Rich Posted April 5, 2003 Author Share Posted April 5, 2003 Sorry mate- the things Ive mentioned make it so completely different I'm afraid. Yes I am claiming that a Martial Art is different from a sporting art- some people like to say Martial Art and Martial Sport to differentiate but I don't see why we should keep the word martial in something that frankly isnt martial. I don't know how else to explain the difference but if you start to study bunkai you'll soon see some of the 'secrets' to Karate- and then you'll start to get a glimpse of how there is another art 'hiding' where you have been 'sporting'. Its in your hands to find out whats there. I'm not going to continue with this thread now, purely and simply because there isnt a lot more to say at present. And talk is cheap, training will help these factors to become clearer anyway. I'm sure there are issues that will come up in other threads tho'. So...train hard and have fun. Best wishes to all. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJS Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 ring fighting with limited rules for both party alway has been and always will be the best judge of what techniques work and what dont. I train very much for realistic self defense..i know the diffrence between sport and reality..but people try and downplay it's usefulness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karate_woman Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 The most deadly style....I find the whole "most deadly" topic kind of funny myself (sorry). How many different times or ways do you need to kill someone? Once they are dead aren't they dead? I'm a shodan in Okinawan Goju Ryu, which certainly makes me no expert, so I really can't offer an opinion on this. I've learned my share of deadly techniques over the years, but it isn't my focus. I refuse to bash another style; they all should work, and mine has a strong focus on balance between the hard and the soft techniques that I particularly enjoy. I remember my Sensei once telling us that t'ai chi and karate both get you to the same place, they just do it in different ways (she then demonstrated with her hands, bringing each hand up to make a circle, one half going up to the left, the other to the right, meeting in the middle at the top). I suspect that the same is true for the other various styles and other martial arts as well, but you'd need the right teacher, and to be the right student as well. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. -Lao-Tse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteBelt Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 There is no single most effective style. Sure some are more effective at certain things, but they will never be perfect because the concept of a style is wrong for MA. When you learn Wado, Goju, Shotokan, or whatever style is your favourite, you are learning somebody else's view of karate, or even MA in general. It's up to you to learn from them, but you must adopt your own view. You may not be able to perform kicks as well as your instructor, and may never, so you adapt and then your style is different from your instructor's. The argument shouldn't be about who, or what style, is the deadliest, it should be, "If I want to be more deadly, what do I need to work on?" An instructor will help you here, and you may need more than one, but don't expect to simply 'follow the leader' and expect it to be perfect for you. I agree with karate_woman about the "most deadly" topic. If I want to be really deadly I'll buy a gun, and then a bigger gun, and then... M.A.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted April 16, 2003 Author Share Posted April 16, 2003 Karate woman, the title was just a bit of a joke really. There was a quite daft thread of the same title a while back amd I used it to try to get a better discussion going, which for the most part happened. White belt, I believe you will find the way back to the original to some degree with a rational approach such as you have. I know it was said in jest but , on a serious note, guns don't necessarily make people more deadly at closer ranges (not just close range either). There is some worrying studies that show well-trained officers missing bad guys completely on frequent occasions and thus allowing them to get too close. I cant remember the percentage but I believe it was 50% misses at least at 11 feet, due to many factors such as movement, adrenalin etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer-monster Posted April 19, 2003 Share Posted April 19, 2003 Okay first the styles bit. The different styles are just different interpreations of the same thing. Its like the themes in a Burn's poem may mean something different to you than it does to me. Wado-ryu evolved because Hironori Otsuka felt that Karate should be softer, Kyokoshinkai, because it should be harder and more testing. But the styles cont6ain the same techniques, may be differently applied but the tools are all there. So long as they know how to use them correctly any Karateka is an effective fighter. One thing though I find odd. Who came up with the no reverse punch thing? Every fighting style has some sort of back hand punch, the gyaku tsuki is the karateka's equivalent of a boxers cross. It is an amzingly effective punch both in sports and streetfights and for who train it and understand it. It is the heavy artillery, a lights out blow when placed right. All karateka should have this punch at the forefront of there strategy IMHO. Perhaps the reason for the confusion is the fact it is rarely trained as a punch to the head, but all it takes is a little adaptation of the body mechanics. What do you all think, and where did the phrase come from? Mind, body and fist. Its all a man truly needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted April 20, 2003 Author Share Posted April 20, 2003 Beermonster- if you read my writings carefully you will see that I point out that the original karate was originally an individual style of each master and the same goes for each kata. Having said that they were all trained in an effective way. Modern karate styles do not necessarily retain the effectiveness of the original which is my major point. All the modern styles have done is to take away the effectiveness of the original and they leave people such as yourself having to search through the movements to try to find what actually will work. Gedan Barai is a case in point - how many karateka still believe there is still such a thing as a lower block? If you actually dont know what this is for then you have just proved my point. As for the reverse punch I did not say that there wasnt a punch with the rear hand. Basically, this punch was originally delivered in a different way with much greater force. Again as you dont know about this it shows what modern karate has lost. I would strongly advise that you invested the time and training in finding out how to do this technique effectively because I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Good luck in your training (Am bored with this thread so will see you all in a new one ). Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer-monster Posted April 20, 2003 Share Posted April 20, 2003 Rich I understood what you meant about Kata, I'm not an idiot. All I was trying to say was that the styles we know today were developed out otrying to day was personal interpretation, as kata were each individuals style. What I was trying to say was that there is no better style, the tools are the sam and how you use them depends on the individuals talents and strategy so a which style is better thread is moot. As for the reverse punch, I'm sorry if I misunderstood, all I was saying was that the reverse punch as it is is far from ineffectrive, it may have lost alot but it is still good. And that alot of the opinions expressed seem to disrespect the technique. I have experimented with the technique with other principles such as boxing bio-mechanics and chinese baqua stepping, and have been surprised, but the way the other people on the forum sounded was that they did not like the technique, that is their opinion but I just thought they were missing out on something. As for Gendai barai, anyone who had tried to use it as a block in free sparring know that that motion and application is incorrect. Once again I'm not an idiot so don't think I am cause an opinion which really did not conflict with your much at all. Mind, body and fist. Its all a man truly needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted April 21, 2003 Author Share Posted April 21, 2003 beermonster - I certainly didnt mean to imply that you are an idiot my friend. I tend to explain things as simply as possible but with enough detail because most people dont know about karate to any great depth. This is a general thing and wasnt aimed specifically at you. I think in general we are more in agreement that not. With regard to the reverse punch I feel it would be worth your while to research the original as I dont think once you have tried it this way you would want to go back to the modern interpretation. Regards Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer-monster Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 This ancient reverse punch you say about. Where did you hear about it. It sounds interesting. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction to begin my research. At the moment I use an adapted punch involve certain boxing elements so that the fist is propelled by me whole body acting as one muscle not just the hip. What is the old way? Mind, body and fist. Its all a man truly needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts