AndrewGreen

But the level you need to learn them to is different. And it is not just about learning techniques, it is about learning how and when to use them. Boxing has very few techniques, but it is also very complicated because you need to be able to use them really really well in order to compete. I might know all the basic techniques of boxing, but I am nowhere near a top level boxer. Chess is simple right? Only a handful of pieces and only wo many ways to move them. So one could master chess in a few hours right? NO!! It's complicated, its not just about learning so many moves, it is about being able to use those moves.

and again I repeat: It is not a mixture of styles, it is ONE STYLE which incorporates all ranges. It is no more complex then any one-dimensional art. So your question doesn't make sense. If someone is naturally gifted enough that they could reach a high level in a one-dimensional art, they could reach a high level in one that incorporates all ranges. That DOES NOT mean studyind boxing & Kickboxing & Wrestling & submission. That means studying one thing that incorporates elements which are also found in all of those, but it is still ONE THING.

It doesn't. You still don't seem to understand that it is not 3 seperate things, it is one thing which takes place in all three. Should a boxer only do a jab so that he can master that instead of being a "jack of all punches" Should a wrestler learn only one double leg takedowns? A submission guy only how to fight in a mount? It takes no more time to master MMA then it does to master boxing.

I teach all ranges, it is possible to get good in all of them with that much training. You will not be as good of boxer as someone that just does boxing though. You will be able to get better then a boxer in ground, clinch and weapons and force him to play one of those games though. Your argument is flawed.

Training to a high level in k-1 takes no less time then training to a high level in MMA. If competition is your goal train the one that you are best at and enjoy the most. I think you still view MMA as being Kickboxing + Wrestling + Submission Wrestling + whatever you choose. It's not, it is one system which contains elements of each. So I choose to do one to, but my one contains elements of each. You don't have time to learn knights, queens, kings, bishops, pawns, etc. So pick one or two and focus on them. It's a silly argument, you can do all and be better overall then you would if you knew only a couple of pieces 10x better. You should not train them seperate, they should be integrated into ONE complete system.

Become good at all of them, this question is rigged. The "Jack of all trades, master of none" line is nonsense. Sure you COULD learn the whole game of Chess, but you'd never really get good at any of it, instead you could focus on just using 2 pieces and master them. Even a medicore Chess player could beat someone that only used pawns and bishops. I'd rather learn the full game, its more fun. Thats all I really care about anyway

I've been in Isshin ryu for 15 years, I still enjoy it. I also believe that a pure isshin ryu stylist would get taken down and beaten either by submission or ground and pound. It's not just been a couple karate vs BJJ, its been the vast majority of them. There have been many, but only a few video taped and uploaded to the net.

Saying "The training methods of Traditional arts are not that effective for learning to fight" is NOT the same as saying "Traditional arts suck"

If you don't have an instructor find something to hit and hit it. Kata won't really help if you are holding them wrong... Where in Canada are you? PS: Geki sai no sai is not a sai kata, it is a karate kata done with sai

TKD is Korean karate. Old TKD is almost identical to Shotokan. Also karate is more marketable in some places, TKD doesn't have the best rep right now

It would take a lot more then that. You would have to change the posture to a more crouched one with the chin tucked, otherwise you are too much of a target. The footwork would have to change to be on the balls of the feet and more mobile then most karate-ka. You're hand positioning would have to come up higher. You would have to get rid of the traditional blocks and keep things in tight, evade and cover, let the punch come to you. Otherwise anyone throwing boxing combinations will mow you down. Your kicks would have to loose the chambering, otherwise they are too east to see and shoot on. You would need extensive work in the clinch, tie ups, strikes, take downs, takedown defence. You would need extensive work on the ground, submission defence, strike defence, striking, escapes and transitions at a minimium. And to be honest you would likely have to drop doing kata to train for it as kata teaches you the very things you should not do. There are countless other things that you would have to change, it is not just about learning to sprawl.

Actually I've been doing it for a long time now, and I know its strengths and weaknesses. Truth is karate changed a lot in the first half of the 20th century. Very few sources exist before that, the bubishi being one of the main ones. Quite a few where written during that period, but very few before. Based on the bubishi and other old sources I stand by my claim, there is little to suggest that fighting was the primary goal. Health, culture, and some self-defence benefits. The main thing that we have from old karate are the kata, which have been modified to some extent but we have no real way of knowing how much. Now why don't you go try one of the "sport fighting" schools? I find it strange that your sig says "Now show it while sparring", sparring is not really a traditional training method. Many of the "old style" masters where against it as it would water down the art.

No it wasn't. At least not modern forms, older forms we can only speculate but I doubt it. The training methods that have survived do not suit that goal

You said it right there "karate wasnt made for fighting" respect your art, kust respect it for what it is. Karate is great, I've done it for years, but it is not really that good for fighting, better then nothing, but their are much better methods for learning to fight. If you acknowledge that why are you insulted when someone tells you it doesn't work, it doesn't, it wasn't meant to. But saying it doesn't work is a little missleading, it does work, there are just better methods. Saying it doesn't work is like saying a 286 CPU doesn't work, it does, just not as well as a pentium 4. Perhaps it works better for other things, but not fighting.

1 class to never Depends on the person. How long does it take to play basketball effectively?

It depends on HOW you train them. Same as anything else

Japanese styles are sometimes used... well Judo is anyway, kyokushin occasionally comes out ok. But basically the japanese styles are more about tradition then anything else. Most lack in sparring so their techniques never get tested and drift away from reality.

Controlling the wrists is a important skill, of course it is not done at all like the traditional he grabs your wrist and you... techniques.

Your argument is invalid, the actual fallacy is called "appeal to tradition" But even if we take it as true you must ask, works for what? Physical fitness, cultural preservation and Preping young people to join the Japanese army as Funakoshi wanted? Physical fitness and cultural preservation as Itosu wanted? Instilling a false sense of security by telling people they can defend themselves without putting in the sort of training really neccessary to do so? Keeping a cult mentality and recruiting new members into the cult? Marketing itself as a worthwhile pursuit? Because it works is a very vague claim. Do you agree that there are a lot of McDojo's around teaching poor martial arts? How can that be?

A triangle can be applied many ways from many positions, top and bottom, same basic principles, but many ways to do it.

It was Ichihara in UFC II, came from Japan and faced Royce in the opening rounds. In his intro he said he came because he wanted to fight Royce after seeing him in UFC I. Royce kicked him a few times, he throw one back and got taken down easily. Royce went from side mount to mount in seconds and Ichihara hung onto him for a while taking short punches, Royce was trying to break his grip. Royce continues to pund his ribs and head, Ichihara continues with his underhook/overhook grip behind the back. he eventually gets up, goes for a choke, switches to a arm bar and Ichihara taps before it even gets it locked. So basically Royce had him mounted and hit him for almost 5 minutes, then won be submission, It was a VERY one sided fight. Also in UFC II was Fred Ettish who was a pretty traditional Shorin ryu guy, he lasted on guts and an inability to finnish from his opponent and has become a bit of a joke in the MMA community. Unfair really as he held on longer then most people would have, but he took a really bad beating. Karate has not done well in the UFC, its techniques and strategies don't work very well in that environment.

So should all boxers try to master Ali's style before creating their own? Should all hockey players try to master Wayne Gretzky's style before creating their own? We'd have a bunch of bad boxers and bad hockey players... Learn the basics, learn the strategies and all the while make them work for you. Of course if you are learning a traditional art and want to maintain it all that changes, it depends on why you train and what you want out of it.

It's just strategy and timing. Close and wack'em in the head really hard, then follow up with a few more wacks... It wouldn't be very flashy though.

Have fun, get creative. Just remember that what you are doing is show, not using it as a weapon.

Shadow box, keep on your toes, keep moving, work your hands which should be up high. If left side forward feels more natural stick to it, that is the "standard" stance for a right handed person in boxing/kickboxing.