The curse of asethetics?

[Himokiri Karate]

I was reading the new Baki manga and Shinogi who is an expert in Himokiri style karate aka my Username, mentioned that him losing to a vicious dirty fighter is due to the fact that Martial Artist tend to get tunnel visioned by the artistic aspect of their style and they forget the importance of getting down and dirty with a vicious opponent.

Funny thing is, when Himokiri karate made its debut in the Baki series over 2 decades ago, Himokiri karate was this evil, dangerous, vicious style of karate that focused on smaller targets, if you check out my signature, that is their philosophy, it was an extreme form of fighting that could not be taught to the public and because of that, the style was not able to propagate because it required full time dedication to developing piercing finger and toe strikes.

But now, homeboy takes L left and right But aside from that, in his recent loss, he made a great point that he is too focused on his form and that can hinder his ability to be effective as a fighter or that fighters who are willing to fight dirty can have an advantage vs a fighter who focuses on artistic and clean techniques. Have you ever felt this before in sparring?

[bushido_man96]

I don't know that I've ever felt that way in sparring, but in thinking about self-defense applications and the way my style tends to get nit-picky in how techniques look, such as stances and kicks, I have definitely felt that way.

Is it more important that a front stance in a form is technically correct, with both feet pointed forward, 70% of the weight on the front leg, front knee bent, back leg straight, feet like your walking on railroad tracks (teaching points we use in our version of front stance), or is it more important to understand how front stance works in transition in applying leverage to a technique? I think at time we fail to see the forest for the trees.

[sensei8]

With us, it's all about effectiveness over aesthetics. While proper form is important for any technique, we're far more concerned with said effectiveness. The concern over aesthetics occurs when a MAist has not yet matured in their technique(s) yet, whereas the effectiveness suffers sorely. Ya' just got to love the beauty of Shu Ha Ri...and I do.

[aurik]

Uechi-Ryu tends to prefer effectiveness over aesthetics. Whenever I ask my CI a question about "Why do it this way", any answer he has is almost always based on biomechanics. We were discussing the mechanism for the knee strikes in one of our kata last night, and his explanation went straight to the applications of that technique - how if you do the technique incorrectly, you're liable to lose your balance and fall to the ground, possibly with your opponent on top of you.

Likewise, in our two-person drills, we stress proper form not because it's pretty, but because it's what works. When I notice students overextending on their attacks, I'll demonstrate WHY you don't do that; generally I'll have them perform their technique, have them stay where they are, and then tug on their extended arm. If I notice that my partner isn't doing a block correctly in a drill, I'll be sure to set up my attack to expose that flaw in their defense.

Proper form for us isn't proper because it's pretty. It's proper form because it's effective.

[aurik]

I don't know that I've ever felt that way in sparring, but in thinking about self-defense applications and the way my style tends to get nit-picky in how techniques look, such as stances and kicks, I have definitely felt that way.

Is it more important that a front stance in a form is technically correct, with both feet pointed forward, 70% of the weight on the front leg, front knee bent, back leg straight, feet like your walking on railroad tracks (teaching points we use in our version of front stance), or is it more important to understand how front stance works in transition in applying leverage to a technique? I think at time we fail to see the forest for the trees.

If there's one place that our style is really nitpicky, it's in our Sanchin stance. However, going back to our "function over form" mantra, while I can usually tell if a student's Sanchin stance is off, the way we evaluate the form is by pushing/pulling/striking the student to check how well they resist being unbalanced (both physically and mentally). The intent of our Sanchin stance is that the karateka is rooted to the earth, able to resist being moved by an outside force, balanced and equally able to strike with any of the four weapons.

All of our other stances (front stance, low stance/shiko-dachi, cat stance) are typically transition stances in order to enable a specific attack. We tend to use low stances in our forms to drop our center of gravity and set us up for throws and takedowns. The only situations we use a front stance is with a simultaneous front elbow strike -- using our rear leg and weight drop to drive the front elbow into and through an opponent. And our cat stance is typically used in a defensive sequence in conjunction with a crane block (raising the front leg to block a kick). For each of these stances, we stress the "correct form" such that it is the form that enables you to do certain things. Our front stance has the rear leg straight, rear foot flat, and body angled to create a straight line from the heel to the shoulder -- because that creates proper body alignment to transmit force from the heel up through the opposite elbow. The front leg in our cat stance is the way it is... because you can drop the heel, shift the weight forward, and be right back in Sanchin stance. Or you can quickly raise the front leg to block an incoming kick.

For us at least, function defines proper form.

[Montana]

My $.02 worth.

Aesthetics, which are found in the kata and basics, teaches you proper stances, punches, kicks and blocks. It teaches your body to move in a certain way to be "proper" in the eyes of your particular system of martial arts.

But then there's sparring, and all that great technique you've learned goes flying out the window for the most part.

Why?

Because those perfect blocks, punches etc that you've learned and practiced for YEARS are to slow for a real fight.

WHAT????

Yes, I said it. Basic techniques, for the most part, and perfect kata technique, don't work in a real fight!

BLASPHEMY!!!

[Zaine]

My $.02 worth.

Aesthetics, which are found in the kata and basics, teaches you proper stances, punches, kicks and blocks. It teaches your body to move in a certain way to be "proper" in the eyes of your particular system of martial arts.

But then there's sparring, and all that great technique you've learned goes flying out the window for the most part.

Why?

Because those perfect blocks, punches etc that you've learned and practiced for YEARS are to slow for a real fight.

WHAT????

Yes, I said it. Basic techniques, for the most part, and perfect kata technique, don't work in a real fight!

BLASPHEMY!!!

Which is why it is important to train failure of technique in drills. I know that this is something that Noah (Wastelander) preaches, and it is something that I have incorporated into my training. What happens when X technique does not work as intended? You move on to Y. What happens with Y fails? You move to Z and so forth. Karate, and martial arts in general, is not static. It is important to understand the dynamic nature of a confrontation and train for that.

[DarthPenguin]

My $.02 worth.

Aesthetics, which are found in the kata and basics, teaches you proper stances, punches, kicks and blocks. It teaches your body to move in a certain way to be "proper" in the eyes of your particular system of martial arts.

But then there's sparring, and all that great technique you've learned goes flying out the window for the most part.

Why?

Because those perfect blocks, punches etc that you've learned and practiced for YEARS are to slow for a real fight.

WHAT????

Yes, I said it. Basic techniques, for the most part, and perfect kata technique, don't work in a real fight!

BLASPHEMY!!!

Which is why it is important to train failure of technique in drills. I know that this is something that Noah (Wastelander) preaches, and it is something that I have incorporated into my training. What happens when X technique does not work as intended? You move on to Y. What happens with Y fails? You move to Z and so forth. Karate, and martial arts in general, is not static. It is important to understand the dynamic nature of a confrontation and train for that.

As a related point it is why i think people need to make techniques work for THEM. How i will perform technique X based on my frame size and other physical attributes is different to person Y. I think grappling arts usually teach this pretty well e.g. someone will show me a standard Seio-Nage but then mention that in reality as i'm 6'4 i won't often use this in randori unless against someone of similar stature (i think i recall you saying you were 6'6 Montana so am sure you can relate).

Is related to why i think pad work is so important to work on punching a quantifiable target and build muscle memory. If i work lots of Jodan punches, then there is really only one person in my karate class that i get anywhere close to having that angle of attack on. For me it is a lot more useful to work on kick defences to torso/upper shoulder region than to my face as most of my classmates are quite open that they can't easily kick me in the face with power (obviously plenty of people could but i don't train with them every week!). etc.

[KarateKen]

I was reading the new Baki manga and Shinogi who is an expert in Himokiri style karate aka my Username, mentioned that him losing to a vicious dirty fighter is due to the fact that Martial Artist tend to get tunnel visioned by the artistic aspect of their style and they forget the importance of getting down and dirty with a vicious opponent.

I've had plenty of this when sparring.