What's wrong with karate?

[TJS]

paignoon -

 

 

The UFC is still a sport. It has rules. The rules tend to favor a grappler

 

unless you base you ability to fight on biting and eye gouging then that statment holds no truth for UFC 1-5, grapplers can do that to and are usally in a better position to do so.

I would like to see a BJJ practitioner take a couple of hits from me, then do a take down, and ground work, while I am giving them a concussion.

 

right, somehow a 170 brazilian named royce managed to do it to guys who hit alot harder than you.

 

very rarely can a pure striker knockout a good grapler before they get submitted, there is no reason to belive it would be any diffrent on a lower level.

can the average BJJ practitioner take the punishment from an average striker, to get the takedown?

 

if you know what you doing then you wont get hit much or at all when closing the distance.

They also use gloves,

 

they didint in the first ones and they still dont in vale tudo, does it make a diffrence, no.

 

im not even a "grappler" and do alot more striking but these arguments really hold no weight.

[AndrewGreen]

Right, can the average BJJ practitioner take the punishment from an average striker, to get the takedown? What I am saying is that this is not reality, just like the NFL is not either. These people are just to good to compare tactics to the ordinary.

 

Can the average striker deal any punishment before a decent grappler can clinch and put them down?

 

Question works both ways.

 

I don't knoe enough about football to go to far, but is NFL skills and tactics really that different then lower levels?

 

 

They also use gloves, granted it still hurts when hit, but it pales in compariosn to a bareknuckled hit.

 

I can hit you in the head a lot harder with a glove then without.

[Kakushiite]

Before I begin my long post, a criticism of the way many karate systems today approach self-defense, I have two disclaimers. First, I teach a traditional system and believe that the way karate was taught in Okinawa 100 years ago was about as effective a fighting system as there ever has been. Second, I recognize that not all karate systems are the same and many produce great fighters. (Bag/makiwara training, full contact sparring, grappling, and intensive training can compensate for the unrealistic approach many traditional karate systems take towards fighting.)

 

I think practitioners in "non-karate" MAs have some very legitimate points regarding the way karate is taught in all too many dojos. In the striking arts of Muay Thai, Philippino MA and boxing, it is assumed that there needs to be a number of counters to overcome a larger opponent. Combinations with several kicks/strikes is the norm. So too in many Chinese arts. More important, the primary target is not the body. The head, neck, groin and knees are preferred candidates. And in the grappling arts it is assumed it is best to put the big attacker on the ground to neutralize his advantage in size. MMA combine the striking and grappling approaches.

 

In contrast, in many karate schools, a surprising number of self-defense combinations emphasize single counter strikes to the solar plexus. Sport karate is built around this principle.

 

A little history is needed. Prior to the 1950s, there was no notion of sport karate. In Japan however, several martial arts were modified for sport, so we should not be surprised that karate was as well. Kano incorporated many "safer" JuJitsu movements into his Judo, an art intended to be done competitively. Kendo is a sport version of the sword arts. Sumo, like Judo is a sport with some movements from traditional Japanese grappling arts.

 

In the sword arts there has always been the notion of ikken hisatsu or one strike, certain death. I think we can all recognize that if the blade swiftly strikes your neck, the fight is over. In Kendo, there is a point scored for a touch of the bokken to the head, hand/forearm or the lower leg. (If you receive a swift strike on the forearm or leg, you either can't effectively hold the sword with two hands or stand on two legs. Either way, the odds shift overwhelmingly against you.)

 

The concept of Ikken hisatsu was borrowed from Kendo for use in sport karate. The solar plexus was chosen as the target of choice. There is not much documentation as to why, but my guess is that a target on the torso was picked over the head because it is far safer.

 

To recap, we began with an incredibly effective Okinawan fighting art, and in Japan it was converted it to sport with scoring based on a single strike to the abdomen. One can argue that this is fine, as sport and self-defense can be treated separately. That is not the real issue. The problem is that the Japanese then took this concept of ikken hisatsu and applied it to self-defense applications. Here it is very hard to make the case that this is an effective approach to fighting, especially against a larger attacker, which is probably the norm.

 

For those that doubt that many dojos teach one-strike combinations for defense, I recommend you go to https://www.usankf.org. Select training, videowerks, and kata. Then select Basai Dai (Shito Ryu), Kanku Dai (Shotokan) or Chinto (Wado Ryu). When the kata comes up, three options come up on the right. Select the third picture on the right called video analysis.

 

In virtually all of these "applications" the attack is a single lunge punch to the abdomen, usually the solar plexus. (There are a few kicks, some grabs, and some multiple punches to the abdomen.) I think most of us who have thought long and hard about attacks recognize that these attacks are highly unlikely. Jabs and hooks to the head are far more common. That's the first problem, the emphasis on training against unrealistic attacks.

 

How about the defenses. If you haven't been exposed to the "traditional" Japanese approach, these videos will be informative. In the vast majority there is a single counter punch to the solar plexus or ribs. There are a few kick/punch or kick elbow techniques.

 

I think Kanku Dai is most illustrative of the disconnect between "traditional" Japanese karate and true fighting. Take, for example, "Applications" 3, 4 and 12. In none of these does the attack come close to reaching the opponent. "Application" 16 appears to be a very, very risky application. Here the defender lets a front kick strike the the lower abdomen. (This kick actually lands below the belt.) Once landed, it is "trapped" there with one hand underneath the heel, while the second hand strikes the shin bone. Bad enough so far. But what is really risky is the stance, kiba dachi which leaves the groin wide open. One can just imagine the effectiveness of this defense against a groin kick targeted just inches lower.

 

There is much else to take issue with in all three of these videos from these three mainline Japanese systems. Several of these applications end with a block, as if suddenly the attacker loses interest. Takedowns are few. Rarely is there a sidestep or "tai sabaki" to get off the line of attack. The counterstrikes found in the "applications" are rarely found in the kata. They are added. Those are general themes. If you look at many of these "defenses" individually there is plenty more to take issue with.

 

I think that everyone who wants to learn karate for self-defense should rightly ask how these "applications" in any way approximate what might happen in a fight. And if they don't, students should then feel free to question a Sensei why they are taught and why they should be practiced. Unfortunately, this question can be uncomfortable to the many Senseis that teach them.

 

There are many arts where students train to deal with a real attack by practicing useful combinations against realistic attacks. Unfortunately, many "traditional karate" dojos teach techniques similar to those found on the USANKF website. Is there any wonder why karate is viewed so poorly by those in more "fighting" oriented systems.

[BKJ1216]

Before I begin my long post, a criticism of the way many karate systems today approach self-defense, I have two disclaimers. First, I teach a traditional system and believe that the way karate was taught in Okinawa 100 years ago was about as effective a fighting system as there ever has been. Second, I recognize that not all karate systems are the same and many produce great fighters. (Bag/makiwara training, full contact sparring, grappling, and intensive training can compensate for the unrealistic approach many traditional karate systems take towards fighting.)

 

I think practitioners in "non-karate" MAs have some very legitimate points regarding the way karate is taught in all too many dojos. In the striking arts of Muay Thai, Philippino MA and boxing, it is assumed that there needs to be a number of counters to overcome a larger opponent. Combinations with several kicks/strikes is the norm. So too in many Chinese arts. More important, the primary target is not the body. The head, neck, groin and knees are preferred candidates. And in the grappling arts it is assumed it is best to put the big attacker on the ground to neutralize his advantage in size. MMA combine the striking and grappling approaches.

 

In contrast, in many karate schools, a surprising number of self-defense combinations emphasize single counter strikes to the solar plexus. Sport karate is built around this principle.

 

A little history is needed. Prior to the 1950s, there was no notion of sport karate. In Japan however, several martial arts were modified for sport, so we should not be surprised that karate was as well. Kano incorporated many "safer" JuJitsu movements into his Judo, an art intended to be done competitively. Kendo is a sport version of the sword arts. Sumo, like Judo is a sport with some movements from traditional Japanese grappling arts.

 

In the sword arts there has always been the notion of ikken hisatsu or one strike, certain death. I think we can all recognize that if the blade swiftly strikes your neck, the fight is over. In Kendo, there is a point scored for a touch of the bokken to the head, hand/forearm or the lower leg. (If you receive a swift strike on the forearm or leg, you either can't effectively hold the sword with two hands or stand on two legs. Either way, the odds shift overwhelmingly against you.)

 

The concept of Ikken hisatsu was borrowed from Kendo for use in sport karate. The solar plexus was chosen as the target of choice. There is not much documentation as to why, but my guess is that a target on the torso was picked over the head because it is far safer.

 

To recap, we began with an incredibly effective Okinawan fighting art, and in Japan it was converted it to sport with scoring based on a single strike to the abdomen. One can argue that this is fine, as sport and self-defense can be treated separately. That is not the real issue. The problem is that the Japanese then took this concept of ikken hisatsu and applied it to self-defense applications. Here it is very hard to make the case that this is an effective approach to fighting, especially against a larger attacker, which is probably the norm.

 

For those that doubt that many dojos teach one-strike combinations for defense, I recommend you go to https://www.usankf.org. Select training, videowerks, and kata. Then select Basai Dai (Shito Ryu), Kanku Dai (Shotokan) or Chinto (Wado Ryu). When the kata comes up, three options come up on the right. Select the third picture on the right called video analysis.

 

In virtually all of these "applications" the attack is a single lunge punch to the abdomen, usually the solar plexus. (There are a few kicks, some grabs, and some multiple punches to the abdomen.) I think most of us who have thought long and hard about attacks recognize that these attacks are highly unlikely. Jabs and hooks to the head are far more common. That's the first problem, the emphasis on training against unrealistic attacks.

 

How about the defenses. If you haven't been exposed to the "traditional" Japanese approach, these videos will be informative. In the vast majority there is a single counter punch to the solar plexus or ribs. There are a few kick/punch or kick elbow techniques.

 

I think Kanku Dai is most illustrative of the disconnect between "traditional" Japanese karate and true fighting. Take, for example, "Applications" 3, 4 and 12. In none of these does the attack come close to reaching the opponent. "Application" 16 appears to be a very, very risky application. Here the defender lets a front kick strike the the lower abdomen. (This kick actually lands below the belt.) Once landed, it is "trapped" there with one hand underneath the heel, while the second hand strikes the shin bone. Bad enough so far. But what is really risky is the stance, kiba dachi which leaves the groin wide open. One can just imagine the effectiveness of this defense against a groin kick targeted just inches lower.

 

There is much else to take issue with in all three of these videos from these three mainline Japanese systems. Several of these applications end with a block, as if suddenly the attacker loses interest. Takedowns are few. Rarely is there a sidestep or "tai sabaki" to get off the line of attack. The counterstrikes found in the "applications" are rarely found in the kata. They are added. Those are general themes. If you look at many of these "defenses" individually there is plenty more to take issue with.

 

I think that everyone who wants to learn karate for self-defense should rightly ask how these "applications" in any way approximate what might happen in a fight. And if they don't, students should then feel free to question a Sensei why they are taught and why they should be practiced. Unfortunately, this question can be uncomfortable to the many Senseis that teach them.

 

There are many arts where students train to deal with a real attack by practicing useful combinations against realistic attacks. Unfortunately, many "traditional karate" dojos teach techniques similar to those found on the USANKF website. Is there any wonder why karate is viewed so poorly by those in more "fighting" oriented systems.

Well you seem to knwo what your talking about. So if you don't min me asking, what do you think about shudokan and goju-ryu(okinawan)?

[panginoon]

We all seem to be forgetting that Karate as it exists todayis not actually designed for street fighting. Funakoshi sensei and men of his ilk designed modern Karate syllabi around educating people in focus, respect and temperance as well as keeping fit.

 

 

Funi ruined karate. Simple as that. In order to get real bunkai out of Shotokan, you basically have to turn it into Shorin-ryu.

[panginoon]

ok...here is the point in karate. If you want to ground fight you have to get me there. If you want to grab me and throw me....try....if you want to tackle me....try. If your karate school is not teaching self-defence or whatever find another. If you are good at something, it is only because you know your weaknesses and what everyone else sees. You must be able to counter what someone may throw at you. If you cannot then we have discussions like this one.

 

.......................................................

 

*Cough* Karate HAS a grappling system!!!! The mcdojos like to pretend it did not exist, it is called Tegumi. So knock that "Karate does not deal with grappling" crap out.

[panginoon]

How can I find out if there are any BJJ schools in my area?

 

...........................................

 

Try looking at martialinfo.com usadojo.com and dojolist.com

[panginoon]

The gloves aren't that thick. Seriously, if you are a hard hitter you will still be able to feel the knuckles.

 

................................................

 

There is still a huge difference. ALL sports gloves disperse the impact thus lessening it. I have been hit with all sorts of gloves and bareknuckles. Knuckles by far damage more than any of the gloves.

[BKJ1216]

ok...here is the point in karate. If you want to ground fight you have to get me there. If you want to grab me and throw me....try....if you want to tackle me....try. If your karate school is not teaching self-defence or whatever find another. If you are good at something, it is only because you know your weaknesses and what everyone else sees. You must be able to counter what someone may throw at you. If you cannot then we have discussions like this one.

 

.......................................................

 

*Cough* Karate HAS a grappling system!!!! The mcdojos like to pretend it did not exist, it is called Tegumi. So knock that "Karate does not deal with grappling" crap out.

Alriht two questions. How do I tell if my dojos are "mcdojo", and don't have Tegumi. And what the hell is a mcdojo?

[panginoon]

right, somehow a 170 brazilian named royce managed to do it to guys who hit alot harder than you.

 

very rarely can a pure striker knockout a good grapler before they get submitted, there is no reason to belive it would be any diffrent on a lower level.

 

................................................

 

The UFC is totally differnent than a BJJ guy with 3 years in. Professional competiton is a far cry from reality. The competeitor can do things that normal martial artsist can not even mimick.

 

Why is a karateka a pure striker? Who said the?