Not ALL Karate Is The Same!

[sensei8]

The latest rage of the page seems to be focused on disspelling all types of karate as an ineffective form of self-defense as far as karate is concerned. The proponents of this analogy aren't karateka's at all, yet, they're of another form(s) of the martial arts. Therefore, these same proponents that speak ill of karate appear to speak without having any concrete knowledge of any particular karate style.

I believe that that's completely unfair of these proponents to lump all karate together because karate isn't the same across the board. Karate was used on many battlefields for centuries as well as in life or death challenges very successfully.

I sincerely believe: It's not that karate is ineffective, but, it's the individual karateka that's ineffective!

Any thoughts?

[Toptomcat]

I would go further than you but stop well short of the most enthusiastic detractors of karate. While the technical syllabus of karate is effective, that's not all that goes into a martial art's usefulness to self-defense: there are also a school's training practices. The presence or absence of certain training practices, such as an emphasis on physical rigor and aliveness, can make a world of difference. Regardless of an individual karateka's talent or dedication, if they study in the wrong place their karate will be dramatically less useful for self-defense than if they'd studied in another dojo. An individual's characteristics can give them good karate if they studied in a poor dojo, and excellent karate if they studied in a merely average one, but to discount the role of a school's training practices entirely in favor of the innate ability of its individual students is an oversimplification at best and foolish at worst.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Toptomcat

[Soheir]

Of course it's the individual that counts. Anything can work if you can use it well.

Anyway, when people who doesn't do karate, say anything about it's techniques's practicality, they should talk about some specific style. This, also because, you can't describe the style just as karate. So... Now I'm just repeating what you said...I agree!

Edited December 19, 2010 by Soheir

[Toptomcat]

Of course it's the individual that counts. Anything can work if you can use it well.

Anyway, when people who doesn't do karate, say anything about it's techniques's practicality, they should talk about some specific style. This, also because, you can't describe the style just as karate. So... Now I'm just repeating what you said...I AGREE!

The individual counts for a lot, but to say that the individual is the only thing that counts is to ignore the role of the teacher. There is such a thing as karate that is suited for self-defense and karate that is unsuited for self-defense.

[joesteph]

The martial arts proficiency of a karateka can be linked to individual effort and even natural talent, but it is true that the school itself is where training takes place. Here's where nature meets nurture.

For the sake of argument, let's say that a karateka is motivated, has certain strengths and weaknesses as would be expected, and trains in a school with a good instructor. There's a curriculum "from above" that's expected to be followed. It isn't a McDojo, but the instructor knows that this curriculum has reasons for its existence other than martial arts proficiency. It has a belt system that acts as a motivator, ensuring student retention and the continuation of the art, with certain forms, techniques, whatever to be taught at certain ranks. There are tournaments as well, with awards as motivators and also ensuring student retention. A student studying there for several years will rise to black belt.

The curriculum guide can actually be counterproductive. There may be so many forms to know and so little time spent on applications that the black belt really does become a beginner (or encounters a "new beginning") at first dan. Individuals (gups/kyus) who have strengths that would permit them to become proficient in certain techniques at the next belt level aren't introduced to them because the curriculum guide is to be followed. Tournaments may not reflect self-defense adequately, particularly in a striking art, and time spent on preparing for the next sport event consumes class time that edges out self-defense.

There's a point that comes well before dan level in which you have to assess and decide to continue there or attend a different karate school, likely even a different karate art. It isn't always easy to know what to do, that's for sure, and one can feel sadness at leaving one's teacher, but it's best to remember the good you were taught and to look forward to an expanded learning experience.

[Soheir]

Of course it's the individual that counts. Anything can work if you can use it well.

Anyway, when people who doesn't do karate, say anything about it's techniques's practicality, they should talk about some specific style. This, also because, you can't describe the style just as karate. So... Now I'm just repeating what you said...I AGREE!

The individual counts for a lot, but to say that the individual is the only thing that counts is to ignore the role of the teacher. There is such a thing as karate that is suited for self-defense and karate that is unsuited for self-defense.

Not all, but for my opinion the most. Sure it's important for a student that you have a qualified teacher, and if you wouldn't, it would effect your success. But you can always change a school and a teacher, so in the end it depends from you. But if your attitude is wrong...Well, no one can change it but you!

[tallgeese]

I fall along the same lines as tomcat on this one. One's own natural talent and ability and will to employ specific tactics are important.

However, with out training based around real word situations you still won't get far. Technical competence without exposure to the aliveness of actual combat might not go far.

Lots of things go into effective ma's. One is individual skill, one is the system of tools they've studied, another is the modalities of training applied at a given school. All go into building an individual fighter.

Then there is things like the situation that one's in, the environment, and even sheer happenstance.

[sensei8]

Very good posts thus far...thanks!

Imho...

Every student needs one important thing...A qualified instructor. Every instructor needs one important thing...A involved student. A qualified instructor that can properly lead a student who will be actively involved in their training. Not an instructor who can barely open a door, let alone a door to unimagined possibilities in real world situations. Not a student who'll blindly follow their instructor, no matter the direction, no matter the door.

Students of a dojo that's poor in methodologies and the like have been begotten by their instructor who's poor in his/her teaching abilities as well as the lack of understanding their own karate. When an instructor awards rank like free jelly beans, then that's because that instructor and/or the Hombu only care about one thing....money...more than the well being of their own students and in their students ability to effectively defend themselves, well, that instructor and/or Hombu shouldn't be teaching anybody anything, especially karate or any other form of the martial arts.

Karate isn't ineffective; some karateka's are, students and instructors alike!

[Kuma]

Styles aren't ineffective. Training methodologies are.

[sensei8]

Styles aren't ineffective. Training methodologies are.

I concur with that as well!