The serious 'What's the most deadly style of karate' thread

[Rich]

Firstly the practitioner is more important than the style as is the training methods and methodology.

 

Within that, however, the original form(s) of karate before these stylistic differences emerged would be the deadliest as this was what was being used in actual combat. Karateka since then have fought, of course, on occasion but mostly these have been sparring matches or they have used other techniques not in their style. A real street encounter requires the original teachings which includes a lot of very close in work with grabbing, twisting, close range strikes etc.

 

The Okinawan styles have moved away from the original as much as Funakoshi's altering of Karate for the Japanese did.

 

Each kata could be considered its own style as they were originally complete systems in themselves.

 

HTH

 

Rich

[Guest]

Have you seen the original form of karate??

 

The practitioner is the most important, but that is not to say that the style is of no importance. I think when the original topic was posted, it was understood that we weren't considering the practitioner and only considering the style.

[BKJ1216]

There is no style that's greater than one style. It depense on the practicioner and what he wants to be the best for him.

[Sepultura]

As said before,there is no style superior to another style.It all depends on the practitioner and the instructor.But also it somehow depends on the style,i have been learning kyokushin karate for 2 yrs,i have been in to kickboxing ,san da,taekwon do competitions and found kyokushin has more power ,speed ... so i would go for kyokushin.

[Rich]

Hi all

 

smr- yes I know of a few excellent instructors that have spent much time and effort finding the roots of karate.

 

BKJ- it doesnt depend on what the practitioner wants- it depends on how realistic the techniques and training methods are if you are interested in surviving a real attack-some styles are sorely lacking in this.

 

Sepultura- if you are interested in competitions then its fine to make jusgements based on that- if you are interested in the 'down and dirty' side of survival then an art that doesn't include close in work, offbalancing techniques, grabs, ripping etc. etc. is pretty much a waste of time in MOST self defense situations.

 

I think that if you are truly interested in what karate has to offer then you must research kata bunkai and then you will start to go beyond style and thus, in full circle, back to its roots.

 

HTH

 

Rich

[Guest]

Allow me to clarify my post. I was saying that the style IS important. It is not as important as the practitioner, but everyone seems to think that it isn't important. As Rich said, some styles don't feature practical techniques, and some styles contain more practical techniques than others. Another determining factor is who your instructor is. Some instructors are oblivious to teach any practicality along with thier lessons. That's just politically correct to say that it completely depends on the practitioner because no one can really prove what style is the most practical, and no one want's to admit that the style they've been practicing for 10 years isn't practical.

[TJS]

There is no style that's greater than one style.

 

well thats nice and politicaly correct and all, but unfortuantly some stlyes are more effective than others.

[AGKK_Karateka]

Hello,

 

I hope that this does not put the cat amongst the pidgeons, but what exactly is the purpose of this post?

 

If I have read Rich's original post correctly there are three elements identified: the practioner, the style, the training methods and methodology.

 

The question for debate is removing two of the three (practioner and training) and isolating the third to indicate what would be the most effective style. I think this debate needs further refinement as you could easily have two instructors in the same style but one would teach a more effective form than the other or argue that without practioners and training you do not have an effective style anyway, etc.

 

The debate could be more focused on how can the elements of individual/knowledge/training be brought towards a more effective form of karate, rather than individual vs knowledge base or training vs knowledge base.

 

IMO I believe it is the training methods and methodology that would dictate a truly effective style of karate. Kata would emphasise the curriculum or range of techniques & technical principals. Learning kata applications through rigorous testing would be key to "effectiveness" with associated activities like fitness, sparring, and conditioning being important.

 

I hope my post makes some sense

[ninjanurse]

Not again!!!!

 

[karate-ka]

A real street encounter requires the original teachings which includes a lot of very close in work with grabbing, twisting, close range strikes etc.

 

Rich

 

What you say here is quite untue...There is no necessity to learn original Okinawan karate in order to defend yourself in a street fight. A white belt with only BASIC training in karate is much better off than someone who hasnt trained, no matter what form they learned under. And as far as advanced students go, Im sure no matter what style they trained under, if they have any real ability to perferm the techniques, they would be far more than a match for the average person.