. Some elements of tkd, some of goju, some of boxing, some of internal stuff. With regards to tactics or strategy, the tactics must depend on the situation, your state of readiness, and the aggression/ability of the attacker. The strategy is consisyent: use whatever it takes to survive and go home.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Ho does one define perfection? I guess, without Flaw.

 

[DaveB]

The strategy is consisyent: use whatever it takes to survive and go home.

That's not a strategy, it's a platitude. It tells you nothing about how you should approach an opponent, how you should overcome him or how to get out of a bad position.

By offering a simple guide of what to do to win a fight, you give all these details to the fighter. Even though they aren't spelled out, you know that to win you must put yourself where you can employ the strategy; which in its self takes you out of bad positions and stops you needing to work out how to adapt to the current situation.

"Use whatever works" has become the battle cry of the martial artist, but it means that all his/her time is now spent figuring out what it is that works rather than ingraining and refining precise methods.

At one end of the scale we have awesome generalists who can box with a pro and choke him out on the ground when they get bored. At the other end of the spectrum we have martial artists who know lots of techniques but with no clue how to put them together. They are never actually taught "how" to fight except through trial and error.

I should point out I wasn't taught a strategic way of viewing martial arts or self defense, I developed it myself after I took up kungfu. I saw how each piece of the art fed into the other: how you stand, how you step, how you hold your guard. I started looking for the same connectivity in my karate and it changed a lot for me.

I don't expect others to view their art in the same way but I'm fascinated to learn the different ideas that are designed into the various arts. However it seems to take a pretty big paradigm shift for most folks to be able to see and discuss it.

That being said, professional fighters often talk about having a game plan for their fights. The Greatest of all time, Muhammed Ali, used to predict what round his opponents would go down in. With such provenance behind the concept of strategy It has been a bit surprising how alien martial artists seem to find the idea.

 

[ShotoNoob]

That's not a strategy, it's a platitude. It tells you nothing about how you should approach an opponent, how you should overcome him or how to get out of a bad position.

By offering a simple guide of what to do to win a fight, you give all these details to the fighter. Even though they aren't spelled out, you know that to win you must put yourself where you can employ the strategy; which in its self takes you out of bad positions and stops you needing to work out how to adapt to the current situation.

"Use whatever works" has become the battle cry of the martial artist, but it means that all his/her time is now spent figuring out what it is that works rather than ingraining and refining precise methods.

At one end of the scale we have awesome generalists who can box with a pro and choke him out on the ground when they get bored. At the other end of the spectrum we have martial artists who know lots of techniques but with no clue how to put them together. They are never actually taught "how" to fight except through trial and error.

\
Dave .. .sensible.

I should point out I wasn't taught a strategic way of viewing martial arts or self defense, I developed it myself after I took up kungfu. I saw how each piece of the art fed into the other: how you stand, how you step, how you hold your guard. I started looking for the same connectivity in my karate and it changed a lot for me.

\
I think this is very true. Yet, if one steps back from the conventional presentation of say, Shotokan karate, one can readily see the same dynamic - on a less sophisticated level. Nonetheless, the dynamic of continuous motion is presented from day 1 in all traditional karate styles...

That being said, professional fighters often talk about having a game plan for their fights. The Greatest of all time, Muhammed Ali, used to predict what round his opponents would go down in. With such provenance behind the concept of strategy It has been a bit surprising how alien martial artists seem to find the idea.

\
Well, Ali worship aside, his opponents were not ranked particularly high on the Fight IQ scale. Anyhow, traditional karate teaches the targeted time for the end of the fight.
\
From a single, disabling strike; to say three to five strikes. Again, split second to seconds.

 

[Oldbear343]

Fighting consists of variations on basics: punches, strikes, kicks, blocks, throws, sweeps, locks, strangles, evasions. The strategy must be to adapt to the threat in front of you. As that can differ, then it is fruitless to try to adopt a one-size-fits-all strategy.. I prefer the approach of great fighters in history, such as Ali, who would have a different trategy for each opponent. George Foreman had a variation on that: "I have a plan, but if that doesn't work I resort to brutality!". Please do not label my view as a platitude simply because you do not agree with it.

 

[Buka]

\
I think this is very true. Yet, if one steps back from the conventional presentation of say, Shotokan karate, one can readily see the same dynamic - on a less sophisticated level. Nonetheless, the dynamic of continuous motion is presented from day 1 in all traditional karate styles...

Well, Ali worship aside, his opponents were not ranked particularly high on the Fight IQ scale. Anyhow, traditional karate teaches the targeted time for the end of the fight.

I disagree that the dynamic of continuous motion is presented from day 1 in all traditional Karate styles.

And what "fight IQ scale is that? Joe Frazier and Ken Norton certainly have what you would call pretty damn good fighting IQs.

 

[DaveB]

Sorry to have offended you but it literally is a platitude when inserted into a discussion on strategy. It tells you nothing about anything.

Having a core strategy doesn't preclude adaptation. Rather, it gives you something to adapt.

In the shotokan example I gave on pg 1 we see that this style requires space to work. Not much use in a crowded pub. So in said pub I must adapt: using back stance to maximise space as shown in the kata; I can drag stools between the aggressor and myself so I can attack as he tries to get through the obstacles etc. Once I have grasped the use of the core strategy in ideal conditions all my training should be geared to learning how to do adaptation of that ideal to the real world.

Those ring fighters who do change strategy based on who they are fighting can only do that because they know what they are up against ahead of time. By the time I find out the guy I took to the floor of the pub is a bjj black belt, I'm already losing consciousness.

Conversely, look at Lyoto Machida, or early Mike Tyson. One strategy mastered was all they needed.

You are right in saying that fighting makes use of variations on basic techniques, but we don't have to throw them into a hat and see what falls out. We can get an understanding of how and why those techniques work and how they fit together with each other and with the mechanics and movement of fighter and fight.

Dare I say it: we can go beyond technique! I am sure you and most others here do that in some form or another. You may even have a core strategy you just never articulated. But if not, I urge you to consider the idea. It really is just about picking your favorite route to victory and knowing why it works.

 

[ShotoNoob]

I disagree that the dynamic of continuous motion is presented from day 1 in all traditional Karate styles.

\
Well you're wrong. But certainly traditional karate styles are not as flowing as the kung fu styles as a group. Traditional karate is much more focused on instilling certain principles & emphasizes those, even over-emphasizes those @ the expense of the greater sophistication inherent in kung fu as a group.
\
So there's a trade-off of "simplicity" in principles for traditional karate vs. "complexity" in principles for kung fu. This has been commented on extensively in past threads by MT members....
\
As to disagreeing, people inside & outside of traditional karate do so all the time. Especially with me; "til I demonstrate what I am talking about. It's the kung fu practitioners in my area who agree with my position, generally....

And what "fight IQ scale is that? Joe Frazier and Ken Norton certainly have what you would call pretty damn good fighting IQs.

\
Well yes my point was over-stated when speaking of experts in the field of boxing. Yet the general premise holds that even a highly skilled Shotokan karate stylist true to traditional principles could present a very high risk to either of these guys in a striking contest, even hands only.... Karate's mental skills are simply on a higher plane than either of these boxing legends train or probably could attain.
\
Of course of the group you train with... skilled boxers could probably win 50-50, for argument sake.... Good luck with that.....

 

[ShotoNoob]

STATEMENT #1: I disagree that the dynamic of continuous motion is presented from day 1 in all traditional Karate styles.

\
Here's an example of "FIGHT IQ," which you allude to in what I labeled Statement #2. All TMA's teach continuous motion; it's a universal principle across all TMA styles.... Yet observers look @ karate vs. kung fu.... see some marked difference or degree - then jump to a "black or white," "on" or "off" conclusion.

STATEMENT #2: And what "fight IQ scale is that? Joe Frazier and Ken Norton certainly have what you would call pretty damn good fighting IQs.[/QUOTE]
\
Here's a quote from DaveB again illustrating "FIGHT IQ."

In the shotokan example I gave on pg 1 we see that this style requires space to work. Not much use in a crowded pub. So in said pub I must adapt: using back stance to maximise space as shown in the kata; I can drag stools between the aggressor and myself so I can attack as he tries to get through the obstacles etc. Once I have grasped the use of the core strategy in ideal conditions all my training should be geared to learning how to do adaptation of that ideal to the real world.

\
Dave is stuck looking @ the conventional training form for beginners in Shotokan kumite sport competition. Machida, our Shotokan karate UFC ambassdor to MMA himself is very guilty of this. Shotokan's traditional curriculum teaches something much broader & deeper. but then again, one has to move away from sport mentality of "money see - monkey do." Serous study of the entire karate curriculum is absolutely required...

Those ring fighters who do change strategy based on who they are fighting can only do that because they know what they are up against ahead of time. By the time I find out the guy I took to the floor of the pub is a bjj black belt, I'm already losing consciousness.

\
TMA is in sync with that... completely .

Conversely, look at Lyoto Machida, or early Mike Tyson. One strategy mastered was all they needed.

\
Well Mike Tyson is a natural born killer in the body of a gorilla.... hard to extrapolate from such a rare example of homo sapiens
\
Machida's early success stemmed from some good Shotokan kumite skills versus really medicare @ best MMA striking talent.... More that point out really good karate, Machida pointed out how fundamental Shotokan point fighting could frustrate & out move hesitant, plodding, indecisive & reactive MMA competitors, completely descriptive of same @ the time....

Dare I say it: we can go beyond technique! I am sure you and most others here do that in some form or another. You may even have a core strategy you just never articulated. But if not, I urge you to consider the idea. It really is just about picking your favorite route to victory and knowing why it works.

\
Traditional karate has a more sophisticated set of human skills and more sophisticated tactic & strategy than boxers by far. That's why karate beats boxing when karate is done well. Karate done poorly or even middling, like Mr. Miyagi say. "...squashed like grape."
\
Dave B's students, good luck with that....

 

[Buka]

\
Well you're wrong.
\
As to disagreeing, people inside & outside of traditional karate do so all the time. Especially with me; "til I demonstrate what I am talking about. It's the kung fu practitioners in my area who agree with my position, generally....

/ Thank goodness we straightened that out. /

 

[ShotoNoob]

/ Thank goodness we straightened that out. /

/
Well, only so much can be done over the internet...
/
The self defense public coming to you for classes isn't most likely going to be a disciple of traditional karate. Either by will or by other constraints. So it's best for the broad public audience that you stick to your guns any how.
\
A prime example is the Straight Blast Gym franchise. As far as TMA goes, the founder's wagon has fallen off It's wheels. Yet he reportedly has a very successful franchise going, teaching sport based & reality based fighting / self defense....

 

[DaveB]

Here are some examples of style descriptions that don't rely on descriptions of the training.

Boxing styles and technique - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also I thought of a way to explain why training is not definitive that might finally clarify my thoughts :

Someone earlier mentioned that if you want to practice the art of ballet or painting then you train in those arts hence training makes the art. This is correct, except that we don't train painting to "practice painting", we train painting to paint a picture. We train ballet to perform a ballet or other dance show.

It is the finished product that defines the art, not the road to the product.

In the case of the martial arts, the finished product is the fight; be it a tournament or a self defense situation. We train to fight and how we fight is what our ma is.

Hence the question of the thread. How does your style fight?

 

[Koshiki]

Honestly, I can't speak as to what "my style" of karate is in terms of the people I train with, but I can explain what I personally have taken from it. For the record, I am frequently accused of being "circular," "flowy" or my favorite, "kung-fu-ey." Most other practitioners in my system have, I think, a somewhat more direct route. This is largely as a result of my own devoted love of sticky hands....

Anyway, my personal style, is close upright fighting, with just enough ranged striking to close the gap against someone who doesn't specialize at keeping grapples at bay, and just enough groundwork to get back on my feet assuming my opponent isn't trained at keeping people in a ground fight. I rely heavily on soft arm contact as a default, as in sticky hands. My general tactics tend to be in the line of grabbing something and pulling while striking in the opposite direction.

A simplistic view of the overall strategy I employ is to maintain contact, and to, as I put it, "climb into" the opponent, each motion being, ideally a potential fight ender, but also bettering my position so that if I muck it all up, as I usually do, I'm not out of luck. I think the best way I can illustrate this is to outline some hollywood-style, picture perfect yet drawn out fight choreography for you. Here's a hypothetical.

1. With the left arm contact and grab the opponents right arm from the inside and smash the right forearm into the side of the jaw. If this ends the fight, great, if not...
2. With the left, hook under the opponent's already grabbed arm and pull the shoulder in close, trappng and torquing the shoulder. At the same time, deliver an inverted punch/uppercut to the celiac plexus which you are forcing down onto the strike. If that drops them, yay, but if not...
3. Step behind their stance with the left leg, control them with the right arm, and strike the head with the left fist, continuing past to drop them backwards over your left leg. Hopefully that ends the fight, but if not, they are hypothetically on the ground with you standing over them, so either get running or tidy up your lose ends.

(For anyone wondering, that's the opening sequence of our Pion/Pinan Nidan)

Obviously, that's a fight that went fantastically smoothly, but that's the overall idealized version of how I personally am most comfortable utilizing my style. In actual sparring I think I'm probably more like a kangaroo turning it's head and kicking scrabbling with everything it's got...

 

[DaveB]

Honestly, I can't speak as to what "my style" of karate is in terms of the people I train with, but I can explain what I personally have taken from it. For the record, I am frequently accused of being "circular," "flowy" or my favorite, "kung-fu-ey." Most other practitioners in my system have, I think, a somewhat more direct route. This is largely as a result of my own devoted love of sticky hands....

Anyway, my personal style, is close upright fighting, with just enough ranged striking to close the gap against someone who doesn't specialize at keeping grapples at bay, and just enough groundwork to get back on my feet assuming my opponent isn't trained at keeping people in a ground fight. I rely heavily on soft arm contact as a default, as in sticky hands. My general tactics tend to be in the line of grabbing something and pulling while striking in the opposite direction.

A simplistic view of the overall strategy I employ is to maintain contact, and to, as I put it, "climb into" the opponent, each motion being, ideally a potential fight ender, but also bettering my position so that if I muck it all up, as I usually do, I'm not out of luck. I think the best way I can illustrate this is to outline some hollywood-style, picture perfect yet drawn out fight choreography for you. Here's a hypothetical.

1. With the left arm contact and grab the opponents right arm from the inside and smash the right forearm into the side of the jaw. If this ends the fight, great, if not...
2. With the left, hook under the opponent's already grabbed arm and pull the shoulder in close, trappng and torquing the shoulder. At the same time, deliver an inverted punch/uppercut to the celiac plexus which you are forcing down onto the strike. If that drops them, yay, but if not...
3. Step behind their stance with the left leg, control them with the right arm, and strike the head with the left fist, continuing past to drop them backwards over your left leg. Hopefully that ends the fight, but if not, they are hypothetically on the ground with you standing over them, so either get running or tidy up your lose ends.

(For anyone wondering, that's the opening sequence of our Pion/Pinan Nidan)

Obviously, that's a fight that went fantastically smoothly, but that's the overall idealized version of how I personally am most comfortable utilizing my style. In actual sparring I think I'm probably more like a kangaroo turning it's head and kicking scrabbling with everything it's got...

Thanks, that is a very good description and very close to how I see much of karate.

I don't quite see the Pinan Nidan link, but certainly tekki/naihanchi makes use of similar ideas and techniques.

 

[Koshiki]

Thanks, that is a very good description and very close to how I see much of karate.

I don't quite see the Pinan Nidan link, but certainly tekki/naihanchi makes use of similar ideas and techniques.

Yeaaaaah, we do this weird Korean version of Pinan Nidan. In retrospect, adding the kata reference was probably more confusing than helpful, given the differences between the less mangled versions and our version...

But yeah, Naihanchi is in many respects similar, which is why I absolutely adore it.