Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense

[JBrainard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by twendkata71
There are a lot of people that feel that Taekwondo has lost its effectivness as a self defense art.


They're basing that on the media picture of TKD, which tends to focus on the sports side. And some of it, of course, comes from people who love to bash anything other than their own fighting system. It's not just MAs---in trying to answer one of my son's questions, I recently encountered the same kind of disdain for what others do/think on some discussion board involving the relative toxicity of Australian snakes! Believe it or not, there are some herpetologists out there with big chips on their shoulders...

I don't think it's because of the media picture of TKD. I think that it's because most "belt factories" teach TKD. I don't know why this is, it's just something I've noticed.

 

[exile]

Very good point. I found (on accident, I admit) a Shotokan Sensei who was a marine for years, so I suspect he knows what works and what doesn't.

Yeah, that's probably a safe bet. Military application of an MA tend to prune a lot of the decorative extras from the system. The ROK Black/White Tigers who fought in the Korean and Vietnamese wars were trained in a very hard TKD skill set and had the reputation in both wars of being the toughest of the tough, people you did not want to go hand-to-hand with. I suspect that what they were doing in their combat training then wouldn't look too much like what we've seen in Olympic-style WTF sparring...

 

[twendkata71]

Our organization had a lot of exposure,cross training with Taekwondo stylist, mainly because we were involved with the USAKF movement for traditional karate competitions when the USAKF was the NGB for the USOC,WUKO/WKF. The president of the USAKF is a Taekwondo and karate grand master. He was originally a Taekwondo stylist and then got involved in more Japanese karate back in the 70's when he became involved with the USKA and then AAU karate. He teaches both Taekwondo and karate programs in his school as well as a variety of other arts. He became affiliated with several Masters in Japan. I know several fantastic Taekwondo stylist that do not run the" belt factories". The sad fact is that there are soo many Taekwondo schools out there that are Mcdojo/Mcdojangs that it has tarnished the credibility of Taekwondo. There are just as many karate schools that are the same way.
With all of the years that I have spent in the martial arts, it pays to keep an open mind and to learn from everyone that you can. :asian:

 

[exile]

Our organization had a lot of exposure,cross training with Taekwondo stylist, mainly because we were involved with the USAKF movement for traditional karate competitions when the USAKF was the NGB for the USOC,WUKO/WKF. The president of the USAKF is a Taekwondo and karate grand master. He was originally a Taekwondo stylist and then got involved in more Japanese karate back in the 70's when he became involved with the USKA and then AAU karate. He teaches both Taekwondo and karate programs in his school as well as a variety of other arts.

I happen to think that is a great natural combination. I don't think of it as `cross training' because the skill sets are so close (as reflected in the near identity of the kata on the one hand and the hyungs on the other). I think of them as kind of like two dialects of, say, German---people from different villages can tell that X is from their own village and Y is from the other village by the way they speak, but X and Y can talk to each other and understand each other perfectly, no problem. In that same way, TKD and karate are mutually intelligible.

He became affiliated with several Masters in Japan. I know several fantastic Taekwondo stylist that do not run the" belt factories". The sad fact is that there are soo many Taekwondo schools out there that are Mcdojo/Mcdojangs that it has tarnished the credibility of Taekwondo. There are just as many karate schools that are the same way.

Yes. I've started referring to `Mcdojs.' because it starts taking too long to keep writing 'Mcdojo/Mcdojangs'. Both TKD and karate are afflicted with the same problem. My main gripe with such places is that the students in those outfits are being deceived---they think they're getting effective training but typically aren't. And the problem is, as someone pointed out on another thread a while back, they think everything is on the up-and-up because they just don't know any better---their only experience in the MAs is in that Mcdoj. Only when something happens like what Iceman describes in his thread about his new 8-year-old student who came to him with a `black belt' from another dojang (commercially driven, unlike Iceman's) do the people involved find out that they've been had.

With all of the years that I have spent in the martial arts, it pays to keep an open mind and to learn from everyone that you can. :asian:

Absolutely---and the best reason for doing so is that your own interpretation of your`core' art can improve if you're open to other influences. It's like anything else---there's a lot more going on there than any one system of thought can dream of. Can't understand the venom with which some people view the existence of MA other than their own--diversity in the MAs is like biodiversity in nature; it makes for an ecosystem much more likely to survive.

 

[twendkata71]

The whole idea of one style the only style came from the commercialization by the Japanese and Korean masters to keep their students and income. Originally the old Okinawans would crosstrain with other styles learning as much as they could. When it got to Japan, and in some part Korea they started telling their students to only train in one style and that their style was superior to the others (ego driven).

 

[exile]

The whole idea of one style the only style came from the commercialization by the Japanese and Korean masters to keep their students and income. Originally the old Okinawans would crosstrain with other styles learning as much as they could. When it got to Japan, and in some part Korea they started telling their students to only train in one style and that their style was superior to the others (ego driven).

Funny---we tend to have the impression that this factionalization of the MAs began with the export of the Asian MAs to North America, but what you're pointing out is that it happened well before the postwar `karate boom'. (Just as a matter of interest, does anyone recall the earliest appearance of karate in popular culture? I remember it appearing in The Manchurian Candidate in 1962, in a fight between Frank Sinatra's character and some villain who was, I believe, supposed to be Korean.) We know that there always were rivalries between different fencing schools in Japan during the samurai era, so hostility among the karate dojos would have been nothing new. The Okinawan approach seems so much more realistic and practical...

 

[twendkata71]

Interesting fact. GM George Anderson teaches Chang moo kwan Taekwondo, Which they call "Korean Shotokan" because his teacher and the founder of this style studied with Funakoshi at the Shotokan in Japan. I am sure this did not set well with the KTA or WTF as they are trying to space themselves as far from the Japanese as possible. Several of them even try to say that Taekwondo does not have any Japanese influence. Which is totally false. The Japanese invaded and ruled Korea for 35 years and tried to wipe out the indigenous Korean martial arts and implant their own arts and culture. No wonder that the Koreans still dislike(hate) the Japanese and wish to deny any lineage with the Japanese karate masters.

 

[exile]

Interesting fact. GM George Anderson teaches Chang moo kwan Taekwondo, Which they call "Korean Shotokan" because his teacher and the founder of this style studied with Funakoshi at the Shotokan in Japan. I am sure this did not set well with the KTA or WTF as they are trying to space themselves as far from the Japanese as possible. Several of them even try to say that Taekwondo does not have any Japanese influence. Which is totally false. The Japanese invaded and ruled Korea for 35 years and tried to wipe out the indigenous Korean martial arts and implant their own arts and culture. No wonder that the Koreans still dislike(hate) the Japanese and wish to deny any lineage with the Japanese karate masters.

This is a very important point that Last Fearner has made in some of his recent posts in the Korean fora, that there was a strong motive for the Koreans to reassert their cultural autonomy and stress, to the rest of the world, that their culture had indeed survived the efforts of the Japanese to eliminate it during the occupation. And I suspect that the continuing reluctance of the Japanese government to really face up to any of that is going to continue to fuel hostility in Korea toward the Japanese thread in their culture---especially TKD, which is one of Korea's highest profile `exports', a true icon of the culture.

But while it's understandable, it's also unfortunate, I think, for a very concrete reason: if you accept the root of the Korean patterns in Okinawan/Japanese kata, you can then access all of the deep analysis of the O/J katas---the work on bunkai, the reconstruction of the kaisai no geri to `unlock' the combat meanings of the kata, and what actual explicit information the earlier O/J masters explicitly provided. The work of Abernethy, Kane & Wilder, Rick Clark and Javier Martinez (among many others) become available and can to some degree be applied `off the shelf', the way Simon O'Neil does. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, you can take off from the research that these people have done. And as you say, there's abundant documentation that essentially all of the original Kwans were founded by Korean MAists who had trained extensively in Shotokan/Shudokan and related styles. Might as well use the knowledge that's out there, eh?

 

[Hand Sword]

Exactly right. True research for answers should have no bias.

 

[Seeking Zen]

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 fight a real street fight, who fights like the Katas?

But it does teach you to beware, and not fight, this is the best self-defence!

Did you ever see anyone punch like they train in Karate fist to side and straight long punch? Watch all the fighters of the world and see how they punch? Notice the best guys are the same! (like boxing)

The top karate guys will hold there own,but the average karate black-belt students will most likly lose to the street fighter. They are not train to fight like the streets fights. Just my thoughts (from books and videos on street fights)...Aloha

No offence intended...but your comments suggest you haven’t spent much time training Traditional Karate. To clarify I am not any kind of master, but thus far my understanding of the purpose behind the traditional "basics" you are referring to is that they are dramatic and precise movements all of which contain components that will generate the most power and stability. Repetitive practice of these movements trains the MA to be quick, precise and powerful. When the MA then moves to sparring or self defence the movements are shortened and sped up as well as reactionary.
As for Kata, Kata IMHO is powerful. Yes, as they say the essence of Karate is in the Kata. To me the defence is hidden in the art. Perfecting Kata trains you to control emotion, think, react, and see opportunity in the moment.
As for fighters of the world...I assume you mean on T.V. and yes they all have similar styles...it is called sport. You have never seen nor will you ever see Traditional Karate in a ring. Traditional Karate self defences do not conform to rules of the ring and seek only to eliminate a threat as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is not pretty like the movies.



Block
Counter
Break
Take Down
Finish

All of that said...as many have said the individual not the style or art will dictate victory.

 

[ISMA girl]

this post got my attention and that is why i am now a member. i am a student of a traditional style karate(matsubyashi shorin ryu)
1- at my dojo we are taught the difference between training methods and actual uses.
2- my dojo is inside of a mall and may be considered commercial , however it is the farthest thing from commercial. the dojo owner is there for the students not to make money.
3- any self defense is based on reaction time
4- traditional karate teaches you techniques to react with
if someone pulls a gun on you , you can not beat that bullet no matter what style you use to defend with, but if properly trained you should be able react to the threat and disarm before the gun is fully pulled.
self defense requires awareness and reaction.

 

[exile]

this post got my attention and that is why i am now a member. i am a student of a traditional style karate(matsubyashi shorin ryu)
1- at my dojo we are taught the difference between training methods and actual uses.
2- my dojo is inside of a mall and may be considered commercial , however it is the farthest thing from commercial. the dojo owner is there for the students not to make money.
3- any self defense is based on reaction time
4- traditional karate teaches you techniques to react with
if someone pulls a gun on you , you can not beat that bullet no matter what style you use to defend with, but if properly trained you should be able react to the threat and disarm before the gun is fully pulled.
self defense requires awareness and reaction.

Sounds good to me! The crucial point is the relationship between the movements of the kata forms and the SD uses of those movements, which can be a world away from the literal description as `block', `punch' etc. As long as your instructor pushes you to analyze, understand and train in realistic bunkai, that to me counts as traditional, and it's the heart of the karate-rooted arts as self-defense systems.

 

[karatekid1975]

I agree. I have been training 6 years in korean MA. Not that it's bad, mind you. But I tried this dojo, which is traditional style training (if I don't block, I get hit hard type stuff). I got my rear kicked by a lower ranked person. I was wondering what I did wrong. It's not that I did anything wrong, but they are used to being hit (no gear) and this guy was so much faster because he was trained "not to get hit or get hurt." His reaction time was much better. I'm used to gear, but he's used to hard "knocks." So I don't "dis" traditional MA. They know how to "give it out" and take it as well. It hurts as well, but I'll one day be like that, too.

 

[exile]

I agree. I have been training 6 years in korean MA. Not that it's bad, mind you. But I tried this dojo, which is traditional style training (if I don't block, I get hit hard type stuff). I got my rear kicked by a lower ranked person. I was wondering what I did wrong. It's not that I did anything wrong, but they are used to being hit (no gear) and this guy was so much faster because he was trained "not to get hit or get hurt." His reaction time was much better. I'm used to gear, but he's used to hard "knocks." So I don't "dis" traditional MA. They know how to "give it out" and take it as well. It hurts as well, but I'll one day be like that, too.

And that difference you're talking abouit, it's strictly a training difference. When I talk with people I know who do karate and we compare situations---OK, so the guy does this, what's your response?---a lot of times, maybe most times, we come up with the very same menu of possible response moves (most of which involve evasion, moving in, trap, lock, elbow/knifehand strike---almost all hand techniques, maybe the odd low disabling turning kick to the side of the knee)---even though I'm TKD and they're Shotokan or whatever. But in TKD it's taken for granted that you're going to wear padding, in most dojangs. In karate, it's much more likely to be no padding, open season... A lot of times, I suspect, people doing different MAs which share the same general strategic plan will wind up doing a lot of the same things so far as tactics and actual moves; what differentiates them is how willing the practitioners are to train for what Geoff Thompson calls `the pavement arena' as realistically as they can and still not wind up in, or send someone else to, the hospital.

Sounds like you're gonna get into that kind of training at your new dojo---good luck with it, and keep safe, eh?

 

[pkaronin]

This was a well written article, with several good points. However, it does not directly address Karate in the 21st century. Rather, it seems to address the author's stereotype of Karate in the 21st century.

I'd like to address each of his points below. To lay the groundwork, I train in Okinawan Kenpo.

1. The One-Strike Kill
The biggest cliché of karate is the one-strike kill. This of course does not exist, but has fooled so many for years. Shigeru Egami (one of Funakoshi's top students) freely admitted there was no such thing. At one point in his career, Egami admits going into a deep depression after concluding a personal study about which martial style had the most powerful tsuki (punches). He found that karate had the least powerful tsuki, and boxing the strongest. Betting everything on one punch can get you killed.
- This is more of a stereotype (more common to certain flavors of Karate than to others). I agree with the author, there is no such thing as one-punch/one kill.

2. Waiting for The Attack
Karate philosophy states, "wait for the attack." Remember Funakoshi's maxim, "Never attack first?" This is suicidal. In real situations, the first person to strike usually walks away. The untrained public, (influenced by Hollywood and martial arts mythology) erroneously thinks you have to eat the first punch, but you give up your lawful right to self-protection by letting anyone strike you first. Criminals take advantage of this civilized mindset. If you feel that violence is about to break out, strike first.
- This is both purely philosophical and theoretical. First, in the event that violence is about to break out, I need to ask why? Are you actually involved in an altercation with someone? If so, why? If that is the case, the easiest thing to do is to apologize and walk away. Problem solved. No fight. If you are getting mugged, again, the easiest and best way to get out alive is to just turn over your wallet and cooperate. Violence rarely, if ever, just "breaks out". There is usually a cause or a catalyst to it and the easiest way to stay safe is to just not be there. In a real life and death situation, where you are truely caught unawares, odds are that the first strike already happened and you have no choice BUT to block/evade and counter. The idea that a karateka should never strike first goes beyond the concrete and stereotypical example of two people arguing and the karateka just waiting for the first punch to be thrown. It has meanings on different levels. First and foremost, you should be not be in that situation to begin with. Secondly, if you ARE in that situation, every effort should be made to de-escalate the situation and disengage. If and only if the first two rules have already been broken and you have NO other recourse should you physically have to defend yourself. At that point, you have already failed in everything you have learned in self-defense and at that point you will have to strike your oponent to stay alive. Any martial arts instructor NOT teaching the theory behind WHY you should not have to strike first and how you got into that situation is not doing a good job.

3. On Stances
Karate, (along with several hard Chinese styles) employs some of the most ineffective stances in martial arts. Deep, low karate stances make you completely immobile; they plant you in one spot, making quick movements extremely difficult. You may as well hang a sign around your neck saying "strike me at will, I can't move." If you recall early kickboxing, the first thing they got rid of were those limiting stances.
- First, kickboxing is a sport, as the author points out later in their argument. There are set rules that make deep, low karate stances disadvantageous to use. In an actual self defense situation, there are times (such as in takedowns and throws), where you actually WANT to be rooted to the ground as to not go down with your oponent. They are not always a bad idea. Furthermore, in the argument above, the author is assuming that every karateka will fight from a horse or front stance of some sort. This is simply not true. I've trained in three different dojos in three similar Okinawan styles, and in EVERY case, the instructor also has a "fighting" stance taught to students which is considerably more mobile and designed for use in a "realistic" setting.

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.
Kata serves two very important purposes:
1) Physical conditioning
2) Maintaining a catalog of all of the techniques in a given system to keep everyone doing that system on the same page.
Without some structure and rigor to training, "systems" will quickly devolve to flailing about in an effort to harm your oponent. I strongly believe that the author is missing the point of people that tell him that "karate is a way of life" or that "without kata, we're just animals, like boxers or wrestlers". What they are saying is in line with my first point. Fighting should be avoided at all costs. THAT is what martial arts is (or should be) about - promoting discipline and physical health. Fighting CAN and SHOULD be avoided. As the author makes a comparisson to catholicisim, I can just as easily compare his comment about "just wanting the skills" to really meaning that "I just want to be a better brawler for my bar fights".

5. Spirituality and Meditation
For many Japanese karateka, religion and martial arts are inseparably linked. Japanese spirituality and meditation are not a function of karate; they're emblematic of the culture that developed it. Westerners really buy into this big time. It's actually a direct affront to your personal beliefs. What if a Japanese boxer wanted to train in the U.S. with a Baptist coach, would he have to join the church, sing out loud, clap his hands, dance and get down? Changing your spiritual identity in order to learn self-defense is ludicrous! Mas Oyama once asked me how much time I meditate per day. I told him -- I don't, I have my own religion; I don't need to replace it with another.

Meditation does not necessarily benefit any martial activity. For example, I recall, in the 1983 Olympics in Korea, the Koreans had the strongest archery team in the world. They attributed their secret of success to their late night meditation practices in cemeteries. Did it help the men's team win - no, an American walked away with the gold. Did he meditate? No, before each match he was listening to Van Halen!
- Allow me to say clearly, once and for all, that meditation is NOT a direct affront to your personal beleifs, NOR is it a relegion. It is meant soley as a method of teaching focus. I have never once been told, by different Okinawan instructors, to meditate on something that I did not believe in. I HAVE been told to clear my mind, focus on what I have learned that day OR focus on something else. If you are a christian, there is NOTHING preculding you from meditating on a scripture that you just read. It is meant merely as a tool through which you can develop focus.

6. Breaking Objects can Break You!
Karate, more than any other martial art is renowned for its breaking demonstrations; but anyone can break inanimate objects, it's easy and you don't have to study karate to do so. Do breaking boards and bricks translate into fighting ability? Again Egami comments that breaking objects is very different than striking a human body, humans are resilient. He goes farther, saying that even "makiwara" training is harmful to the body, and stopped doing it already in the late '50's. Robert Smith, in his book "Martial Musings" notes that Mas Oyama damaged his hands so much he couldn't even place a blanket on top of them when he went to sleep. Continued breaking over a period of years brings with it such delights as arthritis and other degenerative diseases.
I agree completely with the author on this. Point well taken.

7. The Kata Crutch
A major part of karate practice focuses on kata. I've never understood why so many people defend it so vehemently. There's almost a cult-like obsession with doing it. Perhaps karateka feel it grants them a special kind of spiritual dispensation, allowing them to indulge in the study of fighting. Kata however is nothing more than several techniques strung together; a tool to help beginners understand how techniques flow. For advanced practitioners, it constrains your progress and adds no functional value to your fighting skills. Jon Bluming said it best, something to the effect of, "it takes up time, and the money rolls in."
- I discuss Kata in more detail above. See my earlier comment. To be somewhat blunt (and just as sarcastic as the author) - I suppose the money is NOT rolling in as your coach gives you new pad drills, ect?

8. Karate Doesn't Prepare You for the Street
Unlike a sparring match, there are no rules on the street, no time-outs, no referees to separate you; there's no sanctity of life. Street fights don't start at sparring distance; many times they suddenly erupt chest-to-chest, many times from behind without warning. Your attacker won't necessarily stop if you scream in pain. Unlike the smooth floor of the dojo, the street and pavement can be uneven, broken and contain dangerous objects you can fall over.
- I agree here too. I must ask the author though, why, in all of your years in karate, have you never taken to trying to do a form outdoors on uneven pavement? I have certainly tried it, discovered that it is in fact different, and continue to practice it and I would encourage everyone else to do the same. Training does not end when you leave the dojo.

In all the years I spent in karate, there was never a word about fighting under adrenaline stress conditions, the use-of-force, gross motor skills, and absolutely no legal considerations. Karate is only concerned with the attack stage of the encounter; no mention is made about the pre and post-conflict stages. Environmental and situational awareness, preemptive strike, what to do if you're hurt, do you run away, or make a citizen's arrest?
- I would rephrase that to state that "Many karate instructors are only concerned with the attack stage of the encounter." I've also been tought by instructors who WERE concerned with the pre and post stages of conflict.

Many karate techniques employ fine motor skills; under stress these are the first skills that abandon you. To work under excited conditions, techniques must be simple and based on gross motor skills. If you've been in fights, you know that after a few seconds of wild striking, many people start grabbing each other and quite often fall to the ground. How is your ground game? Do you know how to fight in a parking lot at midnight, on sand, gravel, on ice on a winter's day? Training barefoot in a dojo doesn't prepare you for any of these scenarios.
- I agree that under stress fine motor skills are the first to abandon you. Have you ever seen anyone do a form or spar with an audience for the first time? There are several things you can do to develop these skills SUCH as sparring (continuious, not point) and performing kata with an audience, simulating training under stress, etc. Additionally, I agree that groundwork is neglected in many (but not ALL) karate dojos.

9. Karate Makes you Stiff and Rigid
For years people have avoided weight training for fear that they would become stiff. If they only knew the truth -- weight training actually makes you flexible and supple; it's karate that makes you stiff! I've spoken at length to many boxing, kali, Brazilian Jujitsu and muaythai instructors and they all agree, karate produces a tenseness and rigidity that seems almost irreversible. I believe it's all those hard air punches and kicks, tense kata and deep immovable stances contributing to this condition. You see this state most pronounced when karate students take up reality-based defense.
- In many cases, this is true. However, in the dojo that I train in now, a regimine of boxing, kickboxing, and groundwork is built into the training to help avoid the "stiffness" that the author is describing.

10. Karate is Ineffective Against Modern Weapons
The term Empty-Hand says it all; the main focus of karate is on unarmed combat. They do practice traditional weapons however, but what use is sai, tonfa, sickle, and bo practice when you can't carry them. This is unrealistic in 2003, where attacks are mainly carried out with guns, knives and impact weapons. When you typically hear of karateka being hurt in an attack, it usually involves a knife or gun. Whenever we do seminars employing weapons scenarios, it's usually the most advanced karateka that get killed the quickest.
- I strongly disagree with the author in this area. Practicing with the sai, tonfa, sickle, and bo does wonders for your forearms and upper body strength and endurance overall. I do agree that a good self defense regimine should include a knife and gun. That being said, I certainly HOPE that you are teaching the people at your seminars that the best (and often only) way to survive an encounter with someone with a gun is to cooperate OR not be there in the first place. The only exception to this is when the person with the gun makes the mistake of getting well within striking range of an elbow (not to say that an elbow is the appropriate response, merely to delineate distance) OR if you have a gun yourself.

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.
- I disagree with this. Conditioning takes time. There is no way around it. Pitting an unconditioned intiate who has been to a weeklong seminar against a seasoned street-fighter or martial artist will only result in the untrained getting hurt. A week is only long enough to introduce the new person to everything they do NOT know and to stress how NOT to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or how to de-escalate a situation if you are.

12. The Apotheosis of the Master
I've always felt uncomfortable with the semi-deification of the so-called martial arts master. It just goes against the grain of my western upbringing. My goal in learning fighting was not to become a supplicant of an old man with a tough reputation. I believe that's another reason why mixed martial arts (i.e., BJJ, muaythai, boxing, and Filipino martial arts) have become so popular. There's no groveling involved just mutual respect. In the west, a coach doesn't demand a special status, over and beyond his normal duties. A coach guides athletes in their respective sports. His goal is to encourage, goad and train his charges to success. He is the father, the friend and the teacher; athletes trust him and his judgment.
- Ah, but the semi-deification of a sports legend is okay, right??? I am afraid that our "western" values are conflicted a bit here. I do agree that there are instructors that let their "rank" get to their head. However, for every one of them, I have seen good humble people who just want to teach.

If you are going to attack Karate, try to look past the stereotypes and really analyze what karate is.

Regards,
Matt

 

[twendkata71]

:deadhorse

 

[chinto]

i would say that the individual who wrote this is not knowledgeble about karate at all. tought correctly it is a very efficent and capible system of self defence. my suspician is that this individual is one of the "reality based self defence " instructors or student of such that thinks that say 3 weeks of 3 hours a day will make you effective if you only use their "magical reality based system". The other real posibility is some one who is teaching something along the lines of the older military hand to hand combat systems that again to start with were not intended to deal with a skilled trained martial artist at all, but other conscripted solders with similer or less training. ether way its totaly inacurate and provably intentionaly so.

 

[chinto]

I have never heard this. What ryu(s) encompas these aspects of karate?

the older styles of okinawan karate all have them. shobayashi shorin ryu, kobayashi shorin ryu, matsubayashi shorin ryu, and others all have grapling and locking and vital points and basicly every other thing you could want. these arts were developed and designed to criple or kill an attacker who was provably armed before he injured or cripled or killed you or your family! you dont develop any system and certianly do not have it survive in an envirement where the looser is cripled or dead far more often then not if it is not efficent and effective in combat. I you did develop a system that did not work for self defence in that envirement that was every bit as violent and dangrous as any today, then it would have died out centurys ago!

 

[bushidomartialarts]

two threads resurrected in the same night for the same reason. now realfighting.com is one of several websites that try to sell you a self-defense course. it's the charles atlas of our generation.

what gets me is why people take the ad copy any more seriously than they take any other ad copy.

are there threads on "Burger King: Do I Really Get It My Way?", or "1001 Things Brown Can Do For Me"?

no.

let's ignore the fearmongering and chest thumping of poorly written advertising and get back do discussing the important issues, like whether MMA or TMA is more effective on the street.

 

[chinto]

Well, it all depends on what you mean by the term "traditional karate". There are different types of karate practices to be considered. At this time, I will mention two:

We have contemporary Japanese karate, which is sometimes called "traditional". Many of these karate schools train for "traditional" tournament karate. Others put much less emphasis on thet endeavor.

We also have "old style" okinawan karate schools which are mainly concerned with effective combat applications in life or death situations. None of the techniques practiced by these schools are suitable for any today's karate tournaments. Not for the traditional tournaments, not for the kyokushin style "kenka" tournaments, nor for any type of competitive situation for that matter. I would say that this type of karate is very effective indeed for real combat.

I would like to say very very well said sir! this is very very true.