What kind of technical proof are you looking for? Be specific.
Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense
- Thread starter Ceicei
- Start date
What kind of technical proof are you looking for? Be specific.
I suggest that all of you check out the works of Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi and I would also suggest that you study up on the psychology of first impressions as your skills in those two areas seem to need some work.
If you understood as to how first impressions and as to how strategy and the human mind really worked then you would have a better understanding as to where I am coming from.
Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi understood this stuff and so does the business and dating world. Why you can't understand it is totally beyond me as all of this stuff is nothing more than pure and simple common sense.
If you understood as to how first impressions and as to how strategy and the human mind really worked then you would have a better understanding as to where I am coming from.
Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi understood this stuff and so does the business and dating world. Why you can't understand it is totally beyond me as all of this stuff is nothing more than pure and simple common sense.
I asked you specific question on the last page.
As far as technical proof, you will need to be specific because you are the one that made the statement. If I have to explain to you what I mean by that, then you probably do not have the technical knowledge base to make any assessment of karate at all.
By technical I mean:
1. What ryu or ryus? Karate has been used as an umbrella term for empty hand fighting for over fifty years at this point and has a large number of recognized ryus. Some are Okinawan, some are Japanese. Some differ from others more so than they differ from arts not classified as karate, so you need to be specific. The thread is titled traditional karate. Some are ryus are modern, not traditional. Which do you mean and do you know the difference?
2. What techniques are ineffective and more importantly, why?
3. What are the specific techniques that have been stripped away (as you claim)?
4. What techniques are you referring to in "things like ninjutsu, police and military tactics" that will enable one to successfully escape the scenario that you presented on the previous page.
5. I asked you very specific questions about the scenario that you posted on the previous page. Please refer back to see them.
A technical answer means that you are evaluating the skill set and making a case to support that some or all of the skills within that set being either ineffective, inefficient, or inapplicable.
If you are not referring to the skill set and instead are referring to various training methods, then you will need to specify said training methods and explain why they are not effective.
If your only karate exposure is taekwondo, then you really have no grounds to make these statements. While taekwondo may be rooted in karate (and in my opinion, is a subset thereof), there is little in the way of boon hae (bunkai) that is published in that regard for taekwondo (Simon O'Niel's Taegeuk Cipher is the only one that comes to mind. Most people that I talk to are retrofitting karate bunkai to taekwondo from sources such as Ian Abernathy) and within the largest TKD org, the KKD/WTF, so far as I know, there is no official boon hae. If there is, few schools teach it. There is a separate section regarding taekwondo on this site. If
Taekwondo is what you mean, then you should search that section for threads about the effectiveness of Taekwondo, as taekwondo is generally discussed distinctly from Karate and is really not traditional.
Daniel
This post is both an ad-hom and complete non-answer and dodges the questions that you have been asked. Please support the statements that you have made.
Daniel
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 10,826
- Reaction score
- 617
I already have. Even though their works have some wisdom behind them, in no way do they support your assertion that Karate is ineffective.
Since you don't have any hands-on Karate experience, how can you honestly believe what you're saying, since you have not done any actual training? Video and online correspondence may be better than no exposure at all, but nothing replaces live training under a competent instructor.
The dating world has virtually nothing to directly do with Karate, other than the fact that dojo owners tend to have a rather high rate of divorce.
As for this being common sense, your statements essentially lack any sense, since you have not the experience, nor the knowledge to put forth a good statement.
This is accurate, though it would be more accurate to say it this way:
TKD is not a 'traditional' MA. It is a fighting system that has evolved into a sport first practised in the post WWII era, based on Japanese karate, mainly Shotokan and influenced by traditional Korean MAs.
The strongest influence is supposedly Taekyun, though there is little evidence to directly link Taekyun to Taekwondo. The construction of the WTF sparring certainly makes it look more like Taekyun, and Gen Cho claimed to have studied Taekyun from his caligraphy instructor. So far as I know, that is the strongest link to any prewar KMA that I know of.
Daniel
More than likely, this is due to dojo ownership sharing all of the peculiarities of small bussiness ownership coupled with the peculiarities of martial arts practice.
Daniel
Omar B
Senior Master
I've been reading The Art Of War and The Book Of 5 Rings since before you were born kid. It's still not an answer to why you think karate is ineffective, and considering that from your posts you have no knowledge of karate, aikido, or pretty much anything else other than "reading up" I consider your opinion on the matter invalid.
A blind man cannot be an art critic.
I do have hands on training, but I am out of practice because of my financial situation at the moment and because of the fact that I spent over 5 years driving a truck over the road.
The dating world and the martial arts do relate to one another because many people especially guys tend to get very jealous and possessive of women that they are with.
I know this because I have not only studied it, but because my ex-wife has also experienced it personally. The guy that she hooked up with is a black guy who claims that he is black belt in some form of Kung Fu.
Shortly after he moved to Minnesota to be with her from Pennsylvania I started chatting with him online one day and we were at first talking about women until he suddenly and for no reason started to tell me that he was a black belt in the martial arts.
Because of my own interest in the martial arts I thought that it would be a good topic that we could talk about, but when I questioned him on his alleged training he could not tell me anything at all. All that he could say was that he was a black belt in the martial arts.
Common sense says that if you have ever trained in the martial arts formally even for a short period of time then you will know what style of martial arts you studied, who your instructors were and approimately when and for how long you studied. This guy could not tell me any of that.
If I were asked that question by someone I would certainly be able to answer those questions because I have had at least some formal training.
I unlike a lot of people don't believe that what is around your waist matters very much because that is not and will not help you out on the street. It is not what is around your waist that matters, but what you know and as to how effective you are with it that matters the most.
Aha! and here ladies and gentlemen is the root of the problem. :uhohh:
This entire post is completely irrelevent.
Martial arts are skill sets. Belts have nothing to do with it, and karate did not have belts until the first half of twentieth century.
Please stop dodging the questions about why you maintain that the skill set is inadequate and how the skill set of "things like ninjutsu, police and military tactics" is in the scenario that you laid out earlier in this thread.
Daniel
blindsage
Master of Arts
Folks, I think we're gonna have to let a lot of this go. rdonovan strikes me a sincere, but confused individual. Logic is not working. He assumes that if others just read and studied what he did then everyone would agree with him because it's common sense. There is no exchange of ideas just statements of fact with little backing and a lot of non-sequiturs added in.
I think it's time to take the high road.
I think it's time to take the high road.
OK, I'll rise to the lure!
What MAs did you study, how long did you study, where did you study and who was your teacher?
I also don't concern myself about what's around the waist, but it does give an indication of commitment and dedication. It also gives me an indication of what that person should know and if it is a genuine BB in a 'traditional' style of MA, it will help on the street. Whether it is enough to save your *** is a different story but that has nothing to do with the belt!
TimoS
Master of Arts
Thanks for the laugh
Like, oh I don't know, maybe Shorin ryu Seibukan karate do? Hmmm, there's the "ryu" extension, but then there's also the do-extension. Do they cancel each other out?
I think it is you who needs to do his homework about Okinawa.
Last edited:
Are you really quoting from Fist of Legend?
I have no idea as to what you are talking about or even as to what you are smoking.
I studied at the Bloomington Karate Center in Bloomington, Minnesota under Dave Saum and C.B. Bunkholt. I started with them in 1992 and trained with them off and on when time permitted until I left Minnesota in 2006.
The school is owned by a guy by the name of Joe Mullins. They teach Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido.
I would have studied more Japanese styles if I could have, but in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area at that time there really was not much in the way of Japanese martial arts. Everything that was being taught was mostly of Korean origin there at that time.
It doesn't really matter what martial art you study or know at all. What matters is as to how well you know it and as to how well you can apply it in a real world situation.
Whether people like it or not the martial arts were not meant for people to go out and learn how to be bullies. It was meant for self defense and for personal growth.
Whether people like it or not all martial arts were designed differently and with different purposes in mind and that is what the author is getting at.
Stop and think about what he is saying long and hard because basically what he is saying is don't bring a knife to a gun fight as you will surely get killed if you do so.
He is also stating that some martial arts are just better suited for the real world and for actual combat. He is also stating that military and police arts are geared more for actual combat than say karate as that stuff is geared more for the modern world than Karate ever was.
It doesn't mean that Karate is bad at all. All that it means is that it is not geared for actual combat like military and police arts are.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Hi rdonovan1,
Hmm, don't really know what to say about the last few pages here...
While I appreciate where you are coming from, I will reiterate my previous advice. You have not the understanding to be posting "facts" here, as many of your posts here contradict each other, and have some rather large errors in them. For example, stating that the Japanese arts were previously known as "Budo", then later added were changed into the "-do" systems contradicts itself. You also continually state that "military, police and ninjutsu" are better suited for street preparedness than karate simply shows a lack of understanding of each and every system you mention.
Military and police training is not actually geared to street violence, as in a street fight. Police training, when it comes to the violence side of things, the priority is not getting away, or coming out on top, or even surviving, it is taking the other person in to custody, and that requires specific techniques that are not necessarily useful in a street fight. Remember also that police rarely operate singly, and there are certain tools available (handcuffs, baton, spray, pistol depending on where you are), and that they are percieved in the public mind as the "good guys", therefore what they do will (almost) always be percieved by witnesses as the right thing, and they will not attempt to interfere. On the contrary, the public witnesses will comply with most requests the police make. The police training is also very limited, with only a small amount of time alloted to the training of each topic, based on the relative importance deemed. And hand-to-hand is not often seen as a high priority, when you send officers out with weapons.
Military, on the other hand, has a higher emphasis on combative training, but that all involves weaponry, and is designed with a lethal outcome in mind. Some armies in the world don't even have unarmed combat as part of their training, as it has little relevance when the majority of combat involves high power firearms. But those that do still include unarmed combat, it is a low priority, and has similar timing constraints to the police training. So neither of these are actually geared towards a street environment.
Then we get to ninjutsu. I'm sorry to say, but you have absolutely no experience, knowledge, or understanding when it comes to this subject. Simply getting a few of Richard Van Donk's Home Study tapes and some books give you nothing. Without an instructor, they really don't. And your views on Samurai and Ninja are quite skewed and incorrect. Ninja were in no way the "SWAT of their day", nor anything similar. They were simply a grouping of people who lived a particular life which involved an approach to martial arts (which in itself came from the various Samurai who influenced and originated a number of the Ninjutsu Ryu-ha). Without getting some experience, I would advise leaving posting about such topics. And experience is gained in a dojo, not from books, tapes, and certainly not from movies.
The Samurai were not simply "bullies" either, that is a gross oversimplification of a small number of the less-than reputable sort. The samurai were people, with the same strengths and weaknesses of character as any other group, studying psychology should help you there.
You often talk about the writings of Sun Tzu, Musashi, the study of psychology, the teachings of Erikson, Bandler, Grinder, the ideas of marketing, and other areas of study best left out of discussions here, but I am sorry to say that I have yet to see any evidence of understanding of any of them. Simply stating thatpeople here need to study these things as you have isn't really going to cut it, as I have, and I can't follow your thinking at all.
Now, when it comes to the situation you described, that has no real weight at all. Nothing would help there. Not Ninjutsu, not Karate, not anything. And I note that you still, after a few days, have yet to answer the simple question of how, if Karate does not give you the answer to the situation (that you designed, by the way), then how do you propose solving your dilema? Obviously using Ninjutsu (which I don't believe you have the first understanding of), or Police or Military training (which is taken out of the equation by your set-up, unless we allow for them to be off-duty). I can't see a way out, you know.
But to get to the crux of it all, your comments that Karate is not geared up for a street confrontation are feeling quite out of place here. The arguments you have sited are non-existant, the idea of military or police training being "better suited" are not realistic, and it all comes down to how it is trained. Oh, and finally, the martial arts (in a true, historical sense) are MILITARY arts. Not for self development, not for self improvement, not for spiritual refinement, but to go out onto a battlefield, and make more of them dead than they make your side dead. And, if you possibly can, make sure you don't get dead in the process. That's it. Karate is just as well suited to that as any other. It's all in the way it's trained.
Okay, rant over. Back to your regular thread.
Hmm, don't really know what to say about the last few pages here...
While I appreciate where you are coming from, I will reiterate my previous advice. You have not the understanding to be posting "facts" here, as many of your posts here contradict each other, and have some rather large errors in them. For example, stating that the Japanese arts were previously known as "Budo", then later added were changed into the "-do" systems contradicts itself. You also continually state that "military, police and ninjutsu" are better suited for street preparedness than karate simply shows a lack of understanding of each and every system you mention.
Military and police training is not actually geared to street violence, as in a street fight. Police training, when it comes to the violence side of things, the priority is not getting away, or coming out on top, or even surviving, it is taking the other person in to custody, and that requires specific techniques that are not necessarily useful in a street fight. Remember also that police rarely operate singly, and there are certain tools available (handcuffs, baton, spray, pistol depending on where you are), and that they are percieved in the public mind as the "good guys", therefore what they do will (almost) always be percieved by witnesses as the right thing, and they will not attempt to interfere. On the contrary, the public witnesses will comply with most requests the police make. The police training is also very limited, with only a small amount of time alloted to the training of each topic, based on the relative importance deemed. And hand-to-hand is not often seen as a high priority, when you send officers out with weapons.
Military, on the other hand, has a higher emphasis on combative training, but that all involves weaponry, and is designed with a lethal outcome in mind. Some armies in the world don't even have unarmed combat as part of their training, as it has little relevance when the majority of combat involves high power firearms. But those that do still include unarmed combat, it is a low priority, and has similar timing constraints to the police training. So neither of these are actually geared towards a street environment.
Then we get to ninjutsu. I'm sorry to say, but you have absolutely no experience, knowledge, or understanding when it comes to this subject. Simply getting a few of Richard Van Donk's Home Study tapes and some books give you nothing. Without an instructor, they really don't. And your views on Samurai and Ninja are quite skewed and incorrect. Ninja were in no way the "SWAT of their day", nor anything similar. They were simply a grouping of people who lived a particular life which involved an approach to martial arts (which in itself came from the various Samurai who influenced and originated a number of the Ninjutsu Ryu-ha). Without getting some experience, I would advise leaving posting about such topics. And experience is gained in a dojo, not from books, tapes, and certainly not from movies.
The Samurai were not simply "bullies" either, that is a gross oversimplification of a small number of the less-than reputable sort. The samurai were people, with the same strengths and weaknesses of character as any other group, studying psychology should help you there.
You often talk about the writings of Sun Tzu, Musashi, the study of psychology, the teachings of Erikson, Bandler, Grinder, the ideas of marketing, and other areas of study best left out of discussions here, but I am sorry to say that I have yet to see any evidence of understanding of any of them. Simply stating thatpeople here need to study these things as you have isn't really going to cut it, as I have, and I can't follow your thinking at all.
Now, when it comes to the situation you described, that has no real weight at all. Nothing would help there. Not Ninjutsu, not Karate, not anything. And I note that you still, after a few days, have yet to answer the simple question of how, if Karate does not give you the answer to the situation (that you designed, by the way), then how do you propose solving your dilema? Obviously using Ninjutsu (which I don't believe you have the first understanding of), or Police or Military training (which is taken out of the equation by your set-up, unless we allow for them to be off-duty). I can't see a way out, you know.
But to get to the crux of it all, your comments that Karate is not geared up for a street confrontation are feeling quite out of place here. The arguments you have sited are non-existant, the idea of military or police training being "better suited" are not realistic, and it all comes down to how it is trained. Oh, and finally, the martial arts (in a true, historical sense) are MILITARY arts. Not for self development, not for self improvement, not for spiritual refinement, but to go out onto a battlefield, and make more of them dead than they make your side dead. And, if you possibly can, make sure you don't get dead in the process. That's it. Karate is just as well suited to that as any other. It's all in the way it's trained.
Okay, rant over. Back to your regular thread.
R.Donovan,
I kindly obliged you in defining what I meant by 'technical' on the previous page. You have continued to dodge the questions about specifics to substantiate your assertions and continue to make general statements about "things like ninjutsu, police and military tactics" without defining what it is about these that make the specifically effective in the scenario you described, while Karate would not be.
If you have the knowledge to substantiate your claims, please put it forth. If not, then kindly withdraw from the discussion. If you cannot substantiate your claims, then you are simply guessing and parrotting what you have seen in the advertisement section of BB magazine. Your understanding of historical ninjutsu is severely lacking, as evidenced in your posts, and as you have indicated that you have never studied it, you have no basis to gauge its effectiveness.
And no, reading books does not count as studying a martial art.
Daniel
I kindly obliged you in defining what I meant by 'technical' on the previous page. You have continued to dodge the questions about specifics to substantiate your assertions and continue to make general statements about "things like ninjutsu, police and military tactics" without defining what it is about these that make the specifically effective in the scenario you described, while Karate would not be.
If you have the knowledge to substantiate your claims, please put it forth. If not, then kindly withdraw from the discussion. If you cannot substantiate your claims, then you are simply guessing and parrotting what you have seen in the advertisement section of BB magazine. Your understanding of historical ninjutsu is severely lacking, as evidenced in your posts, and as you have indicated that you have never studied it, you have no basis to gauge its effectiveness.
And no, reading books does not count as studying a martial art.
Daniel
