What do you think of this karate review?

The article seems pretty dumb to me as well.

If kata done right, you don't do it slowly. If I am to do Kata -and I'm not big at it- I have to do with speed, controlled and tension (is that the right word in this context?). I did Kata yesterday for twenty minutes or had sweated like a pig and was panting like after a race.

I never heard of a club here, that would talk bad about you, only because you have a family and the priorities have changed.
Quite the contrary actually: People understand that a baby is tons of work.


Essentially the whole article feels as if the author went to Karate after watching too much TV and then was disappointed, because reality isn't the same as the telly.



Also @ the TS: Why this obsession with belts?
Belts doesn't equal competence or knowledge.


EDIT.: Even though it sounds lame: It's not the art you should look for, but for a school of whatever art, that teaches in a way you're looking for and that's working for you.
And that's something the internet can't do for you.

 

A set of another ad-hominem attacks, look it up it's a fallacy. "This guy's stupid" and assumptions about his experience, read some of the comments, he gives his teacher's name, where he studied, etc. Give it more than just a passing glance.

Why don't they? if you really had to work hard and pass difficult tests for them? I agree they don't if you get one every two weeks/a month, that's not enough to really get good.

 

I read this article, which this thread is about, and think it's bad.
I explained why I think it's bad.
Any other article doesn't matter in that regard, because you started this thread about *this* article.
Why should I waste my time reading other stuff of his?
Especially since all you do, is start complaining, because apparently I don't write what you want to hear or whatever.
I won't know.

Besides: I didn't attack the author, I stated how the articles seems to be to .
You know?
What you asked to do, when you started this thread.

Because belts only show, what a person could dance one day.
It doesn't show actually skills.

Even I met blackbelts, who trained for more then ten years, until they achieved there's (so no McDojo; I even know the person who graded them) and I am already better then them - which isn't my opinion, but those of our(!) instructors.
That's why belts doesn't mean anything.

You want a belt - go to the store.
You want to learn MA - got to training.
That's what I was told more then once, when it came to belt chasers.

Anything more you want to whine about, that I have written?
Or actually start reading and thinking about what I have written, first?

 

Again: Why should waste my time with his other articles (they may be great, but why should I waste my time with them, after I really think the first is bad?), if this thread was about the linked article.
Same with the comments.
I read an article, for the articles sake, not its comments.


And it doesn't mean much if you train something for years. I know a dude who trains for ten years and still doesn't know anything.

Even if what he writes is true in his case (why not?) that's more of a problem of the club he attended for so long.
Hardly anything of his arguments is a problem of Karate itself.

So his clubs treated him bad, when he got a kid?
That's a bad move, but not a move of Karate.

I was bullied in school - does that make all schools bad?

Just as an example.


And, yes, I still say a belt doesn't mean much.
For example: What about people that compete and therefore don't bother with belts?
Especially if they're successful in competition they might be easily able to dominate their partners in training, despite having a lower belt.

Or your school example: I'm sure you can still count and the such.
But that's very basic; let's say like yellow belt.

Black belt could be like... I'm not too firm with the US school system (or actually any other school system then the one here)... let's say a college degree.
Now you (not you as you personally, you as some person) made your degree in higher mathematics; and from there start teaching others, set other foci on your mathematic interests.
Or maybe even switch from mathematics to chemistry.

At some point you might still know the basics, but due to other interests your not doing much... algebra anymore, but more geometry.
And suddenly your supposed to be firm at algebra, which you haven't done in ages.

Now, you stand there with your degree, but have no clue about the algebra part.

Now switch the college degree to black belt, algebra to striking and Geometry to grappling.
For example.

Seriously, I have met to many BBs, who think they are very good and actually aren't to take them serious only for their belt.
One of my favorites has an "injury" every seminar he comes to, because he has to take photos for the association.
The only time you see him on the mat is during the "Hello"-part.
Then he takes some photos and leaves.
And people just know, why he does that.

 

this looks familiar, i think i may have been reading anotehr karate is usefless review by the same person.

1: granted i dont do Karate, but from how my TKD would do sparing there is light then there is heavy. Not too sure if its jsut point sparing or if they woudl stop after a combo or not. (thats absically everything, boxing may very well start you off light contious if you have never been hit before or new to it)

2: The cult depends on the place of training but Karate can be for life like a lot of peopel take martial arts have it for life without a club. If you surpass a level you can still practice form and sparing and exercise without a club. Granted you may need somone comptetent in it to help you.

3: Depends on club

4: I belive i have seen some videos of people using karate at least decently for defence and i think some modern combination ones have some aspects of Karate in it. They also layed out a very specfic unlikely scenario.

5: its Karate its renown for being dogmatic and narcisistic. XD


So there is the response by somone who doesnt do Karate, only has about 5 lessons of TKD unde rthie rbelt and on and off goes to it.

Note for the fights, i dont really know what karate looks like i thought they just fight like kick boxers kind of like TKD, they just use sweeps and joint locks ontop of knees and perhaps elbows as well.


Edit: Also for Latikos above. I have very few lessons of TKD under mybelt and it taught me at least the basics of the stance, front kicking and to a lesser degree side kicking and the principles of punching. To varying skill and effciency however and my only opponent half the time now is a heavy bag but i degress.


Another edit: controversion articlee for views is just that.

 

@Rataca: That's indirect part of my point.

In competitions, depending in the style, they might stop after each punch or whatever.

But that's competition (besides: Even those probably know better how to defend themselves, compared to lots of other people); that doesn't mean, that certain clubs don't do sparring outside of the ruleset.

In "my" style, we have everything in sparring: We have fist and feet, infight (so far we don't use that too much though, but train it anyway), throws and groundwork.
Not as much groundwork, as I like admittedly, but enough to learn the basics at the very least.

The problem is more to find people, enjoying sparring enough, that it gets somewhere (we have some older and/ or sick people).
So at times class gets divided: Who wants to do Kata, does Kata; who wants to fight, fights.


Which makes another point, outside from a certain style: Different schools have different priorities, no matter the art or the style.
Some train for Kata-tournaments are really good at that.
I'm not the biggest Kata-fan, but when I do them I certainly am groggy afterwards - so Kata can be very good for condition; if trained properly.

Other schools focus in Kihon and Kata; others again on fighting.
It's not a art-problem, it's a school-focus.

What good would it do person a, who loves doing Kata, going to a school, which focuses on sparring.
Or vice versa.
Schools have to "entertain" their students for a good part and if different classes have a different priority, than that's that.
But these classes mostly have the respective audience.
Same school, can have different classes with different priorities as well.

And that's just "Karate"; not a certain style.

Now, take into consideration all the different Karate-variations.
And then take the different arts outside.

The same art can be thought utterly different from one school to another.

So, starting of with a single article, where a person mostly writes about a single club, is not a good start to learn something about a certain art.
It only might(!) help to learn about that certain club.
And not even that's for sure!

 

Having read the article (and the other two noted at the bottom) all I can say is the guy was evidently trained in a very old fashoned, and rigid (some would say 'old school') Shotokan dojo.

My personal experience of karate is at odds with just about everything he tries to point out in his article.

 

Re his post on TKD, I like it when BJJ guys make fun of his many patches other folks have on their doboks/gis. Something something pot, something something kettle.