Who looks for bunkai?

[Wastelander]

Resistive training when both partners know exactly what is going to happen is just like pushups or weight training. You will become very good at performing a specific action. If that specific action happens to be called for in the first couple of seconds of an attack, great.

Not the way that we do it!! The initial is known, but after that, it's not, hence, the battle isn't known by either student, nor is the outcome. And yes, that's the MA...performing a specific action is expected...TECHNIQUES, whatever that might be at that particular moment.

I think perhaps I've misunderstood traditional martial all this time. I assumed there was real life practical value in it as a combat system. Thank you for helping me to see my error. I'm sure traditional styles can be practical, if approached with an open mind, but I now understand that we are expected to just have blind faith that somebody else has already done all the testing, so we don't need to, and should bow to the senior grade and say yes sir and go home happy that if we get mugged on the way home, it will be OK, because our mugger will stand at arms length, bow to us, drop into a formal stance, then throw a straight punch, so we'll all know exactly what to do.

Please don't group all of us traditional MAist together on the same cloth and/or with the same broad brush stroke!! I was raised, and am still, a traditional MAist, but the manner of which we/I was/were trained by Soke and Dai-Soke, is very much realistic and practical.

Why??

Our lives depend on it each and every time!!

The MA is an ongoing testing ground, in which I'm still an active participant of because NOTHING is written in stone...NOTHING!! Therefore, it's up to the student to take what they've been and/or being taught, and greatly expand upon it because, once again, their live depends on it.

What the student is taught is how to give that door of opportunity that swift kick to get that door opened, but that student must be willing to have the guts to first go through the open door, and then to bust that door wide open with their own testing grounds.

Students are given the tools, but how the student uses them is up to that student, traditional or not!!

I'm a Senior Dan, but what I've given to my students is the free will to expand what it is that they've learned from me. But they have to have the guts to accept it or discard it for their MA betterment. I've given them all of the puzzle pieces but it's up to them to put them all together so that their picture becomes much more clearer to them, not for me, but for them!!

How will the student learn to use the tools? How will they expand upon what you've taught them? When will they get that opportunity?

Should they go out to bars and deliberately cause trouble so as to create the opportunity to practice? Should they beat up random people? Probably not.

As students, we pay someone money to train us to fight. I'm sure some might go to learn kata, but very often people go with the exception that having spent many thousands of pounds/dollars and several years saying yes sir and bowing and placing their full trust in the guy at the front, they'll become proficient fighters. The posters and adverts usually imply that too.

The reason to keep going to a class rather than just copying YouTube demos is to have an instructor see and correct you, but perhaps even more importantly, to have a room full of like minded people to practice against and with.

It's not unreasonable for a paying student to expect to be taught what was promised.

To say that kata should be taken literally, then it's up to the student to expand upon it, without creating that opportunity in the training hall, is effectively only given them half of what was promised or alluded to at the time of accepting their money when they first come to train.

IMO the only martial arts that should be taken literally are actually fight sports and not traditional martial arts: Boxing, Muay Thai and BJJ.

When you're throwing a jab in boxing, that's the way you should use it in the ring. When you're throwing a kick in muay thai, that is how you're supposed to do it in the ring. When you pull an arm bar, that's how you're meant to do it.

But any other arts? Not really, no. You're not supposed to chamber the non-punching hand next to your wrist or ribs in a real fight. Who would ever get in a super low zenkutsu dachi or shiko dachi stance in a bar fight? I, for one, would never think "incoming punch! Better put my fist next to my ear so I can then perform an ude uke block!"

No karate practitioner out there will tell you "you should chamber your hand next to your hips on a real fight, and you should definitely punch in using zenkutsudachi". And that means... you're supposed to adapt said techniques, making them not literal.

That's exactly what several karate folks here and telling us. They are saying that kata and their bunkai are literal.

I thought they meant that in the sense of "that age uke is actually an age uke"

I made the point earlier that attacks may come from different angles or may be in many ways slightly different to how the kata has you position yourself, and therefore kata can only work if it's principles rather than literal. I was told I was wrong. I sought further clarification in several ways. Same answer each time.

My point, and I believe the point of others, seems to have been glossed over, here, a bit. That may be my fault for not being clear enough, so I apologize if that's the case. I'll try to be a bit more clear:

The kata are originally/intentionally made up of specific technique drills

These technique drills are representations of principles, because principles are what make techniques work

Transitively, kata are made up of principles

You have to start with static, compliant technique drills that are specifically structured for learning, and then go through a process (which I briefly described) to make the techniques more widely applicable. That doesn't mean they aren't applicable to begin with but, as you pointed out, you have to be able to adapt. This is the case not just with kata, but with pretty much any technique you drill with a partner. You aren't going to understand the principles until you understand the technique, in general. That's all.

[Fat Cobra]

This is an interesting post, and it seems to be going back and forth. These are my further 2 cents.

There is a difference between training someone for fighting and training someone for self-defense. Fighting is what happens when you square off with someone, get into a fighting stance (whatever yours happens to be) and start slugging away at each other, or wrestling, or grappling, or whatever. To be a good fighter, you need to study Boxing, Wrestling, BJJ, Muay Thai, or some other combative martial art. These martial arts also translate well to those who want to compete in MMA.

However...self-defense is a different matter altogether. This is life protection. If I am on the street and someone threatens me, I don't want to fight. I don't want to get in a boxing match or wrestling match. I have no idea how good at boxing or wrestling this guy is. I have no idea if he (or she) has a knife or other weapon in their pocket. And I don't know if he or she has allies waiting to attack. So, in this case I want to take this person out as fast and efficiently as possible. If I have a weapon, I will use that weapon. If not, I will use vital point strikes and joint locks and dirty tricks to incapacitate this aggressor as fast as possible.

How do I develop the skills to be able to do the latter? By traditional Karate. I study Kihon, Kata, Bunkai, Kobudo (for weapons), Tuite Jitsu (joint locks), and Kyusho Jitsu (pressure points). We do this in the dojo, but also in scenario based training on the street. We also work on the mindset of our students to instill a Bushido mindset. As our Association President says, "when someone breaks into your house in 3 am, I don't want you getting up and worrying about what technique you are going to use, I just want you to be successful," and, "when you are attacked on the street you know what the best technique is? The one that works."

Kata, which I love, gives you the structural integrity, weight lead control, and control over your body. It also gives you bunkai that can be used, and should be trained. But Bunkai is not limited to 1 or 2 set routines for each step of the kata. We are taught that you must adapt the kata and bunkai for your body type and strength. My wife, who trains and is almost half my weight, is not going to be able to pull off the same bunkai technique as me by doing it the same way. She does not have the size or strength. So she must adapt. And if that doesn't work, it is totally ok for her to figure out another interpretation of the bunkai that does work for her. The sensei can help with this, or she can come up with it own her own.

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.

[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.

[Tempest]

You know, I don't really know much about Karate, which is why I tend to stay out of these threads, but ya'll have strayed from discussing applications of Karate bunkai, which I know little to nothing about, in to discussing self-defense and fighting, which I DO know something about.

Only thing is, there seems to be some misconceptions going around about these things.

For one thing, there seems to be a lot of different ideas about what self defense IS going around here, versus what we are discussing, which is not self defense per se, but is in fact use of violence to stop violence.

Self defense is a legal term related to avoiding the legal consequences of using force on another person by showing it was justified and necessary at the time.

Unless you are being attacked by a rambunctious child, a violent confrontation will almost inevitably devolve in to a fight unless you get lucky or catch the other guy off guard. Neither of those things is conducive to self defense, because for it to BE self defense, they have to be attacking you, and most likely they caught you a little off guard or you would have avoided the confrontation. And if you were lucky you they would have picked someone else to attack.

Now to me, the idea that people think that they can pull off a technique against an actively resistant opponent when their life is on the line, when they haven't done it even when their was nothing on the line, is laughable.

I would be willing to bet on a high school/collegiate wrestler over ANYONE who trains the way that OneKick describes, or most of what FatCobra describes until he mentions the sparring bit at the end, in ANY sort of violent confrontation.

Once again, I will spam this till I am blue in the...fingers? The metaphor doesn't really work here, but you get it.

http://mattthornton.org/why-aliveness/

http://mattthornton.org/its-aliveness-still/

[OneKickWonder]

You know, I don't really know much about Karate, which is why I tend to stay out of these threads, but ya'll have strayed from discussing applications of Karate bunkai, which I know little to nothing about, in to discussing self-defense and fighting, which I DO know something about.

Only thing is, there seems to be some misconceptions going around about these things.

For one thing, there seems to be a lot of different ideas about what self defense IS going around here, versus what we are discussing, which is not self defense per se, but is in fact use of violence to stop violence.

Self defense is a legal term related to avoiding the legal consequences of using force on another person by showing it was justified and necessary at the time.

Unless you are being attacked by a rambunctious child, a violent confrontation will almost inevitably devolve in to a fight unless you get lucky or catch the other guy off guard. Neither of those things is conducive to self defense, because for it to BE self defense, they have to be attacking you, and most likely they caught you a little off guard or you would have avoided the confrontation. And if you were lucky you they would have picked someone else to attack.

Now to me, the idea that people think that they can pull off a technique against an actively resistant opponent when their life is on the line, when they haven't done it even when their was nothing on the line, is laughable.

I would be willing to bet on a high school/collegiate wrestler over ANYONE who trains the way that OneKick describes, or most of what FatCobra describes until he mentions the sparring bit at the end, in ANY sort of violent confrontation.

Once again, I will spam this till I am blue in the...fingers? The metaphor doesn't really work here, but you get it.

http://mattthornton.org/why-aliveness/

http://mattthornton.org/its-aliveness-still/

I agree 100% with this. But just for clarity, 'training the way onekick describes', to be clear and for the avoidance of doubt, I am criticising the orderly sanitised training methods of clinical applications and air kicking. Those things have their place of course, when first learning a new concept, but you can't perform a bunkai drill with compliant partners and then call yourself a fighter.

But all this said, for the most part, each to their own. We're all there for our own reasons and hopefully for most one of the biggest reasons is fun. Where I do get a bit frustrated though, and this is not directed at anyone on here, this is a general criticism, is when instructors take money from people who are paying to be trained to fight or defend themselves, and give them a few basic moves that work in isolation against the right kind of attack, and then fill them with false confidence with unsubstantiated claims. If an instructor says 'this works', the student should be able to ask 'how do you know?' But as we all know, in traditional martial arts we are not supposed to question like this. We are supposed to trust the instructor, and carry on giving him money.

[MatsuShinshii]

I made the point earlier that attacks may come from different angles or may be in many ways slightly different to how the kata has you position yourself, and therefore kata can only work if it's principles rather than literal. I was told I was wrong. I sought further clarification in several ways. Same answer each time.

Does a boxer only throw a jab one way? NO! Do you only evade a strike one way? NO!

I might be saying the same thing as others only in a different way but I'm going to try my best to explain Tichiki to you.

If by literal you mean the way the Kata is perceived (the way it looks) and in the pattern it is performed... NO it is not literal! You will never be attacked in that exact pattern. Further more the way it looks (perceived as to its meaning) is not literal either. Most perceive the Kata to be nothing more than strikes, kicks and blocks. This is not the case. A specific posture can be a strike or kick but not all are. To put everything into this box ignores the other elements of the art that the founders put into the Kata that make it effective in combat.

The applications (Tichiki or what some incorrectly call Bunkai) come from the individual postures or a sequence of postures. Each posture or sequence represents one or more applications from one or more of the elements that make up your art.

Lets take a basic Kata, say the beginning movements of Pinan Shodan. There are three distinct postures in a sequence in the beginning of this Kata. The sequence represents several scenarios of applications and encompasses Tuidi, Atemi, Chibudi and Muto.

If confused the first posture is an augmented (we'll call them blocks and use English so as to be clear) right upper block with left outside upper block, then a right palm up punch as you bring the left to the right shoulder crossing over the right arm, and finally chambering the right as you perform a left lower block.

If you take the Kata literally this makes no sense in terms of actual combat. It's what the postures actually represent rather than what they are perceived to be that make sense and are combat effective.

I've explained a few of these in other posts so I will not go into writing another novel here in writing out different applications to each posture in a given Kata.

Now that was the sequence represented but each of those postures represents applications within themselves.

Each posture (move, stance, whatever you call it) represents one or more battle proven applications. Each application will contain one or more of the elements of the art.

If you look at Kata as punch, block and kick, you're right, they should not be taken literally.

Now, how do you practice the applications? Are they useless because you only train with a specific attack on a set angle?

Again I ask, does a boxer only throw a jab one way and at one set angle? NO!

You learn the applications in a slow methodical method where your partner is compliant. This in the beginning must be the way as you must develop the proper body mechanics, understanding of depth, distance, understanding of the what, how and why. One the student has the fundamentals down the game changes and the opponent no longer is so compliant. The angles of attach change, the speed and force changes, the opponent tries to thwart your attempts at countering or applying the applications.

This is done in a progression so that the student can develop and it becomes second nature. To say that all strikes or kicks will come at a set angle is folly and foolish. We teach the foundation. The student must learn to adapt that and make it work. This is done by doing it over and over under different conditions with different opponents. This is also true in the fact that the student builds a greater understanding and with that understanding can draw upon and create their own from the knowledge they have been taught. They can also discover other meanings of the postures.

Side Bar - [applications are not an individual shadow boxing event. It requires two people. In order for the student to learn you have to have contact. You (at least in my personal opinion) can not learn these alone]

This, as in all combat arts, is an individual journey. The student vets what works and what doesn't. There is nothing set.

To say that an application or the way you perform it is set is not accurate. In combat nothing is set. To make the assumption that the founders (battle tested warriors) created set parameters that can not be adapted is ludicrous.

Yes angles change. No two people will kick you at the same angle, with the same speed or force. You must take the knowledge and adapt it to work. This is why we have a progression that leads to actual pressure testing in which the student has to create based on his knowledge of the art.

The applications give the student a multitude of choice far beyond what they can learn through Kumite alone.

The argument comes up quite often that traditional arts are no good for combat. That combat sports arts are the only answers to real combat. I might point out that all singular practitioners of these arts have been bested. No one art is THE BEST in terms of combat.

Tudi (Karate) as it was taught prior to modernization and as it is still taught in some arts is a combat art. If you understand the art and how to utilize it, it's as effective as any other. You notice I did not say better as some do.

To explain in writing how to study the Kata and it's applications and how to use them, not to mention the multitude of scenarios is very difficult without writing a real novel. My advice to you before dismissing them as ineffective is to find a teacher that understands and knows them and more importantly understands how to teach them.

The secret that many do not want to know or understand is that this is not an over night, learn them and presto your able to fight. With anything it takes time and is definitely not an over night, one class type of thing.

You can learn basics (Kihon). You can be taught how to punch and pick it up fairly quickly. Learning when to and how, where to, and to put that together with other techniques, that is where Tickiki and the Kata come into play.

I hope this rushed explanation answers a few questions. I hate to hear students say that something is useless or not efficient without a true understanding of what it actually is.

[RW]

I made the point earlier that attacks may come from different angles or may be in many ways slightly different to how the kata has you position yourself, and therefore kata can only work if it's principles rather than literal. I was told I was wrong. I sought further clarification in several ways. Same answer each time.

Does a boxer only throw a jab one way? NO! Do you only evade a strike one way? NO!

I might be saying the same thing as others only in a different way but I'm going to try my best to explain Tichiki to you.

If by literal you mean the way the Kata is perceived (the way it looks) and in the pattern it is performed... NO it is not literal! You will never be attacked in that exact pattern. Further more the way it looks (perceived as to its meaning) is not literal either. Most perceive the Kata to be nothing more than strikes, kicks and blocks. This is not the case. A specific posture can be a strike or kick but not all are. To put everything into this box ignores the other elements of the art that the founders put into the Kata that make it effective in combat.

The applications (Tichiki or what some incorrectly call Bunkai) come from the individual postures or a sequence of postures. Each posture or sequence represents one or more applications from one or more of the elements that make up your art.

Lets take a basic Kata, say the beginning movements of Pinan Shodan. There are three distinct postures in a sequence in the beginning of this Kata. The sequence represents several scenarios of applications and encompasses Tuidi, Atemi, Chibudi and Muto.

If confused the first posture is an augmented (we'll call them blocks and use English so as to be clear) right upper block with left outside upper block, then a right palm up punch as you bring the left to the right shoulder crossing over the right arm, and finally chambering the right as you perform a left lower block.

If you take the Kata literally this makes no sense in terms of actual combat. It's what the postures actually represent rather than what they are perceived to be that make sense and are combat effective.

I've explained a few of these in other posts so I will not go into writing another novel here in writing out different applications to each posture in a given Kata.

Now that was the sequence represented but each of those postures represents applications within themselves.

Each posture (move, stance, whatever you call it) represents one or more battle proven applications. Each application will contain one or more of the elements of the art.

If you look at Kata as punch, block and kick, you're right, they should not be taken literally.

Now, how do you practice the applications? Are they useless because you only train with a specific attack on a set angle?

Again I ask, does a boxer only throw a jab one way and at one set angle? NO!

You learn the applications in a slow methodical method where your partner is compliant. This in the beginning must be the way as you must develop the proper body mechanics, understanding of depth, distance, understanding of the what, how and why. One the student has the fundamentals down the game changes and the opponent no longer is so compliant. The angles of attach change, the speed and force changes, the opponent tries to thwart your attempts at countering or applying the applications.

This is done in a progression so that the student can develop and it becomes second nature. To say that all strikes or kicks will come at a set angle is folly and foolish. We teach the foundation. The student must learn to adapt that and make it work. This is done by doing it over and over under different conditions with different opponents. This is also true in the fact that the student builds a greater understanding and with that understanding can draw upon and create their own from the knowledge they have been taught. They can also discover other meanings of the postures.

Side Bar - [applications are not an individual shadow boxing event. It requires two people. In order for the student to learn you have to have contact. You (at least in my personal opinion) can not learn these alone]

This, as in all combat arts, is an individual journey. The student vets what works and what doesn't. There is nothing set.

To say that an application or the way you perform it is set is not accurate. In combat nothing is set. To make the assumption that the founders (battle tested warriors) created set parameters that can not be adapted is ludicrous.

Yes angles change. No two people will kick you at the same angle, with the same speed or force. You must take the knowledge and adapt it to work. This is why we have a progression that leads to actual pressure testing in which the student has to create based on his knowledge of the art.

The applications give the student a multitude of choice far beyond what they can learn through Kumite alone.

The argument comes up quite often that traditional arts are no good for combat. That combat sports arts are the only answers to real combat. I might point out that all singular practitioners of these arts have been bested. No one art is THE BEST in terms of combat.

Tudi (Karate) as it was taught prior to modernization and as it is still taught in some arts is a combat art. If you understand the art and how to utilize it, it's as effective as any other. You notice I did not say better as some do.

To explain in writing how to study the Kata and it's applications and how to use them, not to mention the multitude of scenarios is very difficult without writing a real novel. My advice to you before dismissing them as ineffective is to find a teacher that understands and knows them and more importantly understands how to teach them.

The secret that many do not want to know or understand is that this is not an over night, learn them and presto your able to fight. With anything it takes time and is definitely not an over night, one class type of thing.

You can learn basics (Kihon). You can be taught how to punch and pick it up fairly quickly. Learning when to and how, where to, and to put that together with other techniques, that is where Tickiki and the Kata come into play.

I hope this rushed explanation answers a few questions. I hate to hear students say that something is useless or not efficient without a true understanding of what it actually is.

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.

[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.

If that is what you are presenting, I will say this. First, this was actually how a lot of people in old Okinawa (or in some other countries) did test their skills. Taika Oyata had a reputation in Okinawa of starting lots of bar fights to test his skills. Fortunately, or unfortunately, that is not really acceptable anymore, so the best we can do is simulate in the dojo and simulate in "life like" situations.

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. I also have 6 deployments under my belt (3 operational: Panama, Kosovo, Bosnia, and 3 combat: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq) for a total of 3.5 years. It is true, that soldiers who have been to and experienced combat truly know what it is like, and that is irreplaceable experience. However, in absence of an active war going on, we trained soldiers as best we could in "sterile" environments like Fort Drum, NY, or Fort Bragg, NC, or Fort Polk, LA. Sometimes it did not work, and no matter how well you trained a soldier he still did not perform well in actual combat. However, most of the time it worked very well.

[Fat Cobra]

You know, I don't really know much about Karate, which is why I tend to stay out of these threads, but ya'll have strayed from discussing applications of Karate bunkai, which I know little to nothing about, in to discussing self-defense and fighting, which I DO know something about.

Only thing is, there seems to be some misconceptions going around about these things.

For one thing, there seems to be a lot of different ideas about what self defense IS going around here, versus what we are discussing, which is not self defense per se, but is in fact use of violence to stop violence.

Self defense is a legal term related to avoiding the legal consequences of using force on another person by showing it was justified and necessary at the time.

Unless you are being attacked by a rambunctious child, a violent confrontation will almost inevitably devolve in to a fight unless you get lucky or catch the other guy off guard. Neither of those things is conducive to self defense, because for it to BE self defense, they have to be attacking you, and most likely they caught you a little off guard or you would have avoided the confrontation. And if you were lucky you they would have picked someone else to attack.

Now to me, the idea that people think that they can pull off a technique against an actively resistant opponent when their life is on the line, when they haven't done it even when their was nothing on the line, is laughable.

I would be willing to bet on a high school/collegiate wrestler over ANYONE who trains the way that OneKick describes, or most of what FatCobra describes until he mentions the sparring bit at the end, in ANY sort of violent confrontation.

Once again, I will spam this till I am blue in the...fingers? The metaphor doesn't really work here, but you get it.

http://mattthornton.org/why-aliveness/

http://mattthornton.org/its-aliveness-still/

Tempest, in a fight, you are correct. A high school (or especially collegiate wrestler) probably has an advantage over a karateka. Why? Part of the reason is that those are competitive combat sports where you have to be an extremely good athlete in the first place to make the team (especially college). These wrestlers train, rather brutally, all the time and compete all the time.

But in karate, anyone can join the dojo. There is no "making the team." If you attend and work hard you can progress. Does that mean a black belt is on the same level as a collegiate wrestler? No, probably not, especially in the athletic department. But I am also not expecting them to be. I am not training students to take on collegiate wrestlers, or Muay Thai champions, or MMA bad *. I am training my students to protect themselves on the street.

I agree with you that survival is the key and that it takes whatever it takes. Like I said, weapons first, then fists. I spent a lot of time in the Army competing in submission wrestling (my style was Catch Wrestling where inflicting as much pain on your opponent was not only preferred, but satisfying). I have faced my fair share of collegiate level wrestlers, some All Americans. They could definitely out wrestle me, no doubt, but most did not know jack about submissions, either Catch Wrestling style or BJJ style.

Now, if I was competing with them and decided to only use my karate could I beat them....No. However, if I found myself facing someone in a street situation where I feared for my life, and the other guy happened to be a wrestler and decided to take me down, would my karate work?....definitely. If he was taking me down he would not have hands free to protect his eyes from getting ripped out of their sockets, or from me elbowing the back of his skull, or from me palming his nose with such force that it shatters, or me pulling a knife, which I always carry 2, and stabbing him in a lung, or ... you get the picture.

Those above "street self defense" techniques are not taught in high school or collegiate wrestling.

[Tempest]

You know, I don't really know much about Karate, which is why I tend to stay out of these threads, but ya'll have strayed from discussing applications of Karate bunkai, which I know little to nothing about, in to discussing self-defense and fighting, which I DO know something about.

Only thing is, there seems to be some misconceptions going around about these things.

For one thing, there seems to be a lot of different ideas about what self defense IS going around here, versus what we are discussing, which is not self defense per se, but is in fact use of violence to stop violence.

Self defense is a legal term related to avoiding the legal consequences of using force on another person by showing it was justified and necessary at the time.

Unless you are being attacked by a rambunctious child, a violent confrontation will almost inevitably devolve in to a fight unless you get lucky or catch the other guy off guard. Neither of those things is conducive to self defense, because for it to BE self defense, they have to be attacking you, and most likely they caught you a little off guard or you would have avoided the confrontation. And if you were lucky you they would have picked someone else to attack.

Now to me, the idea that people think that they can pull off a technique against an actively resistant opponent when their life is on the line, when they haven't done it even when their was nothing on the line, is laughable.

I would be willing to bet on a high school/collegiate wrestler over ANYONE who trains the way that OneKick describes, or most of what FatCobra describes until he mentions the sparring bit at the end, in ANY sort of violent confrontation.

Once again, I will spam this till I am blue in the...fingers? The metaphor doesn't really work here, but you get it.

http://mattthornton.org/why-aliveness/

http://mattthornton.org/its-aliveness-still/

Tempest, in a fight, you are correct. A high school (or especially collegiate wrestler) probably has an advantage over a karateka. Why? Part of the reason is that those are competitive combat sports where you have to be an extremely good athlete in the first place to make the team (especially college). These wrestlers train, rather brutally, all the time and compete all the time.

Wrestlers train like this because it is what is required, but it isn't the brutality of the training, although that helps. Judoka and Jiujiteros are also more prepared for a fight than a typical Karateka, despite in some cases not training as hard.

But in karate, anyone can join the dojo. There is no "making the team." If you attend and work hard you can progress. Does that mean a black belt is on the same level as a collegiate wrestler? No, probably not, especially in the athletic department. But I am also not expecting them to be. I am not training students to take on collegiate wrestlers, or Muay Thai champions, or MMA bad *. I am training my students to protect themselves on the street.

But on the street you don’t know what they will face. It really doesn’t matter what you train them for as long as you are honest about it. But know that a false sense of confidence without alive training methods is a recipe for disaster for those students.

I agree with you that survival is the key and that it takes whatever it takes. Like I said, weapons first, then fists. I spent a lot of time in the Army competing in submission wrestling (my style was Catch Wrestling where inflicting as much pain on your opponent was not only preferred, but satisfying). I have faced my fair share of collegiate level wrestlers, some All Americans. They could definitely out wrestle me, no doubt, but most did not know jack about submissions, either Catch Wrestling style or BJJ style.

So you are a Catch Wrestler? Cool. Where did you learn from? That is not a common style. Did you ever study BJJ anywhere as well? If you have been through these competitions, you should know the value of aliveness in training. Trying to learn to deal with violence without that athletic component and without that alive training method is like trying to learn to shoot for the first time by balancing on one leg and closing your eyes because you saw a trick shooter do that once. There are fundamental fighting skills you MUST have, and if you lack them, then you must train in an alive manner in order to acquire them. Part of the issue is most people have no idea that they lack them because they have never been in a fight.

Now, if I was competing with them and decided to only use my karate could I beat them....No. However, if I found myself facing someone in a street situation where I feared for my life, and the other guy happened to be a wrestler and decided to take me down, would my karate work?....definitely. If he was taking me down he would not have hands free to protect his eyes from getting ripped out of their sockets, or from me elbowing the back of his skull, or from me palming his nose with such force that it shatters, or me pulling a knife, which I always carry 2, and stabbing him in a lung, or ... you get the picture.

Those above "street self defense" techniques are not taught in high school or collegiate wrestling.

So, you just said that you could not beat them using your Karate when there was nothing important at stake, but then tried to say that if we raise the stakes you could win a fight you would have lost by escalating the level of violence.

It doesn’t take any training to poke someone in the eye. And the wrestler will be in a much better position to do that after they take you down. And your knife has nothing to do with Karate or martial arts as a self defense proposal at all, as now we are getting in to armed conflict, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

A dirty trick is not a substitute for fundamental fighting skills. It is not going to reliably save you. I cannot tell you the number of times I have been poked in the eye during training. It’s annoying, but it is just that, an annoyance. No one is going to let you get into the position to jdo one of those deep eye gouges in a fight unless you know how to control the clinch and defend the take-down well enough to get into that position. And that requires alive training of just that position.