Legitimacy of a new style of karate...

[Nevinyrral]

Any legitimacy of any MA style depends not on what others may and/or may not say, as if their approval legitimizes any said MA, but on its effectiveness. However, for said MA to be effective, the practitioner MUST BE effective; more than not, because THAT practitioner is the vehicle/representative of that said MA. I mean, if the MA style and/or the practitioner isn't effective, then who cares one way or another.

Imho!!

I'm not sure if effectiveness is a good measure of legitimacy.

Because compared to mma or boxing most traditional karate styles with only point sparring, or for example internal kung fu styles like tai chi would have hard time to defend their legitimacy.

[sensei8]

Any legitimacy of any MA style depends not on what others may and/or may not say, as if their approval legitimizes any said MA, but on its effectiveness. However, for said MA to be effective, the practitioner MUST BE effective; more than not, because THAT practitioner is the vehicle/representative of that said MA. I mean, if the MA style and/or the practitioner isn't effective, then who cares one way or another.

Imho!!

I'm not sure if effectiveness is a good measure of legitimacy.

Because compared to mma or boxing most traditional karate styles with only point sparring, or for example internal kung fu styles like tai chi would have hard time to defend their legitimacy.

Forget the style, it's just a thing, and that thing doesn't really do anything. It's the practitioner that must execute effectively. Call the MA style whatever, and the whatever might be one's core, but without the practitioner being effective, and that's what most MAists look at is the barometer of whatever, the practitioner better be effective somehow or someway. If not, the style is going to appear worse than a whatever.

Imho, without a highly plausibility of consistent effectiveness of whomever, the whatever is meaningless. I'm not referring to point sparring either.

[RW]

The saying "As long as a piece of string" comes to mind with regards to trying to figure out where karate ends and general martial arts begin. Movements in Karate can also be found in Nánquán, Silat, Muay Boran, Tae Kwon Do, and American Kempo. In particular the basic percussive techniques and stances. However, we would not readily consider any of the above, and arts descended from them to be karate.

The one definition I have found, which I think is functional, if we we utilise the Wittgenstein paradigm of family relations is the following: Karate is a cultural artefact of the Okinawan People descending from RyuKyu Tode. If a system employs the forms (Kata) as developed on Okinawa, and derives its fighting methods from an interpretation of the kata through following the knowledge left by the innovators and preservers of Tode-Jutsu it can rightly be called Karate.

Under this definition, even if a founder of a system studied karate, but neglected to include the Okinawan cultural artefacts which are the concrete body of knowledge of Karate as the foundation of their system: it is not karate. It is their own invention, influenced by their karate knowledge, but it is no longer karate.

In this context: if you want the system to be legitimate as Karate, it needs to be built from the Okinawan cultural artefact through the kata. If you want the system to be legitimate as an effective martial art: you need to make sure you are adhering the to triangle of performance. You are providing a system which promotes the psychology, the physiology, and technical ability to be effective against an aggressor in either self-defence or the combat sport setting.

great post!

the one thing I am not too sure about is that a martial art needs to be effective to be legitimate. I've seen many legit TKD schools that focus on olympics, so the stuff they teach is woefully ineffective.... but they're so legit that your black belt needs to be registered with the kukkiwon.

Some kung fu styles would fall in a similar scenario too.

[sensei8]

The saying "As long as a piece of string" comes to mind with regards to trying to figure out where karate ends and general martial arts begin. Movements in Karate can also be found in Nánquán, Silat, Muay Boran, Tae Kwon Do, and American Kempo. In particular the basic percussive techniques and stances. However, we would not readily consider any of the above, and arts descended from them to be karate.

The one definition I have found, which I think is functional, if we we utilise the Wittgenstein paradigm of family relations is the following: Karate is a cultural artefact of the Okinawan People descending from RyuKyu Tode. If a system employs the forms (Kata) as developed on Okinawa, and derives its fighting methods from an interpretation of the kata through following the knowledge left by the innovators and preservers of Tode-Jutsu it can rightly be called Karate.

Under this definition, even if a founder of a system studied karate, but neglected to include the Okinawan cultural artefacts which are the concrete body of knowledge of Karate as the foundation of their system: it is not karate. It is their own invention, influenced by their karate knowledge, but it is no longer karate.

In this context: if you want the system to be legitimate as Karate, it needs to be built from the Okinawan cultural artefact through the kata. If you want the system to be legitimate as an effective martial art: you need to make sure you are adhering the to triangle of performance. You are providing a system which promotes the psychology, the physiology, and technical ability to be effective against an aggressor in either self-defence or the combat sport setting.

Solid post!!

[sensei8]

RW wrote:

great post!

the one thing I am not too sure about is that a martial art needs to be effective to be legitimate. I've seen many legit TKD schools that focus on olympics, so the stuff they teach is woefully ineffective.... but they're so legit that your black belt needs to be registered with the kukkiwon.

Some kung fu styles would fall in a similar scenario too.

You're right, the MA style needs not to be effective to be legit; just the practitioner. The MA is just a thing, and things need someone to demonstrate how effective it works to others, but that thing better be effective, or the breaking down of it is already on the horizon.

[bushido_man96]

The registration of black belts with the Kukkiwon doesn't really have anything to do with legitimacy. I believe it's necessary for Olympic competition. You just have to meet their requirements to be "registered" with them. It's more about money than legitimacy.

[Nevinyrral]

RW wrote:

great post!

the one thing I am not too sure about is that a martial art needs to be effective to be legitimate. I've seen many legit TKD schools that focus on olympics, so the stuff they teach is woefully ineffective.... but they're so legit that your black belt needs to be registered with the kukkiwon.

Some kung fu styles would fall in a similar scenario too.

You're right, the MA style needs not to be effective to be legit; just the practitioner. The MA is just a thing, and things need someone to demonstrate how effective it works to others, but that thing better be effective, or the breaking down of it is already on the horizon.

You won't be effective if all you learn is kata. So it is relevant what style you are learning. Lets be honest, if you would have to bet on one, who would you choose: someone with 3 years of muay thai experience or someone with 5 years of for example tai chi or aikido?

So saying that it comes to practicioner is wrong. There are styles that are legitimate but no mater who would practice them and how long would still not effective in a fight.

[sensei8]

RW wrote:

great post!

the one thing I am not too sure about is that a martial art needs to be effective to be legitimate. I've seen many legit TKD schools that focus on olympics, so the stuff they teach is woefully ineffective.... but they're so legit that your black belt needs to be registered with the kukkiwon.

Some kung fu styles would fall in a similar scenario too.

You're right, the MA style needs not to be effective to be legit; just the practitioner. The MA is just a thing, and things need someone to demonstrate how effective it works to others, but that thing better be effective, or the breaking down of it is already on the horizon.

You won't be effective if all you learn is kata. So it is relevant what style you are learning. Lets be honest, if you would have to bet on one, who would you choose: someone with 3 years of muay thai experience or someone with 5 years of for example tai chi or aikido?

So saying that it comes to practicioner is wrong. There are styles that are legitimate but no mater who would practice them and how long would still not effective in a fight.

We seem to be on opposite sides on this, and that's quite fine. I thank you for your opinion, and I respect it as well.

[RW]

The registration of black belts with the Kukkiwon doesn't really have anything to do with legitimacy. I believe it's necessary for Olympic competition. You just have to meet their requirements to be "registered" with them. It's more about money than legitimacy.

Interesting.

Say joe next door decided to open a TKD school tomorrow. He teaches stuff he learned from playing as kim kaphwan from the SNK videogames and from watching youtube videos. He mostly teaches young kids and plays games and makes them break boards. Can he register with the kukkiwon and be officially recognized as a TKD school?

that would be really bad, LOL

[RW]

RW wrote:

great post!

the one thing I am not too sure about is that a martial art needs to be effective to be legitimate. I've seen many legit TKD schools that focus on olympics, so the stuff they teach is woefully ineffective.... but they're so legit that your black belt needs to be registered with the kukkiwon.

Some kung fu styles would fall in a similar scenario too.

You're right, the MA style needs not to be effective to be legit; just the practitioner. The MA is just a thing, and things need someone to demonstrate how effective it works to others, but that thing better be effective, or the breaking down of it is already on the horizon.

You won't be effective if all you learn is kata. So it is relevant what style you are learning. Lets be honest, if you would have to bet on one, who would you choose: someone with 3 years of muay thai experience or someone with 5 years of for example tai chi or aikido?

So saying that it comes to practicioner is wrong. There are styles that are legitimate but no mater who would practice them and how long would still not effective in a fight.

I'd put my money on someone with 8 months experience on boxing or muay thai over someone with 5 years in your average taekwondo, karate, kung fu (any style) or krav maga school, not to mention the aikidos, tai chis, etc of the world.

being realistic, many karate and taekwondo schools focus on kihon (or the TKD equivalent), kata (or the TKD equivalent) and point sparring. The schools that have non-point sparring do not necessarily have realistic sparring anyway (hits in the face are not allowed, low contact sparring, no kicks under the belt, etc). With kung fu it's even worse.

Sure, many karate schools out there are very good and teach you real fighting, but being honest, these schools are not the norm. It doesn't mean these average karate school isn't legit or real, it's just not a good school.