Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense

[Flying Crane]

I did. And in context, many of the areas where he critiques "traditional karate" he is absolutely correct on.

Perhaps you'd like to make a reasoned counter-argument now?

I've already done so, but in case you are unable to grasp what I've said, I'll say it again.

He needs to look at a dojo on a case-by-case basis. Not all dojos train alike.

I've already conceded that there are those who follow poor training habits.

But there are others who follow good training habits and develop very capable martial artists.

they cannot all be lumped together.

 

[Makalakumu]

Tradition is subjective. The definition that Seasoned posted basically means that it can be just about anything that is taught.

What Bluming suggests in his article, really doesn't address "traditional" karate so to speak. It addresses poor practice. Often times in the karate world, bad teaching/training methods, are traditional.

 

[Sukerkin]

Gentlemen, this is a friendly nudge before things get too heated. It is more than alright to hold different views on things and to put those views into words here - its what the forum is for, after all.

However, if you cannot do so without resorting to verbal tactics that would more than likely get you a bloody nose in real life, then it is best to keep silent. Amending such 'aggressive' posting before things start getting 'official' would be very much appreciated.

The 'style' forums are not the Study; it would be good to bear that in mind.

Mark A. Beardmore
MT Moderator

 

[Errant108]

I've already done so, but in case you are unable to grasp what I've said, I'll say it again.

He needs to look at a dojo on a case-by-case basis. Not all dojos train alike.

I've already conceded that there are those who follow poor training habits.

But there are others who follow good training habits and develop very capable martial artists.

they cannot all be lumped together.

He's looking at this purely from a self-defense point of view. When asked "is traditional karate good for defense?" if the answer cannot be a resounding yes, as you yourself admit, then then answer is no. The lack of quality control in "traditional karate" is not the fault of people like Mann or Bluming, but rather the fault of karateka themselves. Mann & Bluming approach this argument from a very narrow criteria.

He's listed the criteria for what makes a viable self-defense system in the modern world. For the most part, if karate as a whole cannot provide the answers to those criteria, then he is logical in dismissing. Given that he has listed the criteria, you must either counter-argue the criteria itself, or contradict his conclusions.

The "case-by-case, dojo by dojo" argument does not hold water. Either karate is good for reality based self-defense, or it is not.

The fact of the matter is, that a great deal of karate, as it is practiced, traditionally or not, does not address the needs of modern-day self-defence given the criteria listed by Mann.

Outliers, exceptions, or those schools that only partially meet the criteria, do not prove Mann false.

 

[Flying Crane]

He's looking at this purely from a self-defense point of view. When asked "is traditional karate good for defense?" if the answer cannot be a resounding yes, as you yourself admit, then then answer is no. The lack of quality control in "traditional karate" is not the fault of people like Mann or Bluming, but rather the fault of karateka themselves. Mann & Bluming approach this argument from a very narrow criteria.

He's listed the criteria for what makes a viable self-defense system in the modern world. For the most part, if karate as a whole cannot provide the answers to those criteria, then he is logical in dismissing. Given that he has listed the criteria, you must either counter-argue the criteria itself, or contradict his conclusions.

The "case-by-case, dojo by dojo" argument does not hold water. Either karate is good for reality based self-defense, or it is not.

The fact of the matter is, that a great deal of karate, as it is practiced, traditionally or not, does not address the needs of modern-day self-defence given the criteria listed by Mann.

Outliers, exceptions, or those schools that only partially meet the criteria, do not prove Mann false.

well, believe what you want. I hold Mr. Mann's and Mr. Bluming's opinions, insofar as they are expressed in that article, to be foolishly innacurate and an attempt to sell something. I hold your opinion in the same light, as far as your attempts to defend their position.

But I guess I gotta realize that changing your opinion is not really all that high on my agenda. So I've contributed my thoughts, and I've got nothing more to share with you here.

 

[Errant108]

well, believe what you want. I hold Mr. Mann's and Mr. Bluming's opinions, insofar as they are expressed in that article, to be foolishly innacurate and an attempt to sell something. I hold your opinion in the same light, as far as your attempts to defend their position.

Again, it's not an opinion. It's a conclusion.

If you want me to change my conclusion, you've got to give me a rational argument.

But I guess I gotta realize that changing your opinion is not really all that high on my agenda. So I've contributed my thoughts, and I've got nothing more to share with you here.

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm sorry to hear that.

well, i've simply got nothing more to add. I think we've reached the point where the best we can do is agree to disagree. I'm OK with that.

 

[TimoS]

Actually, it's not an opinion.

It's a conclusion, based upon an argument outlined by Socratic logic.

I might have to get back to you on that, after I consult a friend who really is a philosepher

 

[Errant108]

I might have to get back to you on that, after I consult a friend who really is a philosepher

Really a philosopher, eh?

 

[TimoS]

Really a philosopher, eh?

Yes, but a smart guy nevertheless

 

[astrobiologist]

Tradition is subjective. The definition that Seasoned posted basically means that it can be just about anything that is taught.

What Bluming suggests in his article, really doesn't address "traditional" karate so to speak. It addresses poor practice. Often times in the karate world, bad teaching/training methods, are traditional.

There is definitely a lot of back-and-forth going on here concerning terms and definitions. I agree that the term "traditional" in relation to the martial art is very vague, and, if not for the fact that so many use and understand it's use in relation to the martial arts, it really serves no purpose to us.

Martial arts are martial arts. We use traditional to relate to the passing of information and etiquette along, but all schools do this to one degree or another so everyone would thusly be traditional (even kickboxing schools and the like pass on techniques from one "generation" to the next). A lot of the MMA schools talk about karate schools and such as being traditional, but martial arts has always been "mixed" so that means that they would be traditional too, and all other arts are pretty much mixed martial arts. On that note, aren't all martial arts supposed to be reality-based? That means that "reality-based martial art" really does not signify anything new, either. It all gets a little confusing. Too much interest in terms and not enough about value.

I agree with what was said by Maunakumu. There are good instructors and bad instructors. I'm sure that some of the, again so-called, reality-based martial arts instructors have their flaws, too.

WR Mann was pointing out flaws he saw in the thinking of some (but taken from his point of view). The problem is that the way the article comes off it seems like he is lumping everyone from a "traditional" martial arts background into that group. This is one of the major flaws of the article.

Also, another problem with WR Mann's aticle is that he claims his points to be "immutable".

 

[chinto]

Look people, you can believe what you want, but Traditional Okinawan Karate has been used on the battlefield, in Allys on docks, and in the streets all over the world. the attacks were lethal and nonlethal in intent but every where used it worked well.

This is of course dependent to some extent on the practitioner, but then all martial arts are the same way to the same extent!

So it comes down to Opinion here, and not based on fact. Fact is that most older martial arts are extremely efficient and effective in self defense. If they were not they would not have survived.

Now there are some that are more sports such as BJJ and Judo that are not as applicable to self defense as they were designed and optimized to specific applications and uses in more controlled situations.

Kodokan judo I understand does add in the nastier self defense stuff at dan level that was taken out for sport use as I understand it.

the same is not as I understand it true of Bjj for example. same could be said about western boxing, where the most efficent techniques have been removed for over a century.

but either way you will decide as you wish as to the usefulness of any art be it Karate, boxing or what have you.

 

[TimoS]

Traditional Okinawan Karate has been used on the battlefield

Maybe by some individuals at some stage, but since karate isn't a war art, hardly systematically

 

[fightingpower]

At the risk of being even more contaversial, don't overcomplicate things. I have seen Karate used effectively by colleagues to such a degree that they simply smashed through and controlled anything a much larger opponent had to offer. I am a Judo practitioner and have used my system on regular occasions to overcome street attackers. It is'nt the art guys its the individual. I know MMA guys that train Judo and can't do anything and I have a Karate friend who regularly batters me when we train!!!

 

[chinto]

At the risk of being even more contaversial, don't overcomplicate things. I have seen Karate used effectively by colleagues to such a degree that they simply smashed through and controlled anything a much larger opponent had to offer. I am a Judo practitioner and have used my system on regular occasions to overcome street attackers. It is'nt the art guys its the individual. I know MMA guys that train Judo and can't do anything and I have a Karate friend who regularly batters me when we train!!!

yep the man is a major factor with out question. Karate and other arts that are century's old work. if they did not they would not have survived! That is the BOTTOM LINE! If they did not work when a practitioner trained hard and needed them they would have gone away, if for no other reason then the practitioners would not have survived to pass them on!

 

[fightingpower]

It is also true that we are not at war and that the likelyhood of getting attacked these days is considerably lower than it may have been in fuedal Japan. Despite what the papers say! Martial Arts must be effective, of course otherwise we are all running up hill, also the chances of getting attacked or having to defend a loved one at some point in your life is are relatively high, it just won't be every other day! We are not all proffesional fighters and lets face it, life gets in the way sometimes. Isn't is reasonable therefore that we learn an effective system that gives us confidence in what we do to challenge those we believe to be in the wrong in everyday life. I guess what i am trying to say whilst admittedly waffling around the issue, is that we should exercise common sense in both our training and our general outlook to what is usefull and not. Whether that be in Karate or MMA or any other style. Just beware of the money making knock of wanna be's!

Thanks for reading my ramble if you got that far!

 

[Makalakumu]

yep the man is a major factor with out question. Karate and other arts that are century's old work. if they did not they would not have survived! That is the BOTTOM LINE! If they did not work when a practitioner trained hard and needed them they would have gone away, if for no other reason then the practitioners would not have survived to pass them on!

On the other hand, when you look at modern karate styles, it didn't take very long for it to get watered down. By the 1950's, pretty much what most people would recognize as karate arrived and the old close quarters self defense style had become more difficult to find. As time went on, the popularity of the "new karate" infected the old karate because that's how you had to teach in order to make money...even in Okinawa!

So, today we are left with an environment where the label "traditional" is rather dubious is just about every sense. No body trains karate like it was trained 100 years ago. It all got watered down to a certain degree...especially for those of us who live in the US.

 

[TimoS]

As time went on, the popularity of the "new karate" infected the old karate because that's how you had to teach in order to make money...even in Okinawa!

Not so sure about that. To some extent, yes, but not all of it. To my understanding, not all the okinawan masters teach for a living. For example, I seem to remember that Zenryo Shimabukuro was a baker and his son Zenpo is a real estate developer.

 

[Makalakumu]

Not so sure about that. To some extent, yes, but not all of it. To my understanding, not all the okinawan masters teach for a living. For example, I seem to remember that Zenryo Shimabukuro was a baker and his son Zenpo is a real estate developer.

I hope so, but I have to wonder exactly how close is what they teach to what Kyan sensei taught decades ago. There are going to be changes...and as you move farther away from the source, the changes get larger.

 

[TimoS]

I hope so, but I have to wonder exactly how close is what they teach to what Kyan sensei taught decades ago. There are going to be changes...and as you move farther away from the source, the changes get larger.

Of course there are changes. For example, I remember reading that Zenryo Shimabukuro started teaching with Seisan. No kihon, just straight into kata. The way I've understood it, tradition isn't so much a question about keeping the teaching exactly like e.g. Kyan taught it, but to pass on the actual core, which are the kata and the applications therein. The kata vary from one instructor to another, sometimes slightly, sometimes not so slightly, but that's just the external form. What is inside doesn't usually vary that much. Just as an example, kata Seisan, which is taught in both Goju and (some) Shorin traditions. Goju and Shorin Seisan look quite different from each other, but when you start looking at them more closely, you see similarities and the applications are in many cases (more or less) exactly the same.