Who looks for bunkai?

[Wastelander]

I am a bit conflicted about this.

Nobody punches others karate style in real life, or even in sparring (

), so, how do all of the ippon kumite drills prepare us to defend a "regular" punch or a haymaker?

In a kata bunkai you're usually defending oi tsukis, palm strikes (same idea, zenkutsudachi), etc. I haven't seen a kata with a bunkai about jabs, cross, uppercuts, haymakers, etc.

I think you are misinterpreting a little--the kata does not care what the attack is. In a kata application, you can be defending from LOTS of things. It is just generally TAUGHT (at first) against basic, simplified karate techniques because it gives everyone an easy example to start with. As MatsuShinshii and I have tried to point out, a few times, this is a beginning stage, so they get comfortable with the idea. After that, you start working it against all sorts of common/habitual acts of violence, and in a number of skill-building drills, and in resistant training like randori/kakedameshi.

Just because you usually see it demonstrated against an unrealistic attack, does not mean that people only ever train against unrealistic attacks.

[OneKickWonder]

Finally, you must still learn how to fight (see 1st paragraph above) in case you need it. But a karateka is not going to be able to fight (as defined above) as well as a competitive boxer or MMA fighter...they just don't get that kind of repetition and training. However, they can get good enough that they can handle a lot of situations. And...they must Bogu Kumite (full contact sparring with Bogu gear or an equivalent) to know what it feels like to get hit, and to get hit hard. The worst thing for anybody is to have the first time they get hit really hard on the street. They may have the best technique in the world, but if they can't take a hit without panic or complete submission, then they are not going to perform successful self defense.

This is a common argument used to support the claim for the need to train full contact.

It is also fundamentally flawed. Allow me to explain why.

If the first time you ever get hit hard, it is in the controlled environment of training, then that can only mean that you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation. If you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation, then with respect, any notion of what it's like to be hit hard in a real confrontation and how one would react is pure theory. Someone who has never been hit hard in a real confrontation, by definition, does not have the experience needed to understand how they might react to being hit hard in a real confrontation.

If training for self defence, training full contact is not ideal for another reason. You train to minimise the risk of someone knacking you by, having someone knack you. You train to mitigate the risk of a stronger opponent possibly punching you in the head and rattling your brain, a very remote possibility if you know how to avoid trouble, by actually going to a place on a regular basis and actually volunteering to have someone try their very best to punch your head and rattle your brain.

Some folks want to train full contact. Each to their own. The information about risks is widely available so they can make an informed decision. But its illogical to do it for self defense.

One Kick Wonder, you are discussing things in circles here. If I understand you correctly you are saying that he only way to truly prepare for an attack on the street is to go out and get attacked on the street.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that training full contact is nothing like being attacked in the street. The only way anyone can ever know what it's like to be attacked in the street is if that's happened to them. That's not to say that folks should go out and look for trouble. That would be silly.

I will also present you with this. I spent 24.5 years as an infantry officer training soldiers to fight and kill on the battlefield.

Then you will understand the flaw in the full contact argument better than most. You say that the only way to prepare for being punched really hard is to have someone punch you really hard. But I bet you wouldn't say to your young recruits that the best way to prepare for a determined foe trying their very best to kill you with machine guns and grenades is to go somewhere and have someone fire machine guns and grenades at you with live ammo so you know what it feels like.

[RW]

Finally, you must still learn how to fight (see 1st paragraph above) in case you need it. But a karateka is not going to be able to fight (as defined above) as well as a competitive boxer or MMA fighter...they just don't get that kind of repetition and training. However, they can get good enough that they can handle a lot of situations. And...they must Bogu Kumite (full contact sparring with Bogu gear or an equivalent) to know what it feels like to get hit, and to get hit hard. The worst thing for anybody is to have the first time they get hit really hard on the street. They may have the best technique in the world, but if they can't take a hit without panic or complete submission, then they are not going to perform successful self defense.

This is a common argument used to support the claim for the need to train full contact.

It is also fundamentally flawed. Allow me to explain why.

If the first time you ever get hit hard, it is in the controlled environment of training, then that can only mean that you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation. If you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation, then with respect, any notion of what it's like to be hit hard in a real confrontation and how one would react is pure theory. Someone who has never been hit hard in a real confrontation, by definition, does not have the experience needed to understand how they might react to being hit hard in a real confrontation.

If training for self defence, training full contact is not ideal for another reason. You train to minimise the risk of someone knacking you by, having someone knack you. You train to mitigate the risk of a stronger opponent possibly punching you in the head and rattling your brain, a very remote possibility if you know how to avoid trouble, by actually going to a place on a regular basis and actually volunteering to have someone try their very best to punch your head and rattle your brain.

Some folks want to train full contact. Each to their own. The information about risks is widely available so they can make an informed decision. But its illogical to do it for self defense.

One Kick Wonder, you are discussing things in circles here. If I understand you correctly you are saying that he only way to truly prepare for an attack on the street is to go out and get attacked on the street.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that training full contact is nothing like being attacked in the street. The only way anyone can ever know what it's like to be attacked in the street is if that's happened to them. That's not to say that folks should go out and look for trouble. That would be silly.

I will also present you with this. I spent 24.5 years as an infantry officer training soldiers to fight and kill on the battlefield.

Then you will understand the flaw in the full contact argument better than most. You say that the only way to prepare for being punched really hard is to have someone punch you really hard. But I bet you wouldn't say to your young recruits that the best way to prepare for a determined foe trying their very best to kill you with machine guns and grenades is to go somewhere and have someone fire machine guns and grenades at you with live ammo so you know what it feels like.

There is a difference. If you're shot you're done.

If you're tagged in the face once, you may still be in the fight.

Do you remember the Brock Lesnar vs Cain Velazquez fight? Brock got tagged in the face once and he freaked out, trying to run away, ended spinning like a helicopter, cried and then got KO'd.

Turns out Brock didn't know what being punched is like. It is NOT recommended to get punched in the face whilst training, but you do have to experience high impact and some pain from time to time just so you can get the grit necessary to power though them in a fight shall the need arise.

[MatsuShinshii]

I am a bit conflicted about this.

Nobody punches others karate style in real life, or even in sparring (

), so, how do all of the ippon kumite drills prepare us to defend a "regular" punch or a haymaker?

They don't. The applications contained within the Kata do. You train to deal with every possible attack method.

I think the problem is Modern Karate's interpretation of the Kata. Stuck on basics. "This is the way we punch". The problem is there is no evolution to the art. No Yudansha should be punching the way they did when they were Mudansha. No Kodansha punches like they did when they were Yudansha. You evolve as you learn and begin to understand your art and it's combative methodology.

To say that a straight punch is the only way a Karateka will punch you in a fight is preposterous. To say that the only thing you will ever defend against and therefore the only thing your applications should focus on in training is a straight "Karate" punch is equally preposterous.

The founders fought in life and death conflicts. Do you or anyone else here actually feel that the only lessons the founders passed down in which are contained in the Kata are just ways to deal with basics??

In a kata bunkai you're usually defending oi tsukis, palm strikes (same idea, zenkutsudachi), etc. I haven't seen a kata with a bunkai about jabs, cross, uppercuts, haymakers, etc.

You're over simplifying it. "BAck to Basics" again. The Kata's applications are not created to deal with the most basic of attacks nor as popularly believed to deal with the untrained street thug, they are a compilation of techniques and applications that had been tried and tested in battle and had been proven to be effective. This means to deal with advanced means of attack from trained combatants.

Yes there are applications to deal with the most common methods of attack (this even includes basic Kihon techniques) but that is not what it is restricted to as you are pointing out. If this is the way that you train in Kata, forgive me if this comes off judgmental, but you're doing it wrong.

My point was that no one strikes one way no matter the circumstance. My point about a Boxer's jab is, you wouldn't throw a straight jab if you did not have a target to connect with. Instead you would adapt and alter the angle in order to connect. Karate is no different.

To put an art into a neat little box of basic kihon and call it combat effective makes no sense and is false in it's premise. This is Modern Karate not the art that the founders handed down. You are describing an art altered to teach school children not one designed for combat. The art that the founders created was specifically for combat. The mere suggestion that they would limit the applications and principles to basics is missing the point entirely.

I understand that some train in what they think are the founders applications but are in actuality training in what I would call literal interpretation. In this case yes you only use the basic Kihon of reverse punch, front kicks and the like and you only defend against the like.

This is NOT what the Kata represents nor the lessons that it contains.

[Tempest]

I am a bit conflicted about this.

Nobody punches others karate style in real life, or even in sparring (

), so, how do all of the ippon kumite drills prepare us to defend a "regular" punch or a haymaker?

They don't. The applications contained within the Kata do. You train to deal with every possible attack method.

I think the problem is Modern Karate's interpretation of the Kata. Stuck on basics. "This is the way we punch". The problem is there is no evolution to the art. No Yudansha should be punching the way they did when they were Mudansha. No Kodansha punches like they did when they were Yudansha. You evolve as you learn and begin to understand your art and it's combative methodology.

To say that a straight punch is the only way a Karateka will punch you in a fight is preposterous. To say that the only thing you will ever defend against and therefore the only thing your applications should focus on in training is a straight "Karate" punch is equally preposterous.

The founders fought in life and death conflicts. Do you or anyone else here actually feel that the only lessons the founders passed down in which are contained in the Kata are just ways to deal with basics??

In a kata bunkai you're usually defending oi tsukis, palm strikes (same idea, zenkutsudachi), etc. I haven't seen a kata with a bunkai about jabs, cross, uppercuts, haymakers, etc.

You're over simplifying it. "BAck to Basics" again. The Kata's applications are not created to deal with the most basic of attacks nor as popularly believed to deal with the untrained street thug, they are a compilation of techniques and applications that had been tried and tested in battle and had been proven to be effective. This means to deal with advanced means of attack from trained combatants.

Yes there are applications to deal with the most common methods of attack (this even includes basic Kihon techniques) but that is not what it is restricted to as you are pointing out. If this is the way that you train in Kata, forgive me if this comes off judgmental, but you're doing it wrong.

My point was that no one strikes one way no matter the circumstance. My point about a Boxer's jab is, you wouldn't throw a straight jab if you did not have a target to connect with. Instead you would adapt and alter the angle in order to connect. Karate is no different.

To put an art into a neat little box of basic kihon and call it combat effective makes no sense and is false in it's premise. This is Modern Karate not the art that the founders handed down. You are describing an art altered to teach school children not one designed for combat. The art that the founders created was specifically for combat. The mere suggestion that they would limit the applications and principles to basics is missing the point entirely.

I understand that some train in what they think are the founders applications but are in actuality training in what I would call literal interpretation. In this case yes you only use the basic Kihon of reverse punch, front kicks and the like and you only defend against the like.

This is NOT what the Kata represents nor the lessons that it contains.

You know, one of these days we are gonna have to get together and do some training so you can show me what you are on about with all of this.

I say that because while everything you SAY sounds great, I have never experienced ANY of it in a Karate dojo that I have been in. I believe that you train and teach your students the way you describe, but it is not at ALL common in Karate to train those kinds of applications at all. And even less so to train them in an alive manner to the point where they can be executed in a fight against an intelligently resisting opponent.

Do you have any videos of your students training or sparring that I could see? Or of them competing? Because it seems like if I could have trained with you, I might not have ever left Karate in the first place.

[OneKickWonder]

Finally, you must still learn how to fight (see 1st paragraph above) in case you need it. But a karateka is not going to be able to fight (as defined above) as well as a competitive boxer or MMA fighter...they just don't get that kind of repetition and training. However, they can get good enough that they can handle a lot of situations. And...they must Bogu Kumite (full contact sparring with Bogu gear or an equivalent) to know what it feels like to get hit, and to get hit hard. The worst thing for anybody is to have the first time they get hit really hard on the street. They may have the best technique in the world, but if they can't take a hit without panic or complete submission, then they are not going to perform successful self defense.

This is a common argument used to support the claim for the need to train full contact.

It is also fundamentally flawed. Allow me to explain why.

If the first time you ever get hit hard, it is in the controlled environment of training, then that can only mean that you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation. If you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation, then with respect, any notion of what it's like to be hit hard in a real confrontation and how one would react is pure theory. Someone who has never been hit hard in a real confrontation, by definition, does not have the experience needed to understand how they might react to being hit hard in a real confrontation.

If training for self defence, training full contact is not ideal for another reason. You train to minimise the risk of someone knacking you by, having someone knack you. You train to mitigate the risk of a stronger opponent possibly punching you in the head and rattling your brain, a very remote possibility if you know how to avoid trouble, by actually going to a place on a regular basis and actually volunteering to have someone try their very best to punch your head and rattle your brain.

Some folks want to train full contact. Each to their own. The information about risks is widely available so they can make an informed decision. But its illogical to do it for self defense.

One Kick Wonder, you are discussing things in circles here. If I understand you correctly you are saying that he only way to truly prepare for an attack on the street is to go out and get attacked on the street.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that training full contact is nothing like being attacked in the street. The only way anyone can ever know what it's like to be attacked in the street is if that's happened to them. That's not to say that folks should go out and look for trouble. That would be silly.

I will also present you with this. I spent 24.5 years as an infantry officer training soldiers to fight and kill on the battlefield.

Then you will understand the flaw in the full contact argument better than most. You say that the only way to prepare for being punched really hard is to have someone punch you really hard. But I bet you wouldn't say to your young recruits that the best way to prepare for a determined foe trying their very best to kill you with machine guns and grenades is to go somewhere and have someone fire machine guns and grenades at you with live ammo so you know what it feels like.

There is a difference. If you're shot you're done.

If you're tagged in the face once, you may still be in the fight.

Do you remember the Brock Lesnar vs Cain Velazquez fight? Brock got tagged in the face once and he freaked out, trying to run away, ended spinning like a helicopter, cried and then got KO'd.

Turns out Brock didn't know what being punched is like. It is NOT recommended to get punched in the face whilst training, but you do have to experience high impact and some pain from time to time just so you can get the grit necessary to power though them in a fight shall the need arise.

A competition dual is very different from a real fight.

In a competition duel, there is the expectation that all parties will follow the rules. There is also the knowledge that if you lose, you're probably not going to get repeatedly beaten possibly until unrecognisable or dead.

In a real fight there can be no misunderstanding. There is only one rule. Try not to get beaten to oblivion. Try to stay in a state where you can go home to your family afterwards.

These two very different situations inevitably result in very different emotions and reactions. I've experienced both. I've called a 'fight' off because I've hurt my leg and I knew that continuing with it would put me out of training for a few weeks. I've also been caught up in real violence, where to be honest I felt no pain at all. None. Zilch. Until some hours later when the adrenaline had worn off, and I realised I had a lot of bruises and a couple of fractures. Yet I was generally still the same shape and in the same number of pieces as before, which is literally the best you can hope for when it's for real.

Which brings us nicely to the other difference between competition duel and real fight. The former has a winner and a loser. The latter has a loser and another loser.

[MatsuShinshii]

I am a bit conflicted about this.

Nobody punches others karate style in real life, or even in sparring (

), so, how do all of the ippon kumite drills prepare us to defend a "regular" punch or a haymaker?

They don't. The applications contained within the Kata do. You train to deal with every possible attack method.

I think the problem is Modern Karate's interpretation of the Kata. Stuck on basics. "This is the way we punch". The problem is there is no evolution to the art. No Yudansha should be punching the way they did when they were Mudansha. No Kodansha punches like they did when they were Yudansha. You evolve as you learn and begin to understand your art and it's combative methodology.

To say that a straight punch is the only way a Karateka will punch you in a fight is preposterous. To say that the only thing you will ever defend against and therefore the only thing your applications should focus on in training is a straight "Karate" punch is equally preposterous.

The founders fought in life and death conflicts. Do you or anyone else here actually feel that the only lessons the founders passed down in which are contained in the Kata are just ways to deal with basics??

In a kata bunkai you're usually defending oi tsukis, palm strikes (same idea, zenkutsudachi), etc. I haven't seen a kata with a bunkai about jabs, cross, uppercuts, haymakers, etc.

You're over simplifying it. "BAck to Basics" again. The Kata's applications are not created to deal with the most basic of attacks nor as popularly believed to deal with the untrained street thug, they are a compilation of techniques and applications that had been tried and tested in battle and had been proven to be effective. This means to deal with advanced means of attack from trained combatants.

Yes there are applications to deal with the most common methods of attack (this even includes basic Kihon techniques) but that is not what it is restricted to as you are pointing out. If this is the way that you train in Kata, forgive me if this comes off judgmental, but you're doing it wrong.

My point was that no one strikes one way no matter the circumstance. My point about a Boxer's jab is, you wouldn't throw a straight jab if you did not have a target to connect with. Instead you would adapt and alter the angle in order to connect. Karate is no different.

To put an art into a neat little box of basic kihon and call it combat effective makes no sense and is false in it's premise. This is Modern Karate not the art that the founders handed down. You are describing an art altered to teach school children not one designed for combat. The art that the founders created was specifically for combat. The mere suggestion that they would limit the applications and principles to basics is missing the point entirely.

I understand that some train in what they think are the founders applications but are in actuality training in what I would call literal interpretation. In this case yes you only use the basic Kihon of reverse punch, front kicks and the like and you only defend against the like.

This is NOT what the Kata represents nor the lessons that it contains.

You know, one of these days we are gonna have to get together and do some training so you can show me what you are on about with all of this.

I'd love that. It would be an honor to train with you.

I say that because while everything you SAY sounds great, I have never experienced ANY of it in a Karate dojo that I have been in. I believe that you train and teach your students the way you describe, but it is not at ALL common in Karate to train those kinds of applications at all. And even less so to train them in an alive manner to the point where they can be executed in a fight against an intelligently resisting opponent.

I understand that "Modern Karate" does not train this way nor teach this way due to the sport aspect of the art. Self-defense takes a back seat to trophies which attracts the kids which brings the money in. I have experience in what I call modern arts and they have their place but I agree that they do not teach this way.

Having said that there are many arts that do teach the applications of the Kata (not literal translations but practical and/or original). I'm nothing special in this nor do I think of myself as an expert on all things Tickiki or Kata. On the contrary I am anything but an expert. And to be clear I am not trying to say in anyway that the way I teach or the way I was taught is the way. I am merely trying to share what little knowledge I have just like anyone on this forum.

I do try to maintain the integrity of the art and pass on what I was taught, how it was taught to me without modern changes. To me there is no mystery nor anything "secret or hidden" in the Kata. It's only viewed as a mystery by some because it's not typical training in the majority. But that does not mean that it is not taught in other arts. It is.

I'm a bit of a technological idiot but I have been able to research over the web. I have found very good examples of arts utilizing the old ways to teach in many arts. One of which would be our own Wastelander. I found him by accident when one of my students showed me a video (I believe it was WAZA Wednesday) highlighting a few applications that were different, similar and in some instances the same as what we teach. This is a perfect example of how you define and also discover the Kata's applications. I ended up watching every video after seeing the first and only by chance did I figure out it was Wastelander I was watching. Some are basic, some examples are intermediate and some are advanced. The point is I'm nothing special nor is my art or the way we teach it. There are plenty of arts that still teach the old ways, albeit some with a modern twist and others altered to meet modern expectations.

As far as an "Alive Manner" goes. Well that is IMHO the only way to train and the only way to figure out what works and what doesn't for you (the individual). We do not force feed techniques or methods down our students throats. It's very much an individual journey and as such they have to discover what works because not every application works for everyone.

We train not unlike you in that we utilize what we call two person drills. Punching in the air doesn't give feed back nor does it teach the student anything in terms of body mechanics. If they punch air there is no resistance, they do not learn that if you strike at a bad angle it hurts you rather than your opponent, and so on. The feed back you get from your partner(s) is invaluable in terms of learning.

Learning applications is a progression. As stated this begins easy and methodically so that the student can learn the methods of attack and defense. From there it is a steady progression. The final stage is what I call the proof test. This is were the student tries to utilize the application against a resisting, un-cooperative opponent. This is where we make it real. I believe in contact and this is contact.

Now I must say that other training goes along with this and is needed. Conditioning, body shifting, and the like compliment and go hand in hand.

It's not a "special", or "unusual" or "unique" way to train. On the contrary, it's the way my Shinshii trained so it's the way I train. Maybe it's different from your experiences with the art but I don't think it's that unusual in terms of old school arts.

Do you have any videos of your students training or sparring that I could see? Or of them competing? Because it seems like if I could have trained with you, I might not have ever left Karate in the first place.

Well... remember me saying I'm a technological idiot? I wasn't kidding. I will have to ask my students that occasionally video tape grading if they can post them or show me how to. I personally have no idea how to post video's (Patrick has tried to explain it but I just can't seem to actually make it work, although it's probably so simple that my new grandson could do it).

Trust me I've tried. I want to be cool like the rest of the guys posting vid's here. I think it's a user to computer interface problem, as my nephew so sarcastically tells me when ever I don't understand how to do something. However if the younger generation can show me how to and if they have them I will definitely post them.

I do not believe in tournaments and haven't since I was a much, much younger version of myself. I think it instills bad habits that are contrary to the main focus, "to learn how to fight and defend yourself". (Haven't seen a pulled punch do much damage and I do not want students thinking that some flashy triple flip fill in the blanks technique is what you want to take to the streets) Just my personal opinion.

Having said that, not that they would admit it to me, but I do know a few of my younger students compete from time to time behind my back. Again I will ask if any have video's.

In the end I do not at all feel that the way I train or teach is anything special in terms of what I would call the old school arts. I think it's fairly typical honestly.

I appreciate the compliment but you would have been better training under my teacher. He is 30 times the teacher I will ever be and I'm sure would do a much better job passing on the principles that I've so poorly tried to explain in my posts. But again I love training and if the occasion ever presents itself where you are in my neck of the woods I would love to mix it up a bit and have the opportunity to show you a bit of my world and learn a bit of yours.

Nothing better than the opportunity to train with others. Let me know if your heading east and we'll definitely meet up. And even though probably not warranted, thank you for the compliment. It's appreciated.

[Fat Cobra]

Finally, you must still learn how to fight (see 1st paragraph above) in case you need it. But a karateka is not going to be able to fight (as defined above) as well as a competitive boxer or MMA fighter...they just don't get that kind of repetition and training. However, they can get good enough that they can handle a lot of situations. And...they must Bogu Kumite (full contact sparring with Bogu gear or an equivalent) to know what it feels like to get hit, and to get hit hard. The worst thing for anybody is to have the first time they get hit really hard on the street. They may have the best technique in the world, but if they can't take a hit without panic or complete submission, then they are not going to perform successful self defense.

This is a common argument used to support the claim for the need to train full contact.

It is also fundamentally flawed. Allow me to explain why.

If the first time you ever get hit hard, it is in the controlled environment of training, then that can only mean that you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation. If you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation, then with respect, any notion of what it's like to be hit hard in a real confrontation and how one would react is pure theory. Someone who has never been hit hard in a real confrontation, by definition, does not have the experience needed to understand how they might react to being hit hard in a real confrontation.

If training for self defence, training full contact is not ideal for another reason. You train to minimise the risk of someone knacking you by, having someone knack you. You train to mitigate the risk of a stronger opponent possibly punching you in the head and rattling your brain, a very remote possibility if you know how to avoid trouble, by actually going to a place on a regular basis and actually volunteering to have someone try their very best to punch your head and rattle your brain.

Some folks want to train full contact. Each to their own. The information about risks is widely available so they can make an informed decision. But its illogical to do it for self defense.

One Kick Wonder, you are discussing things in circles here. If I understand you correctly you are saying that he only way to truly prepare for an attack on the street is to go out and get attacked on the street.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that training full contact is nothing like being attacked in the street. The only way anyone can ever know what it's like to be attacked in the street is if that's happened to them. That's not to say that folks should go out and look for trouble. That would be silly.

I will also present you with this. I spent 24.5 years as an infantry officer training soldiers to fight and kill on the battlefield.

Then you will understand the flaw in the full contact argument better than most. You say that the only way to prepare for being punched really hard is to have someone punch you really hard. But I bet you wouldn't say to your young recruits that the best way to prepare for a determined foe trying their very best to kill you with machine guns and grenades is to go somewhere and have someone fire machine guns and grenades at you with live ammo so you know what it feels like.

Actually, One Kick, we do. In order to get soldiers prepared for combat (and I am not talking recruits or basic training, I am talking about once they get to their units), we put them through extremely realistic training. This training includes live fire exercises. No, there is no one shooting back at you, but there is a possibility of soldiers getting shot by other soldiers...and it happens, unfortunately, and sometimes soldiers die. This possibility does not stop us from continuing to do hard, realistic training. We don't shy away from this because of the possibility of someone getting hurt. That would be irresponsible. A leader is not doing his duty if he doesn't train his soldiers hard to get them ready for combat.

US Army Ranger school is another example. Part of the mantra of the course is to make the students as stressful and as miserable as possible (via food deprivation, sleep deprivation, extreme stress, extreme terrain, and continuously hard missions) in order to have the students prove to themselves that they are capable of overcoming great stress and deprivation and still succeed.

Does either one of these training methods perfectly simulate combat? No. That is impossible, but it is the best we can do.

Now I know I am explaining military training, and martial arts schools are not the military. I understand that. I also understand that people train in martial arts for different reasons, which can be as diverse as: wanting to get into shape, join an organization, better discipline, competition, self-defense skills, etc. I personally don't have anything against any of these reasons, but the student must know that sometimes some of these focuses are exclusive of others. If I join a place that teaches cardio kickboxing in order to get into better shape, this is legit. However, I must be honest with myself with the truth that cardio kick boxing is not something that is going to get me prepared to defend myself on the street.

Each style is different, and even dojos within the same style can be different. To each his own for what he or she wants to do. My dojo can offer a lot of things: discipline, fitness, joining a larger organization, learning about Okinawan culture, but, admittedly, there may be better dojos out there for these pursuits. My main purpose, and where I focus, is to prepare my students for life protection (self-defense) on the streets. When I teach students how to defend themselves, I am including the ability to take pain as part of this. I put them outside their comfort zone so that they know, when the stress is high, they can overcome. This is not my magical idea--this is proven to be the best way to train by the greatest military in the world (see above).

That being said, this training is still controlled. I push things to the limit, but not over the limit.

Does this training method perfectly simulate street self-defense? No. That is impossible, but it is the best we can do.

You are right when you say a real life situation is a "lose-lose" proposition. No matter how fast or good you are, you are still likely to get hit or feel pain. Part of being able to defend yourself is to overcome this pain. Can you perfectly simulate this in the dojo...no. But you can give your students confidence that they can overcome, in a general sense, by putting them through hard training in the dojo.

Look at some of the Okinawan masters. Morio Higaonna comes to mind. His style is Goju Ryu. This is not my style, but I will say they go through extreme body conditioning with Hojo Undo (Body Strengthening exercises) and Ude Tanren (Forearm Conditioning exercises). His hands are like bricks, plus he is in his 80s and still practicing (as many of the Okinawan masters are).

Finally, if I see someone with cauliflower ear, or shins that look like they have been conditioned by kicking a rubber tree, or fists like Master Hagionna’s, well, those are people I don’t want to fight. Regardless of who (them or me) can land a cleaner punch, these guys can definitely take pain, and that is something that makes them hard men (and women) and tough in a fight!

One Kick, you train for your own reasons and that is fine. If you don't want to train the way I am proposing, that is also fine.

Karate no michi.

[sensei8]

Finally, you must still learn how to fight (see 1st paragraph above) in case you need it. But a karateka is not going to be able to fight (as defined above) as well as a competitive boxer or MMA fighter...they just don't get that kind of repetition and training. However, they can get good enough that they can handle a lot of situations. And...they must Bogu Kumite (full contact sparring with Bogu gear or an equivalent) to know what it feels like to get hit, and to get hit hard. The worst thing for anybody is to have the first time they get hit really hard on the street. They may have the best technique in the world, but if they can't take a hit without panic or complete submission, then they are not going to perform successful self defense.

This is a common argument used to support the claim for the need to train full contact.

It is also fundamentally flawed. Allow me to explain why.

If the first time you ever get hit hard, it is in the controlled environment of training, then that can only mean that you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation. If you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation, then with respect, any notion of what it's like to be hit hard in a real confrontation and how one would react is pure theory. Someone who has never been hit hard in a real confrontation, by definition, does not have the experience needed to understand how they might react to being hit hard in a real confrontation.

If training for self defence, training full contact is not ideal for another reason. You train to minimise the risk of someone knacking you by, having someone knack you. You train to mitigate the risk of a stronger opponent possibly punching you in the head and rattling your brain, a very remote possibility if you know how to avoid trouble, by actually going to a place on a regular basis and actually volunteering to have someone try their very best to punch your head and rattle your brain.

Some folks want to train full contact. Each to their own. The information about risks is widely available so they can make an informed decision. But its illogical to do it for self defense.

One Kick Wonder, you are discussing things in circles here. If I understand you correctly you are saying that he only way to truly prepare for an attack on the street is to go out and get attacked on the street.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that training full contact is nothing like being attacked in the street. The only way anyone can ever know what it's like to be attacked in the street is if that's happened to them. That's not to say that folks should go out and look for trouble. That would be silly.

I will also present you with this. I spent 24.5 years as an infantry officer training soldiers to fight and kill on the battlefield.

Then you will understand the flaw in the full contact argument better than most. You say that the only way to prepare for being punched really hard is to have someone punch you really hard. But I bet you wouldn't say to your young recruits that the best way to prepare for a determined foe trying their very best to kill you with machine guns and grenades is to go somewhere and have someone fire machine guns and grenades at you with live ammo so you know what it feels like.

Actually, One Kick, we do. In order to get soldiers prepared for combat (and I am not talking recruits or basic training, I am talking about once they get to their units), we put them through extremely realistic training. This training includes live fire exercises. No, there is no one shooting back at you, but there is a possibility of soldiers getting shot by other soldiers...and it happens, unfortunately, and sometimes soldiers die. This possibility does not stop us from continuing to do hard, realistic training. We don't shy away from this because of the possibility of someone getting hurt. That would be irresponsible. A leader is not doing his duty if he doesn't train his soldiers hard to get them ready for combat.

US Army Ranger school is another example. Part of the mantra of the course is to make the students as stressful and as miserable as possible (via food deprivation, sleep deprivation, extreme stress, extreme terrain, and continuously hard missions) in order to have the students prove to themselves that they are capable of overcoming great stress and deprivation and still succeed.

Does either one of these training methods perfectly simulate combat? No. That is impossible, but it is the best we can do.

Now I know I am explaining military training, and martial arts schools are not the military. I understand that. I also understand that people train in martial arts for different reasons, which can be as diverse as: wanting to get into shape, join an organization, better discipline, competition, self-defense skills, etc. I personally don't have anything against any of these reasons, but the student must know that sometimes some of these focuses are exclusive of others. If I join a place that teaches cardio kickboxing in order to get into better shape, this is legit. However, I must be honest with myself with the truth that cardio kick boxing is not something that is going to get me prepared to defend myself on the street.

Each style is different, and even dojos within the same style can be different. To each his own for what he or she wants to do. My dojo can offer a lot of things: discipline, fitness, joining a larger organization, learning about Okinawan culture, but, admittedly, there may be better dojos out there for these pursuits. My main purpose, and where I focus, is to prepare my students for life protection (self-defense) on the streets. When I teach students how to defend themselves, I am including the ability to take pain as part of this. I put them outside their comfort zone so that they know, when the stress is high, they can overcome. This is not my magical idea--this is proven to be the best way to train by the greatest military in the world (see above).

That being said, this training is still controlled. I push things to the limit, but not over the limit.

Does this training method perfectly simulate street self-defense? No. That is impossible, but it is the best we can do.

You are right when you say a real life situation is a "lose-lose" proposition. No matter how fast or good you are, you are still likely to get hit or feel pain. Part of being able to defend yourself is to overcome this pain. Can you perfectly simulate this in the dojo...no. But you can give your students confidence that they can overcome, in a general sense, by putting them through hard training in the dojo.

Look at some of the Okinawan masters. Morio Higaonna comes to mind. His style is Goju Ryu. This is not my style, but I will say they go through extreme body conditioning with Hojo Undo (Body Strengthening exercises) and Ude Tanren (Forearm Conditioning exercises). His hands are like bricks, plus he is in his 80s and still practicing (as many of the Okinawan masters are).

Finally, if I see someone with cauliflower ear, or shins that look like they have been conditioned by kicking a rubber tree, or fists like Master Hagionna’s, well, those are people I don’t want to fight. Regardless of who (them or me) can land a cleaner punch, these guys can definitely take pain, and that is something that makes them hard men (and women) and tough in a fight!

One Kick, you train for your own reasons and that is fine. If you don't want to train the way I am proposing, that is also fine.

Karate no michi.

Solid post, Fat Cobra!!

[OneKickWonder]

Finally, you must still learn how to fight (see 1st paragraph above) in case you need it. But a karateka is not going to be able to fight (as defined above) as well as a competitive boxer or MMA fighter...they just don't get that kind of repetition and training. However, they can get good enough that they can handle a lot of situations. And...they must Bogu Kumite (full contact sparring with Bogu gear or an equivalent) to know what it feels like to get hit, and to get hit hard. The worst thing for anybody is to have the first time they get hit really hard on the street. They may have the best technique in the world, but if they can't take a hit without panic or complete submission, then they are not going to perform successful self defense.

This is a common argument used to support the claim for the need to train full contact.

It is also fundamentally flawed. Allow me to explain why.

If the first time you ever get hit hard, it is in the controlled environment of training, then that can only mean that you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation. If you've never been hit hard in a real confrontation, then with respect, any notion of what it's like to be hit hard in a real confrontation and how one would react is pure theory. Someone who has never been hit hard in a real confrontation, by definition, does not have the experience needed to understand how they might react to being hit hard in a real confrontation.

If training for self defence, training full contact is not ideal for another reason. You train to minimise the risk of someone knacking you by, having someone knack you. You train to mitigate the risk of a stronger opponent possibly punching you in the head and rattling your brain, a very remote possibility if you know how to avoid trouble, by actually going to a place on a regular basis and actually volunteering to have someone try their very best to punch your head and rattle your brain.

Some folks want to train full contact. Each to their own. The information about risks is widely available so they can make an informed decision. But its illogical to do it for self defense.

One Kick Wonder, you are discussing things in circles here. If I understand you correctly you are saying that he only way to truly prepare for an attack on the street is to go out and get attacked on the street.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that training full contact is nothing like being attacked in the street. The only way anyone can ever know what it's like to be attacked in the street is if that's happened to them. That's not to say that folks should go out and look for trouble. That would be silly.

I will also present you with this. I spent 24.5 years as an infantry officer training soldiers to fight and kill on the battlefield.

Then you will understand the flaw in the full contact argument better than most. You say that the only way to prepare for being punched really hard is to have someone punch you really hard. But I bet you wouldn't say to your young recruits that the best way to prepare for a determined foe trying their very best to kill you with machine guns and grenades is to go somewhere and have someone fire machine guns and grenades at you with live ammo so you know what it feels like.

Actually, One Kick, we do. In order to get soldiers prepared for combat (and I am not talking recruits or basic training, I am talking about once they get to their units), we put them through extremely realistic training. This training includes live fire exercises. No, there is no one shooting back at you, but there is a possibility of soldiers getting shot by other soldiers...and it happens, unfortunately, and sometimes soldiers die. This possibility does not stop us from continuing to do hard, realistic training. We don't shy away from this because of the possibility of someone getting hurt. That would be irresponsible. A leader is not doing his duty if he doesn't train his soldiers hard to get them ready for combat.

US Army Ranger school is another example. Part of the mantra of the course is to make the students as stressful and as miserable as possible (via food deprivation, sleep deprivation, extreme stress, extreme terrain, and continuously hard missions) in order to have the students prove to themselves that they are capable of overcoming great stress and deprivation and still succeed.

Does either one of these training methods perfectly simulate combat? No. That is impossible, but it is the best we can do.

Now I know I am explaining military training, and martial arts schools are not the military. I understand that. I also understand that people train in martial arts for different reasons, which can be as diverse as: wanting to get into shape, join an organization, better discipline, competition, self-defense skills, etc. I personally don't have anything against any of these reasons, but the student must know that sometimes some of these focuses are exclusive of others. If I join a place that teaches cardio kickboxing in order to get into better shape, this is legit. However, I must be honest with myself with the truth that cardio kick boxing is not something that is going to get me prepared to defend myself on the street.

Each style is different, and even dojos within the same style can be different. To each his own for what he or she wants to do. My dojo can offer a lot of things: discipline, fitness, joining a larger organization, learning about Okinawan culture, but, admittedly, there may be better dojos out there for these pursuits. My main purpose, and where I focus, is to prepare my students for life protection (self-defense) on the streets. When I teach students how to defend themselves, I am including the ability to take pain as part of this. I put them outside their comfort zone so that they know, when the stress is high, they can overcome. This is not my magical idea--this is proven to be the best way to train by the greatest military in the world (see above).

That being said, this training is still controlled. I push things to the limit, but not over the limit.

Does this training method perfectly simulate street self-defense? No. That is impossible, but it is the best we can do.

You are right when you say a real life situation is a "lose-lose" proposition. No matter how fast or good you are, you are still likely to get hit or feel pain. Part of being able to defend yourself is to overcome this pain. Can you perfectly simulate this in the dojo...no. But you can give your students confidence that they can overcome, in a general sense, by putting them through hard training in the dojo.

Look at some of the Okinawan masters. Morio Higaonna comes to mind. His style is Goju Ryu. This is not my style, but I will say they go through extreme body conditioning with Hojo Undo (Body Strengthening exercises) and Ude Tanren (Forearm Conditioning exercises). His hands are like bricks, plus he is in his 80s and still practicing (as many of the Okinawan masters are).

Finally, if I see someone with cauliflower ear, or shins that look like they have been conditioned by kicking a rubber tree, or fists like Master Hagionna’s, well, those are people I don’t want to fight. Regardless of who (them or me) can land a cleaner punch, these guys can definitely take pain, and that is something that makes them hard men (and women) and tough in a fight!

One Kick, you train for your own reasons and that is fine. If you don't want to train the way I am proposing, that is also fine.

Karate no michi.

All good.

And I'm aware of live fire training in the military. Us Brits (when I say us, I mean brits other than me, I'm not in the military, have live fire training too. Not being a soldier, I've never experienced it myself. But friends who were in the army describe it as you and your mate at opposite ends of a range. Each takes turns to fire a couple of rounds over the others position before taking cover as your mate returns the favour. I'm told it's to get you used to the sound of bullets buzzing within inches of your head. Sounds terrifying. But I know nothing of that so I'm not going to attempt to debate it. But just to say I have the utmost respect for those brave/crazy enough to train for such conditions to do a job I'm not brave enough or tough enough to do.

Having friends who are ex military, who are politely diplomatic about my civilian training, I do sometimes with we could have a sort of hybrid training programme. Imagine any government being told it will take 10 years or more to train as soldier in unarmed combat. But equally imagine the average office working civvy being told to run 20 miles with a heavy back pack on before breakfast. There must be some middle ground where civvies can develop effective real world skills, not to military standard, and not to UFC competition standard, but effective against you're average drunken thug or crazy druggy, in a relatively short time.

I was thinking about this today (it's been said that I think too much). We train a lot of kicking combos, often advancing forward as do. Thing is I've witnessed many real scraps, and been in a few myself. I can't say I've ever seen one where someone advances successfully with a kicking combo. Much more typical is a volley of wildly innacurate punches, often followed by both parties grabbing hold of each other with either one or both hands. If they grab with one hand, invariably they use that to try to pull their foe while striking with the other hand. It looks absolutely nothing like anything I've seen in any martial art at any level. I believe soldiers train for this kind of thing, under the guise of crowd control techniques. I know for certain that it's in the UK bouncers (door supervisor) training. But traditional styles don't seem to cover this very much, if are all.

Back to the topic of bunkai, I'm familiar with the idea that most styles thoroughly cover various wrist grabs and head locks etc. Great. But they are rarely trained with someone riving you about with one hand while wildly trying to knock your head off with the other.