what are your thoughts on this?

[KarateK]

There is a slight problem when cross training between extremely close styles. I am Shukokai student and love what I do however recently have been taking Shotokan lessons as a bit of a comparative.

Have been struggling flitting from one style to another. Plus although my Sensei' are supportive of me doing this, when we try to bring some of the moves/stances into Shukokai our Sensei correctly tell us that we pay to learn Shukokai from them - so mixing the two is not going to happen.

I think if I truly want to learn another style its going to have to be something COMPLETELY different - judo, boxing.... i dunno

[Kajukenbopr]

I am currently taking shotokan karate, and I was wonderiing what everyones thought was on this style, and karate in general.

I know I have posted something similar to this in the karate section (and now believe it or not on the korean arts by accident, sorry to the people who have to deal woth that I am sorry), but I thought here would be a better place to put it. My question is, meant with no disrespect, do you beleive that judo practitioners are most likely going to beat a shotokan practitioner in a real life situation, not only that but also more realistic?

My belief is that a martial art is only as good as the practitioner can make it by applying it appropriately yo combat and have a good instructor. So basically what I mean is that I do not beleive in a superior style, it is my friend who does and I wanted to hear others thoughts on it.

if you dont have any means of countering or defending grappling(throws,shooting,takedowns and groundfight), you might have some trouble with a judoka.

However, most judo people I've fought lack striking experience, both dealing the blows and countering; but once you're in their grip, watch out...

Personally, I think Karate in general can be pretty effective if trained in the right way, sadly, most schools I've seen (and I do NOT mean ALL-I've seen some who are really tough) train for some movements and not for realistic self defense. If it is just for sport, I dont like it other than for it providing good excercise- the moves will be sloppy, they will train for speed and not power and most will try to become a mix of boxers(bad boxers too) and tkd sport kickers.

[shotokanbeginner]

I am currently taking shotokan karate, and I was wonderiing what everyones thought was on this style, and karate in general.

I know I have posted something similar to this in the karate section (and now believe it or not on the korean arts by accident, sorry to the people who have to deal woth that I am sorry), but I thought here would be a better place to put it. My question is, meant with no disrespect, do you beleive that judo practitioners are most likely going to beat a shotokan practitioner in a real life situation, not only that but also more realistic?

My belief is that a martial art is only as good as the practitioner can make it by applying it appropriately yo combat and have a good instructor. So basically what I mean is that I do not beleive in a superior style, it is my friend who does and I wanted to hear others thoughts on it.

if you dont have any means of countering or defending grappling(throws,shooting,takedowns and groundfight), you might have some trouble with a judoka.

However, most judo people I've fought lack striking experience, both dealing the blows and countering; but once you're in their grip, watch out...

Personally, I think Karate in general can be pretty effective if trained in the right way, sadly, most schools I've seen (and I do NOT mean ALL-I've seen some who are really tough) train for some movements and not for realistic self defense. If it is just for sport, I dont like it other than for it providing good excercise- the moves will be sloppy, they will train for speed and not power and most will try to become a mix of boxers(bad boxers too) and tkd sport kickers.

Yeah your right. I think the school I train at is pretty good though and am sticking to it. I am so excited in like three or four months I am starting to train in both shotokan and judo.

[Yasutsune Makoto]

Here is the breakdown:

Shotokan strength- hits really really hard, from a distance, quickly. Smart and strategic fighters.

Shotokan weakness- most don't practice full speed/contact. most don't practice against other styles, most can't fight close-range.

Judo Strength- full speed practice, comfortable in close range, quick, good balance.

Judo weakness- lacks practice against strikers, lacks striking ability. Possibly unable to get a clinch on someone skilled who is trying to keep them far away.

Conclusion- Shotokan person that can keep the Judo guy far away (or land that perfect technique we all dream of) wins. If the Judo guy gets a grip on the Shotokan guy, he wins.

Best approach in real life- cross-train.

I have trained Shotokan my whole life, and started cross-training with ju-jitsu and judo when I got my black belt. I recommend this for any serious karate-ka of any style because it has helped immensly in pretty much every fighting situation I have been in. Also, look at as many different styles as you can because if you don't know what's coming, how can you beat it?

sorry for the long post.

[Jersey Devil]

I believe that it is the practitioner that makes the difference, not the style. There are street fighters out there that can prove this point. My late grandfather on my father's side had no martial training in his life, save for what he might have learned in the Navy. When my dad was 13, he watched him take a gun from another man, and proceed to pistol whip him until he was no longer stupid.

My point is, a fighter can get just as much experience in the streets as anyone training daily can. In fact, his training may be better because he learns everything at full speed, and in real situations. I DO NOT CONDONE THIS KIND OF TRAINING, HOWEVER. I am just using this scenario to make a point.

If all martial arts were equal and skill set was determined by the individual, that would be a perfect world. Needless to say, that is not the case in this world. To give yet another example, many of BJJ's finest athletes were "convinced" at the beginning of their careers by other BJJ fighters through challenge matches. Famous stories include Eddie Bravo with his Karate chop and Pedro Sauer who was a teenager fighting a pre teen Gracie and woke up to find him over top of him laughing. If it were the fighter and not the style, these people would have proven to be victorious prior to their grappling training. It was after their training in the ground game that they became to become good fighters.

[Jersey Devil]

Given remotely similar skill levels, I would bet on a pure judo player over a pure karate player virtually every time.

It is much easier for a grappler to close the distance to clinch range than it is for a pure striker to keep the grappler at a distance and damage him with strikes.

This has been demonstrated in hundreds or thousands of full-contact mixed martial arts fights.

However, to be a rounded fighter, one should train striking and grappling.

Yup that is right, and that is why I plan on taking a grappling art as well once I get to a good enough level. I can't say I completely agree with you though because the whole grappler and versus striker thing is true, full contact martial arts tournaments aren't realistic really many vital areas are not aloud to be hit, which I think gives grapplers a little bit of an edge in stuff like the U.F.C. and what not.

You make a good point about the rules involved in the UFC and other "full contact" venues.

 

If the grappler shoots, then he should expect punches to the back of the head, elbows to the back and neck, and possibly a knee to the face. At the same time, if a karate-ka kicks, he should be ready for a single-leg take down. There are so many variables, it is impossible to argue.

Essentially, these arguements always become a battle of egos, and nothing more.

Punches to the face and head, and elbows to the spine have been tried through and through during MMA competition- both early and modern events. These techniques do not prevent takedowns and arent much more of a nusiance to the person who's executing the takedown.

[shotokanbeginner]

Given remotely similar skill levels, I would bet on a pure judo player over a pure karate player virtually every time.

It is much easier for a grappler to close the distance to clinch range than it is for a pure striker to keep the grappler at a distance and damage him with strikes.

This has been demonstrated in hundreds or thousands of full-contact mixed martial arts fights.

However, to be a rounded fighter, one should train striking and grappling.

Yup that is right, and that is why I plan on taking a grappling art as well once I get to a good enough level. I can't say I completely agree with you though because the whole grappler and versus striker thing is true, full contact martial arts tournaments aren't realistic really many vital areas are not aloud to be hit, which I think gives grapplers a little bit of an edge in stuff like the U.F.C. and what not.

You make a good point about the rules involved in the UFC and other "full contact" venues.

 

If the grappler shoots, then he should expect punches to the back of the head, elbows to the back and neck, and possibly a knee to the face. At the same time, if a karate-ka kicks, he should be ready for a single-leg take down. There are so many variables, it is impossible to argue.

Essentially, these arguements always become a battle of egos, and nothing more.

Punches to the face and head, and elbows to the spine have been tried through and through during MMA competition- both early and modern events. These techniques do not prevent takedowns and arent much more of a nusiance to the person who's executing the takedown.

MMA tournaments are not completely realistic, there are definately ways to stop takedowns and I don't think it right of you (at least this what it seems like you are doing) to discredit other martial arts like that in both of your little rants, sure everyone does need ground fighting skill but striking skill is important as well. One punch could make all the diference in a fight and can cuase a lot more than a nusiance. That's not to say the grappler had no chance in many cases a grappler will have the upper hand and I am soon going to add a little more grappling to my fighting vocabulary as shotokan as while it has some not enough.Striking will always remain my main focus.

[Jersey Devil]

MMA tournaments are not completely realistic

You're correct- but contrary to popular belief that its a grapplers domain, mixed martial arts in its current state favors striking over grappling

there are definately ways to stop takedowns and I don't think it right of you (at least this what it seems like you are doing) to discredit other martial arts like that in both of your little rants, sure everyone does need ground fighting skill but striking skill is important as well.

I never said that striking isnt important, and yes there are ways to stop takedowns- they're called sprawls. A punch will work quite effectivly against anyone, grappler or not, if you connect while you're on the feet, but once in a clinch, or even worse, when someone has already penetrated your base for a double leg takedown, strikes will not help you to prevent the takedown.

You're asking how to keep someone from taking you down- the answer is to sprawl out, create distance from your hips, and then you're good to go should you wish to attack. If you wait until someone is already clinched up or has executed a double leg and is about to pick you up and slam you, you are too late for striking and must revert to a grappling defense to stop a grappling technique. Let me give you an analogy to consider- how do I stop a punch thats already hit my jaw? The mistake was to let the attack get to your jaw before you covered up and blocked. Same thing goes for someone who gets under you for a double leg- you should have sprawled out, but you've already made that mistake and hes suceeded in his technique.

One punch could make all the diference in a fight and can cuase a lot more than a nusiance.

As was said, its not striking thats not effective, there are way too many ko's in professional sports to discredit striking, but rather its from which positions striking is effective. For example, a solid punch off the feet will do an excellent job of finishing a fight. A punch from the bottom of the mount is a futile attempt to do anything.

[Menjo]

A punch from the bottom of the mount is a futile attempt to do anything.

Well actually that is the difference between different martial arts. All have different ideas, whether you like it or not, there may be a martial art that beileves what you would think as foolish.

Being open-minded in a combat situation ahead of time, can save one from some serious regret later on.

strikes will not help you to prevent the takedown.

I think striking an incoming takedown can work if you have enough skill. This requires alot of skill, because you need to have the required technique really worked well into your mind and body.

Same thing here, saying that this one method is the only sensible way is almost insulting to other martial arts. Different methods work for different people, noone has invented of a completely superior system.

[Jersey Devil]

A punch from the bottom of the mount is a futile attempt to do anything.

Well actually that is the difference between different martial arts. All have different ideas' date=' whether you like it or not, there may be a martial art that beileves what you would think as foolish.

 

Being open-minded in a combat situation ahead of time, can save one from some serious regret later on.[/b']

 

Granted, but attempting to strike your way out from the bottom of the mount is going to get you no where fast. Techniques work if they're applied under specific conditions- that being said, theres not a person in the world who can win a striking battle from the bottom of the mount.

 

 

I think striking an incoming takedown can work if you have enough skill. This requires alot of skill, because you need to have the required technique really worked well into your mind and body.

 

Same thing here, saying that this one method is the only sensible way is almost insulting to other martial arts. Different methods work for different people, noone has invented of a completely superior system.

 

Striking on an incoming takedown attempt is a large gamble, simply because you have to knock your opponent unconcious with one big shot, which experience has shown doesnt happen very often. In the event that you dont knock your opponent out, his momentum will still allow him to get in and penetrate your base, at which point you need a grappling solution (sprawl) for a grappling problem (shot).