"Karate not for fighting other styles"

[Kirves]

There seems to a lot of misconceptions about the purpose of karate. Some say it wasn't originally meant for fighting expert people from other martial arts, but just for self defence. Others counter that that is stupid, Muay Thai wasn't designed to fight against karate, yet they do well. So many must wonder which is it. So here goes...

 

Yes, originally karate was designed to only work against the street bullies, on Okinawa. What does this mean? It means that mos of the defences are against stupid singular attacks like the haymaker, a lapel grab, a push and so on. The point of karateka always punching the most direct route (no hook punches in old karate) came from this same point, the untrained fighter beats around the bush and so karateka counters with direct strikes that are faster.

 

Now, arts like Muay Thai never teach punching haymakers or grabbing lapels nor do they focus on defending against such street attacks. They assume that both participants are trained and strike with fast and direct punches. So Muay Thai works good against most arts because it already assumes the opponent wil be striking fast combos, using fakes and so on, when old karate often assumes the opponent is not using trained combos but singular street thug or drunk attacks.

 

But this no longer holds true, as the Japanese modernized karate quite a bit and added tournaments into their systems. So the modern tournament karate does assume the opponent is trained, but it still tries to fight with the same techniques that weren't designed for this. That is a problem. And that is also the reason why many modern arts have dropped most of the old karate moves and started using more "boxing like" handwork and so on. These people are a bit better prepared to fight Muay Thai and other people from other arts but still have problems, that are no longer technical but due to lacking training methods. Kyokushin and it's offshoots have adopted training methods similar to those used in Muay Thai, Sanda, Savate, Boxing and Kickboxing and as anyone can see, it is working, Kyokushin is one of the few karate styles that have proved effective against other arts. But there is a price to all this, these karate styles have begun to lose some of the old self defence methods because of this change in focus. Kata and bunkai training is seen as secondary, or for tournament fighting, completely waste of time and you can see it by observing how these modern full contact styles are trained.

 

So to sum this up, today there are many ways to study and train karate and there exists several approaches to what once was a simple civilian street defence art of the Okinawan people.

[TJS]

nice post. the only thing i would addd is that if someone can defend precision punches and combos then a haymaker is usually not going to pose alot of danger.

[delta1]

 

It was my understanding that Karate was a seriouse fighting art and was trained to the extent that the practitioners natural weapons were hard as rocks but a lot faster. Even the more modern styles can still be used that way. I'm not a fan of the extremely hard styles. But I'd never disrespect them or underestimate them. I've been working some with a Shotokan practitioner who wants to add some soft moves to his arsenal, and he is one tough customer!

[ninjanurse]

 

It was my understanding that Karate was a seriouse fighting art and was trained to the extent that the practitioners natural weapons were hard as rocks but a lot faster.

 

I didn't get the impression that Kirves was saying that Karate wasn't a serious fighting art. IMO he is just explaining why it has evolved from it's original intent. It is up to the practictioner to take his training seriously...or not . Serious is a relative term and the outcome of training is different for each person.

 

[Kirves]

TJS, you bring up a good point. And it wasn't my intention to make any art or style sound bad, just told some history. Historically, a couple hundred years ago, karate training was focused on countering attacks from an untrained person - nothing more, nothing less. The reason for this probably was that the Okinawan karateka didn't have much fights with expert fighters from other areas (I would guess). While in other countries all the fighters challenged each others and there were even fights between martial art schools, on Okinawa karate was sometimes even trained in hiding, there were few open dojos where all the fighters from across the world came to challenge or train. The karateka just wanted to be able to defend against the attacks they met on the street, or bar, or docks. And they worked on that aspect alone. And there often is a slight difference between how one is attacked in... say a bar and what happens in a Muay Thai ring for example. In a bar, the situation often starts with someone either grabbing you or pushing you. These are the attacks karate was originally designed to counter. Muay Thai doesn't cover these aspects except indirectly (meaning: you can punch or kick him when he touches you ).

 

Of course, we must remember that nothing is black and white. When I say something like "the karateka on Okinawa did/didn't do X" it certainly doesn't mean that noone ever did under any circumstances. It is just a generalization.

[delta1]

ninjanurse and Kirves, I guess I'm getting the impression, and having a little trouble with, the idea that Karate is mostly to be used against untrained opponents. It could obviously be used that way, and since most people are untrained might even be mostly used that way. But its purpose as I understand it is self defense and is meant to be used against either trained or untrained fighters. Consider the sai, a Karate weapon which is meant to defend against a sword. The only opponents who would have had a sword would have been highly trained and skilled. Like the little face suggests, I'm a little confused by your post. But don't let that go to your head, confusing me isn't that difficult .

[Kirves]

ninjanurse and Kirves, I guess I'm getting the impression, and having a little trouble with, the idea that Karate is mostly to be used against untrained opponents.

 

First of all, we were talking mostly in past tense. As I said, during the last century or so, many styles have adopted a more modern approach. Actually, I'd say most styles nowadays.

But its purpose as I understand it is self defense and is meant to be used against either trained or untrained fighters.

 

Of course! I'm clearly not explaining myself well enough... It wasn't as if they ruled out fighting experts. It just happened to be that back then very few experts were around. You know, one of the guys got beaten up in the bar, the next day he was talking to the teacher and fellow students what he could've done and then they figured it out. Usually they were beaten up by a drunken bulley in the bar, not by a foreign thaiboxing champ. So the situations they tried to figure defence for naturally flowed towards the street tactics. There were no karate tournaments so there wasn't any interest in developing tournament techniques either.

Consider the sai, a Karate weapon

 

Sai was part of Ryukyu Kobujutsu way before Tou-di or Kara-te (The Chinese Hand -technique) ever reached the shores. For some quick history lesson go here: http://www.rkagb.com/ and click "History" from the menu. Also remember, that sai as a weapon came from China to Okinawa. In China there were lots of sword wielding attackers.

confusing me isn't that difficult .

 

I am the master of confusion, I can confuse anyone on this board anytime. I guess I have already proven that many, many times.

[delta1]

 

I get it now.

 

I'll check the site when I have time, but you are correct about the sai being around a long time before being adopted by karate-ka. There were many versions as well. The Chinese favored a knife blade. The tines were sometimes single, sometimes double. Some had one pointing to the tip to trap a weapon or to strike and one pointing back like a handguard. Variations of this weapon appeared all around the Pacific Rim. I've read some histories that said the sai was a farming impliment adapted to use as a weapon. But I tend to believe the ones that say it was a weapon adapted to farm use.

 

Gotta go. I'm about to be late for an appointment (what, no zippy little emoticon?).

[Shotokan_Fighter]

i couldnt relly understand all the posts on this but all ill say id i know karate was ment for fighting against an untrained fighter, which is a drunk a punck kid not a muay thai fighter or a trained fighter. go to 24fightingchickens.com that is where i read my info on karate wasnt ment for fighting trained martial artist. but i dont see why karate isnt good against a trained martial artist i have beaten a person at our local tae kwon do club, i know for a fact that a really good, hardcore shotokan karate ka could hold there own against most martial artist.

[TJS]

all ill say id i know karate was ment for fighting against an untrained fighter, which is a drunk a punck kid

 

I would hate to rely on my Opponet being a drunked no skill bum. sounds like a bad philosophy to me..prepare for the worst and the rest will be easy.

but i dont see why karate isnt good against a trained martial artist i have beaten a person at our local tae kwon do club

 

I would sincerely suggest finding a Local Muay Thai gym..they might give you a better example than most TKD students..

 

 

i know for a fact that a really good, hardcore shotokan karate ka could hold there own against most martial artist.

 

Depends on what your definition of "holding your own"

 

Have you ever seen the video if the Shotokan Blackbelt "holding his own" against a BJJ stylist?