What made you decide to stick with karate as a framework for your self defence rather than strike out and work on pure RBSD? I see where you're coming from with the whole street self defence angle, but doesn't this make the trappings of karate a little superfluous for your purposes?
The problem with Shotokan is that after the changes ( I do it myself ), lots of the real stuff was put to one side ( as you have said ) if you start looking at people like Sensie Patrick McCarthy http://www.society.webcentral.com.au/ and what he has found. Is that what people see in kata is not always what is there. Where I train (http://www.jinseikai.co.uk/), we do use your karate a little different to some ( that is in Shotokan at least ). I do understand what you are saying and agree with most of it but not everyone that does it the same way. Colin
There's probably a sentamental aspect that made me stick with Karate. But its not that karate itself wasn't fit for my purposes, just the modern sport and 'do' forms weren't relevant. By the early 90's I'd read enough to realise that there potentially was more to Karate than this - reading up on the history of Karate made this clear. Also my experiences working on the door had suggested that Karate techniques do have some value, just not necessarily at the range and in the manner as is taught in traditional Karate-do. The challenge was to find somewhere to learn Karate as it had once been taught on Okinawa. This has been a long, sometimes frustrating, ultimately impossible search but one which has been very rewarding anyway. All that said, in the time honoured traditional of genuine Okinawan Karate, I'm actually quite eclectic. I've learned much useful stuff from sources outside of Karate, not only from oriental arts but also even from the modern MMA approach. Any self-defence art needs some sort of framework. Practiced in an appropriate manner Karate certainly gives me that framework, so it suits my purposes just fine. Mike P.S. I'm not really trying to really press the point home, I realise we've already had this discussion, but the guy did ask so I replied.
Hi Colin I take your point. I realise that more and more people are growing away from (or at least including more than) the traditional Shotokan training methods. But then surely what they do ceases to be Shotokan? Or at least it may include traditional Shotokan but actually have a broader curriculum? Either way its not just Shotokan. I also notice that there are quite a few people who nowadays espouse a much more practical approach, or have adopted the supposedly older methods, but in reality actually seem to have come very little way at all along that path. So while I might make some sweeping generalisations I don't think they're entirely without justification. By the way, just for the sake of clarity, I'm referring to Shotokan here but we could equally well be talking about any of the traditional Japanese Karate systems. Its just that Shotokan is where this thread started in the first place. Mike
Mike, as a former karateka I would like to pick your brains on this, if I may. I think what you're saying makes sense, and obviously you speak from a great deal of experience. However, what I don't understand is this: if Shotokan is not designed for real self defence, and Gichin Funakoshi made a point of saying so, why do so many instructors market it as a self-defence art?
I agree that what we do is not Shotokan as some would see it but it is ( like you used as a frame work to learn how to use the body proply. It is also ture from what I have seen that does apply to most modern Karate ( starting from around 1920). From what you have said I think you would enjoy training with Sensie Paul Perry ( Head of Jin Sei Kai ), you might him very different from what you have seen before. The bigest problem, is that alot of people will not admit to this and will fool them selfs with what they know as it works in they dojo.
Good question. I suspect that, since its inception as a do rather than a jutsu art, many students have had a poor understanding of the purpose of their art. I don't doubt that this extends even to many of the early Japanese students of Karate. Eventually these students can end up as teachers themselves, so they can easily and completely unwittingly pass on their misconceptions to their own students. And so the cycle continues. From the very outset of karate-do, the first students were being taught an art by people who were renowned for their skills in physical combat. Unless it was repeatedly and clearly pointed out to this first crop of students they will have naturally assumed that they were learning the same effective combat art that their teachers did. It seems to me that this misconception has simply been passed down the generations. Only those with a) questioning minds and b) actual experience of violence would ever really be likely to question these assumptions. So in short, I think many instructors market what they as self-defence simply because a) it sells and b) they don't realise that it isn't really self-defence. Mike
Yeah, I see what you mean. I suppose a lot of people go through their lives with little or no experience of real violence (lucky for them), and as such they see no need to question what they've been taught.
Similarly I have come across karateka who consider what I do to be Ju-jitsu or Kung Fu or god knows what, but not Karate. Agreed, I have come across many people who do not really wish to look at what violence is really like and what kind of skills are really necessary to effectively deal with it. And, one could argue, why should they? Their sensei has given them a different view and why should they doubt the word of their sensei? Sensei's never wrong after all Mike
well i take a shotakan form and i have bruised everybodies arms when i a block . i use what i think is called a hammer fist block .
True, but a lot of people successfully apply Japanese karate in t3h 57r337 too, which is why its practitioners still consider it worth doing. The usual example being Mr Terry O'Neill (at which point I expect someone to say "ah, but he was a hard case despite doing shotokan karate, not because of it" - but that kinda argument is hardly worth dignifying and can apply to every succesful martial artist ever) http://www.fightauthority.com/martial-arts-profiles.php4?fighterID=14
That guy sounds cool! Too add a bit to that, I had a Go-Ju Ryu instructor a few years back, who had worked almost every door in the city in his time as a bouncer, and so he could give detailed descriptions of the traditional techniques that had worked for him so many times. Which were alot! So traditional karate can't be that bad.
Dont get me wrong, I am not saying ( And I dont think Mike Flanagan is as well, please put me right if not ) traditional karate is not bad but alot of what made it great has been missed or left behind. So the more you understand where it all comes from ( before the changes ), the more you see that lots of the bit that worked when it hits the fan have beed left out. In the old stlyes there was on fat or bits that did not have a reason to be there.
I see your point, and I have to confess, I didn't read the whole thread, so I don't have a complete idea of your arguments. Have you ever heard of these guys? Apparently they're trying to find (right word?) the older type karate. Even Gichin Funakoshi states in My Life in the Karate-do that the system practised at the time of writing is somewhat different than what he was taught, and that it would, and should continue to evolve. (Note: Serious paraphrasing there.) So if we don't know exactly how it was taught in the past, how can we be sure it hasn't evolved for the better? PS I know I'm completely out of place asking all this, but I can't resist a discussion on karate, and I'm curious to know hear from people knowledgable (sp?) in the art.
Yes I have heard and trained with Patrick McCarthy a few times ( a BIG eye opener as to kata ) After training with him and learning some of the older katas ( one of which I am doing for my grading ), you see alot more that makes senses than before. As I am sure with karateka, when kata bunki was seen before. Some of it did not seem to fit right ( or was it just me ) but a lot more seems to work now . You also have to remember that the old bunki was to be used against people that had done no training and some movements have changed ( as to how you might be attacked )
Yes, but Mike isn't saying that Shotokan has no self defence value whatsoever, he's saying that it's not Shotokan's main purpose, which makes it less effective in that arena than some other arts which still focus on fighting. So while it might work in some confrontations, if you fight a lot or against really good fighters its shortcomings will become apparent, whereas if you hardly end up in these situations at all you will never really know.
Yeah, I understand that Mike's view is that it's kinda like beating somone over the head with a spanner - it has some properties that make it useable as a weapon, but it's not really designed for the purpose (though it might be useful for other things). That's a reasonable critique of martial arts as a whole. Unless you're regularly attacked on the streets by nutters you're never 100% sure of what'll work reliably. I'm a little dubious that anything works particularly reliably in a self-defence situation, which is why versatility, thinking on your feet and a good set of running shoes are your best defence. I also understand the argument that JKSDan put forward, that people who only train in a dojo can't really be sure that what they're learning is street-effective. Again, that's a valid critique of all our martial arts training. I'm sure Mike has successfully applied his learning during door work, just as I'm sure Terry O'Neill successfully applied his and a variety of other martial artists have applied their's. There are perfectly logical arguments for and against shotokan karate just as there are against all the other martial arts and the one about "it might work in the dojo - but how do you know about the street...!!?!!?" is just as applicable to everything from Tai Chi to the chunkiest MMA fighter. So... I don't think that's a valid argument on whether or not shotokan blocks work.
I disagree. If you do a full contact style you will soon find out if what you do works. There is some degree of speculation over things like groundfighting, but when you're talking about something specific like blocking punches there's no reason it would work on teh street against anyone competent if it doesn't work in sparring. If it's too slow in the dojo it will be too slow when someone really goes to punch you. But they can know if what they do works if they spar hard and/or do full contact competition fighting. I once had an instructor who would have you believe you could actually break someone's arm with an outer block. Hmm...
Fair enough. You make a valid point but I don't necessarily agree with it. I don't think all that many martial arts do train in genuine full contact (no pads, no protection, no control) so the whole full contact argument doesn't carry too much water with me. I think fast-but-controlled is fine for finding out if your defences will allow an attack to break through. I'm quite happy to spar hard but with lighter contact to the face as I feel it gives you a degree of pressure testing which balances out the risk of injury with the unrealistic situation of wearing a fishbowl on your head like the guys in that daido ryu video.
