Shotokan as self defence

[sensei8]

It's the practitioner and not the art that's a proponent of Shotokan, therefore, any self-defense is dependent on the practitioner to make said effective.

IMHO!!

[Shizentai]

It's the practitioner and not the art that's a proponent of Shotokan, therefore, any self-defense is dependent on the practitioner to make said effective.

IMHO!!

Agreed.

I think this kind of question has a similar pitfall as ones like "Who would win in a fight, karate or kungfu?" Despite the greatness that exists within any martial art, a practitioner stands alone in a fight. On the street your defense is your body, your mind and what you've put time and effort into learning.

All metaphor aside, I am a shotokan practitioner. Though I am not a prison guard, nor a policeman, nor a man that discusses bar fight self defense. I am a 115lb woman and I have never been left wanting in a self defense situation.

[DoctorQui]

All Karate including Shotokan is taught at a level where you drill in prescribed attacks and defences! However, no martial art can teach YOU how to apply it in a way that suits you. Its all part of your own personal training plan, you have to take some responsibility in practising what works for you and what doesn't. During sparring, using textbook technique would result in defeat, but using muscle memory and your own practiced and adapted technique would not. I have a few 'signature' moves, one of which is very hard to defend against (no its not crane technique lol) but that particular move is an amalgam of 3 textbook techniques adapted to suit.

[muttley]

All Karate including Shotokan is taught at a level where you drill in prescribed attacks and defences! However, no martial art can teach YOU how to apply it in a way that suits you. Its all part of your own personal training plan, you have to take some responsibility in practising what works for you and what doesn't. During sparring, using textbook technique would result in defeat, but using muscle memory and your own practiced and adapted technique would not. I have a few 'signature' moves, one of which is very hard to defend against (no its not crane technique lol) but that particular move is an amalgam of 3 textbook techniques adapted to suit.

You see, I always used to use a nice little spinning uraken in sparring when off balance with the leg lifting to make a feint reverse kick, in NAKMAS (UK) Dojo's, this has apparently now been disallowed due to the fact that it could be deemed as reckless.

[Kusotare]

Karate (as taught in most gendai dojo today) is Budo.

Budo is NOT self defence.

If learning self defence is you primary goal, you are wasting your time with Karate IMO.

As the OP mentioned guys like Rory Miller are a better option.

K.

[tallgeese]

Kusotare has a good point here, but it goes to a bigger question. Sensei8 also touches on this a bit.

It's highly dependent on a couple of things. One of these is the person doing the art. What is more important that that in my opinion is your training methodology, which is (I think) what Kusotare is getting at with how karate is taught.

Tactics from differing systems can be more or less efficient, most every system has something to offer but it may or may not be efficient. The same is true of training methodology.

If your instructor is doing live drilling, scenario training and training those things you mention (weapons, multiple attackers, ect.) there's a good chance that you might be on to something in the way of combat prep. If you're instructor is more concerned with the artistic side of the arts and using a methodology that advances them then you might not be prepping well for combative application.