Why did karate lose its value?

[Kodakmint]

I think it's lost it's value in this fast paced world, because no one has time anymore.

[hangetsu123]

The flip to this, while everyone would like to be on their feet, they fail to train in the best way to prevent this...by grappling. Working on the ground is only part of BJJ. Taking down and staying up are a big portion as well.

Additionally, we can all say it's a bad idea to go to the ground but the fact is we can end up there anyway. Failing to spend time training there puts us well behind the curve should we end up there, no matter the position.

It's impossible in the post-UFC era to ignore that component of a well rounded response plan.

interesting points... yet I have never participated in a bjj class that worked on checking the take down. we worked on pulling guard...seems judo's randori would be a better vehicle. I personally disagree with a lot of what the general martial arts populace thinks mma has proved.

Being very close to inner city life and from what I've witnessed, grappling usually is bad. two blokes on the town and the wing man gets into a scrum with a dude, gets taken down and gets put into a submission hold. 99% of the time the other guy will jump in to save his friend. "would not you?"

....

Now add to the mix inner city thug mentality ....

grappling although very useful in one on one (non weapon incounter) and sport venues ....this skill set is low priority in self defence ..(yes it should be explored to the level confidence is gained) but other skill sets Imo take a higher precedent.

karate is Imo the better suited for actual reality (that factor alone makes karate extremely practical ...

[tallgeese]

That hasn't been my experience with BJJ at all. We've spent plenty of block working from the feet. We've also spent plenty of time jumping guard. Of course, being a ground based art, you'll spend most of the time already on the mat. But I haven't run into too many BJJ classes that never work from standing.

I do disagree about the value of MMA in teaching us things. I think it's opened a lot of eyes in regard to training methods primarily and the value of cross training. Sure it's not real combat, but it's a snap shot of one aspect of it that's as free form as we can safety make it.

As to grappling seeming to be a bad idea...yeah, probably, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Why pretend it won't. However, we overstate the idea that someone will curb stomp us while applying a submission. Just putting someone down does not mean I have to become involved in a ground fight with them. I might take top position, do a bit of grinding while watching from a dominate position for a second friend. Positional dominance is the most important aspect of BJJ for street level conflict:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQyqt4DKhRo

Here's a brief video we cut in my home work out area for another thread that talks about the concept as it relates to what we're talking about.

Karate has very good tools for conflict for sure. What it has going against it is out dated training methods (see the Karate without Kata thread for the full on debate about this). What training in other arts have that make them appeal right now those seeking self-defense is more realistic training methods.

Renzo Gracie in his book "Mastering Jiu Jitsu" makes a pretty good argument as to why arts like BJJ performed better in early mma venues than traditional arts (granted, it's written by a grappler, but his argument has merit especially when stacked up against scientific learning theory)

His thesis is that fighters out of arts that can train live, at nearly 100 percent when they choose with minimal risk of injury (so that the "too lethal" movements are removed, ie eye gouges ect.) actually have an edge in real conflict over those arts who train such things because they can actually apply their tactics under live conditions. Other arts are theoretical in nature in regard to what their weapons do (again, the eye gouge, throat strikes, ect) while BJJ, MMA, ect. know EXACTLY what their tactic will produce.

People see this and, even if they can't put it in those words, perceive that karate is lesser in value in street level combat than arts with more "live" training.

[ShoriKid]

His thesis is that fighters out of arts that can train live, at nearly 100 percent when they choose with minimal risk of injury (so that the "too lethal" movements are removed, ie eye gouges ect.) actually have an edge in real conflict over those arts who train such things because they can actually apply their tactics under live conditions. Other arts are theoretical in nature in regard to what their weapons do (again, the eye gouge, throat strikes, ect) while BJJ, MMA, ect. know EXACTLY what their tactic will produce.

Not to debunk what you're saying tallgeese, but isn't that an advantage grappling arts have over striking arts in general? Especially ones that use more than closed fists and shins(those excluded because of fairly good protective gear)? Hard, concussive blows to the head & body aren't something that you can train regularly, at nearly 100%, and expect to do so often. Strikers always have to pull their shots, not use some weapons, (palms, forearms/elbows, knees etc) in order to be safe. If not, we have to hunt new training partners way too often.

It's why rolling hard is so much fun for strikers, you can be more aggressive without fear or injury.

[tallgeese]

Sure, I don't think that debunks the idea at all. In fact, I'd say it supports it pretty well. BJJ is good that way in that you've rolled, a big chunk of your training, live.

I was referring to MMA simply because live contests produce known results, even with the discounted attacks that I refereed to. We know how minimally protected striking works full out, we know how easy it is to get taken down and how important takedown defense and positional dominance is because all those things have been tested live.

Grappling arts have a major advantage in how they can be trained, which is I think Renzo's point in the first place.

[ShoriKid]

Wasn't saying he was wrong. I've agreed, and said for years that grappling arts are at an advantage in being safr to train live. I just wanted to put in that if we're being honest it has to be acknowledged that striking arts aren't very safe at or near 100%. It isn't just that things only work in theory and the strikers don't want to try things out, that "too dangerous" isn't just made up, it's a fact that people have to work around. An inconvenient truth of training if you will.

[tallgeese]

Maybe I just don't get what you're saying, which is not unexpected over a long distance typing conversation. But there are plenty of striking arts that, while can't be trained daily at 100% are not theoretical to a large degree. MMA being, for me, a prime example. The hands are padded minimally, and we can see what good striking will do in competition.

This is in stark contrast to the eye gouges and such that everyone says will work to fend of an attacker, but we never really see repeatable, live examples of. That's all.

[Jissen]

Having not read the entire thread, my two cents.

I think karate started losing its efficacy the instant people starting changing it.

The 2 most significant instances are 1 when Itosu (and Higashionna among others) introduced karate into the school system, they left out a lot of information...which led to 2 The karate that spread over the world was this "kids" karate. Not to say it was crap, just that it was very basic, and left many things out. From that point on most karate systems were also effected by sportive competition, using high kicks and such.

Not all karate was this way, so don't shoot me, but a majority of it is this way in my opinion. Things that were once open hand strikes to the throat, were made into a poorly formed fist aimed at less dangerous targets because even kids can do this relatively easily. But they don't have the maturity level to be learning vicious things like the old days.

Also consider the political/social climate of Japan. The warrior class abolished, it was modernizing and interest in the old school fighting arts was dying in a big way. I have also heard that the Japanese government told Funakoshi to make the art less vicious for these reasons, and because they were more interested in "Do" not only "jutsu" to use that old argument. So Funakoshi simply taught them Itosu's school karate. Not so different than what Kano did with Judo/Jujutsu.

Today you also have to consider most people are sissies these days. Most parents don't want little billy to get a black eye or busted lip in class. And insurance companies don't want to pay for such things. Most people couldn't handle real training.

I think there are relatively few people outside Okinawa that can (or are willing) to teach the "real deal" these days. It's better than it was a decade ago however.

As for the whole "lethal techniques" vs "live training"....it doesn't have to be either or. You can do all of the above.

Generally I think there are 3 types of situations you can find yourself in.

1 sport fight. 2 street fight. 3 self defense. To me these are 3 different things, that are linked by a common set of principles and concepts. Your art should be able to give you the tools to be successful at all o fthem if you wish.

I also think there are 3 basic targets you should attack.

1 vision, 2 breathing, 3 balance. Simply remembering those simple ideas will help alot.

Look at Judo as a prime example. It has a great deal of functional live training. Yet retains the more "street" oriented techniques, albeit practiced in a static manner (kata). Best of both worlds.

With todays training gear however it's much safer to train sparring in a live environment, and we should. We should not discount modern training ideas just because they're not 'traditional'

Most of the things people consider traditional in the karate world were never around until 1960(ish) anyway. Uniforms, belt ranks, the use of a dojo, etc. If you want the traditional gi, just strip down to your skivies and beat the crap out of each other.

I also think the situation matters greatly when choosing techniques. Eye gouges are a dumb thing to do at long range, say in a kickboxing or MMA match. But if someone has you shoved up against a wall, and you understand the "psychology" side of things, it's very easy to play the victim so they drop their mental guard, and stick your thumbs in his eyes and tear away. There's a big difference between 2 people squaring off with each other...and a self defense scenario.

One problem I have with sport arts is that they not only teach people HOW TO fight...they teach them TO fight intentionally (perhaps unintentionally taught however, just becomes habit) ...most of them don't think about it, they just jump into a live struggle with the person rather than trying to just take em out fast and leave. "all war is based on deception" The Art of War.

Ed Parker broke American Kenpo down into 3 areas.

1 basics (forms, sets, basic strikes, kicks, blocks etc)

2 self defense

if you stop looking at what the defender is doing, and look at what his ATTACKER is doing, you'll see that the situations are usually more static, grabs, bear hugs, shoves, basic punches and the like.

These are common every day attacks, not freefighting. That's why you don't usually see these techniques in free sparring...they're not designed for that environment.

Most violence starts verbally anyway, and this type of training allows you to incorporate psychology, verbal defense, and distance control. The ultimat goal being to escape to safety, not jump into a "fight" with someone who you have no knowledge of. He may have a knife in his boot, he may have a gun in his jacket, he may have buddies waiting around the corner...do you still want to "fight" with this person? Would you teach your wife or daughter to 'fight' with this person? Hell no!

Self defense is what happens BEFORE the situation escalates into a FIGHT (live struggle between 2 or more people)

3 freestyle

this has many uses from sport, to street fighting. Largely it's what happens when your initial defense, and possibly your backup defense fails...youre going to find yourself in a FIGHT very quickly. So you need to learn to do both. This is where mostly...all ideas of preconceived techniques go out the window..it is the use of the principles and concepts of your art at work rather than set techniques.

Most people do one or the other, but a slightly different outlook on their art can open many doors. As a student of Hohan Soken once said, we need to bunkai the system as a whole, not just the individual kata.

[Dobbersky]

Having not read the entire thread, my two cents.

I think karate started losing its efficacy the instant people starting changing it.

The 2 most significant instances are 1 when Itosu (and Higashionna among others) introduced karate into the school system, they left out a lot of information...which led to 2 The karate that spread over the world was this "kids" karate. Not to say it was crap, just that it was very basic, and left many things out. From that point on most karate systems were also effected by sportive competition, using high kicks and such.

Not all karate was this way, so don't shoot me, but a majority of it is this way in my opinion. Things that were once open hand strikes to the throat, were made into a poorly formed fist aimed at less dangerous targets because even kids can do this relatively easily. But they don't have the maturity level to be learning vicious things like the old days.

Also consider the political/social climate of Japan. The warrior class abolished, it was modernizing and interest in the old school fighting arts was dying in a big way. I have also heard that the Japanese government told Funakoshi to make the art less vicious for these reasons, and because they were more interested in "Do" not only "jutsu" to use that old argument. So Funakoshi simply taught them Itosu's school karate. Not so different than what Kano did with Judo/Jujutsu.

Today you also have to consider most people are sissies these days. Most parents don't want little billy to get a black eye or busted lip in class. And insurance companies don't want to pay for such things. Most people couldn't handle real training.

I think there are relatively few people outside Okinawa that can (or are willing) to teach the "real deal" these days. It's better than it was a decade ago however.

As for the whole "lethal techniques" vs "live training"....it doesn't have to be either or. You can do all of the above.

Generally I think there are 3 types of situations you can find yourself in.

1 sport fight. 2 street fight. 3 self defense. To me these are 3 different things, that are linked by a common set of principles and concepts. Your art should be able to give you the tools to be successful at all o fthem if you wish.

I also think there are 3 basic targets you should attack.

1 vision, 2 breathing, 3 balance. Simply remembering those simple ideas will help alot.

Look at Judo as a prime example. It has a great deal of functional live training. Yet retains the more "street" oriented techniques, albeit practiced in a static manner (kata). Best of both worlds.

With todays training gear however it's much safer to train sparring in a live environment, and we should. We should not discount modern training ideas just because they're not 'traditional'

Most of the things people consider traditional in the karate world were never around until 1960(ish) anyway. Uniforms, belt ranks, the use of a dojo, etc. If you want the traditional gi, just strip down to your skivies and beat the crap out of each other.

I also think the situation matters greatly when choosing techniques. Eye gouges are a dumb thing to do at long range, say in a kickboxing or MMA match. But if someone has you shoved up against a wall, and you understand the "psychology" side of things, it's very easy to play the victim so they drop their mental guard, and stick your thumbs in his eyes and tear away. There's a big difference between 2 people squaring off with each other...and a self defense scenario.

One problem I have with sport arts is that they not only teach people HOW TO fight...they teach them TO fight intentionally (perhaps unintentionally taught however, just becomes habit) ...most of them don't think about it, they just jump into a live struggle with the person rather than trying to just take em out fast and leave. "all war is based on deception" The Art of War.

Ed Parker broke American Kenpo down into 3 areas.

1 basics (forms, sets, basic strikes, kicks, blocks etc)

2 self defense

if you stop looking at what the defender is doing, and look at what his ATTACKER is doing, you'll see that the situations are usually more static, grabs, bear hugs, shoves, basic punches and the like.

These are common every day attacks, not freefighting. That's why you don't usually see these techniques in free sparring...they're not designed for that environment.

Most violence starts verbally anyway, and this type of training allows you to incorporate psychology, verbal defense, and distance control. The ultimat goal being to escape to safety, not jump into a "fight" with someone who you have no knowledge of. He may have a knife in his boot, he may have a gun in his jacket, he may have buddies waiting around the corner...do you still want to "fight" with this person? Would you teach your wife or daughter to 'fight' with this person? Hell no!

Self defense is what happens BEFORE the situation escalates into a FIGHT (live struggle between 2 or more people)

3 freestyle

this has many uses from sport, to street fighting. Largely it's what happens when your initial defense, and possibly your backup defense fails...youre going to find yourself in a FIGHT very quickly. So you need to learn to do both. This is where mostly...all ideas of preconceived techniques go out the window..it is the use of the principles and concepts of your art at work rather than set techniques.

Most people do one or the other, but a slightly different outlook on their art can open many doors. As a student of Hohan Soken once said, we need to bunkai the system as a whole, not just the individual kata.

I wouldn't shoot you for this, its an excellent post and I agree with Ed Parker's ethos

[ShoriKid]

Maybe I just don't get what you're saying, which is not unexpected over a long distance typing conversation. But there are plenty of striking arts that, while can't be trained daily at 100% are not theoretical to a large degree. MMA being, for me, a prime example. The hands are padded minimally, and we can see what good striking will do in competition.

This is in stark contrast to the eye gouges and such that everyone says will work to fend of an attacker, but we never really see repeatable, live examples of. That's all.

I don't think we're disagreeing all that much. More talking past each other than anything else. Settled in two minutes of talking in person, takes 3 weeks in forums.

My point has always been that there are somethings that work, they are just very hard to train safely at full power. I'm not talking finger jabs to the eyes. I can make brushing contact in a drill and get a real enough response to those. But, to really get the feel for a hard forearm or knife hand to the side of the neck or base of the skull. Dangerous stuff more because of the target than the weapon. Light to moderate contact in a partner drill can give good incite, but you have to be careful with that sort of thing. I'm not a "too deadly to train" guy. I like contact, I like feeling the results and making sure others can feel them when I'm apply technique. I just recognize that you can't go 100% all the time and think you're going to train all the time. When I hear people saying they do full contact striking all the time I shake my head and try to get out of the conversation. My opinion is anyone telling me that is either lying or doesn't know how to throw a good punch/kick. If they did someone would be getting knocked out or injured frequently. Even pros don't go full out every day.

I suppose that what irks me, and it's not anything you've said tallgeese, is when grappling proponents shoot down anything that isn't full contact competition. With the "it's all theory and conjecture unless you're fighting MMA" gets my goat. Realistic limitations on what you can safely train are something that has to be accepted. That people are in denial of what those limitations are for other systems gets old. There is a larger discussion in that I guess too. So tallgeese I'm not saying no touch compliant drills are the way to go, trust me. I am just a guy willing to say up front I can safely train some things in my art, other things are much harder to do, but they are still good techniques and should be worked as realistically as possible.