I think that's just been said loads of times by Mike Flanagan, that's not the same as a consensus. Yes, Terry O'Neill's a good example as are any of the more modern fighters like Matthew Price of Leeds. I'm not sure what you would consider proof of being a good fighter (since you're intelligent enough not be waiting for a UFC reference here). Have people used shotokan karate to defend themselves? Anecdotally, yes. Was I there to videotape it? No.
If they did use shotokan to defend themselves, I would guess that they didn't use the basic kihon blocks or stances. EDIT: I would also guess that the useful habits they did learn came from live drills where they used completely different techniques.
There seems to be two slightly related threads going on here. 1. Do people use the basic shotokan blocks in fighting/free sparring? 2. Does shotokan produce poorer fighters than other karate? I think I've answered as 1. No they don't. They use blocks that use the same muscle groups which have been worked by using the basic blocks, but use them in a truncated way in order to make them effective. Other people have also pointed out that there may be other applications for the basic movements. 2. Not to my knowledge. The shotokan school has a good record in competitive karate and has been used by various people in self-defence.
I guess this comes down to what you accept as a shotokan technique. I only consider the basic kihon techniques to be actual shotokan because the "shotokan" used in sparring is so completely alien. When I see shotokan karateka sparring I don't see adaptation of existing techniques, I see reversion to instinct. If shotokan is, as you say, designed for real fighting, why can't karateka just learn the "truncated" versions of the blocks in the first place? They're not more difficult, they're not more complicated, in fact they're quite the opposite, so why make effective blocking take longer unnecessarily when effective self defence is really the main concern? OK, so you want to learn to use the muscle groups, but why can't you do that by practicing the actual blocks you will use? EDIT: I know you don't like the UFC being used as backup, but if we're going to go on purely anecdotal evidence, this debate is open and shut. All you have to say is "well my mate used it so it must work" and that's it.
There's certainly a logic to that argument. But I believe I can find the flaws in it. For a start, Funakoshi may not have stated explicity in writing what he had cut out, but there are some strong hints. For example, in 1925 he advocated the banning of vital points (Rentan Goshin Karate Jitsu, 2001 translation - yes I know I've quoted this already). Clearly then, vital points were an important part of the older tradition. But they're not an important part of modern Shotokan - either they are not used at all or in a very limited and unsophisticated way. So there's just one aspect of Karate that he appears to have changed. But I think the trump card here is that I've actually seen glimpses of what some of the older, authentic Okinawan traditions are like. Although teachers of such traditions are rare, even on Okinawa, they do exist. And from what little I've seen I can certainly say its quite different from Shotokan and embrances a rather broader syllabus of techniques. Mike
OK, I'm with you on point 1. A lot of the study of meridians and vital points (all the H7, TW14 etc etc) that I believe are referred to in texts like the bubishi are pretty much ignored in shotokan karate. Whether this is just streamlining or a real loss to the art I'm not sure. If you tell me they're effective and applicable I'm happy to believe you, but these things aren't studied in the vast majority of modern karate or martial arts as a whole and seem to be treated pretty much as an art in themselves. So although I do agree with you, I'm not sure this differentiates shotokan from wado ryu, ****o ryu, kyokushinkai, boxing or RBSD street self-defence (for example). I think this is perhaps a symptom of the fact that martial arts have gradually become more narrow in their specialisations over the last century. Iain Abernethy writes about this in his book "Throws for Strikers" - the fact that boxers originally trained in wrestling throws and Judo was adapted from an art containing strikes. Even Wado Ryu, which is theoretically karate+jiu jutsu, seems to be abandoning the jiu jutsu aspect which was quite prominent even 15 years ago when I tried it out. As for point 2 - I dunno! I'll take your word on this one! But again, I think this differentiates modern martial arts from a small sect of okinawan purists rather than shotokan from the rest of karate or the rest of modern MA.
Ah yes, I see where you're coming from. I've seen these sort of ideas expounded before. And you've reminded me that this is something I need to play with some more, so I'm certainly not going to pretend to have all the answers. I would prefer to look at the dynamics of moving bodies rather than the mechanics of static bodies, but I agree that at least static bodies is a place to start. All that said, I will conjecture a little. Lets say that you find a way of testing a posture where the hikite position really does seem to make the posture stronger. I would suggest that this is not due to the arm itself but to how the position of the arm affects the tensing of the musculature in the torso and also the degree of tension in various connective tissues in the torso. The arm position simply makes it easy to get the correct tensioning. If one can learn to express this feeling intuitively then it wouldn't be necessary to hold the arm in the hikite position. So a method of learning to achieve this might be as follows: 1. Practice the hikite in kihon and kata 2. Practice with a partner (ie. static stance testing, not formal kumite) so you can understand the value of hikite in this context 3. Once you have achieved success at Step 2, practice in the same way with a partner, but seeking to get the benefit of hikite without having to do the hikite itself What I still don't see is how practising formal kumite's (ippon, sanbon, etc.) with a partner will help this process. It seems to me to be less efficient than the above method and has the significant disadvantage that it is training in habits that are clearly tactically unsound, ie. drawing the hand away from the guard position. Fair point, but trying to do something that feels unnatural (due to insufficient training) seems better than trying to do something that is tactically unsound (and inevitably still feels unnatural). But that's not how I teach anyway. With complete beginners I teach them a small range of robust techniques (eg. palm-heels (definitely not punches), knees, elbows). But I don't stress that in a particular scenario they must stand with one particular leg forward or anything like that. In an effort to make it as natural as possible for them I ask that they hit with, say, a palm-heel/knee/elbow combination, but I don't seek to correct them if it is clearly more comfortable for them to vary from the script slightly by changing the order or which side of the body the attack comes from. Its better that they do something quickly rather than exactly what I want but excruciatingly slowly. Correct form and technique will come with time. That's my approach anyway. I have every respect for (and can see the value in) other approaches, but I want to give new students something they can use asap. I have no argument with that at all. But then what they're doing isn't Shotokan anymore - at least not in Patrick McCarthy's case anyway. I've trained with him several times and I'd certainly say that what he does is not what is normally considered to be modern karate-do. I suspect he is no more a fan of basic karate-do kumite drills than I am. Hence his emphasis on tegumi. Mike
I understand the way you see this and if I did not train under Paul Perry, I mgiht well be thinking the same as you but training with him and my sensie. I am sure you would see it differently ( which may not be the same as you have seen before ). In practising formal kumite we get the muscel system to work as you have put but it takes time to get it all working to gether so its a starting point for us . From what you have said , you might see us as not doing shotokan but for us it is the frame work we use for training, when my sensie give me a tap when he is demonstrating and you feel like he is holding a club hammer ( he is 63, 5 foot 4 and 10 and 1/2 stone, so he is not a big man but I would not say it to his face ) , this is from 6 inchs way and it gets better if we get the pads out. For me it is hard to put in to words what I am taught, with out you seeing it but hopefully on the next MAP open, we can talk some more but it if we both can be there
Moosey, I'm not trying to annoyingly pursue you with some rhetorical question just to prove my point, I am genuinely interested in your opinion. If shotokan really is designed primarily for fighting, rather than it being merely a by-product like JSKDan and Bassai suggest, then why don't you just use the "effective" versions of the blocks in the first place? I don't buy into the "but they use the same muscles" argument because that doesn't show why you have to practice using the impractical blocks rather than the practical ones. Don't you think this is a bit of an inefficient method of learning to block for an art that's really focussed on fighting? EDIT: to clarify what I mean I'll give you an analogy. I had a mate once who wanted to improve his bench press by doing press-ups, the argument being that press-ups work a lot of the same muscles. OK, this could help, but surely the most efficient way of improving his bench press would be to practice the actual bench press rather than some related exercise?
Timmy Boy Shotokan is a fighting art but not just focussed on fighting un like some MA it is also about self delevlopment through the hole thing, from what I have seen , there has been a lot of misunderstanding from some karateka over the years that has partly lead to this type of thing. My IMO
Well yeah, that's what I think. You and Bassai said this already and I agree; if fighting was still shotokan's primary emphasis it would use a more efficient way of teaching people to block. To me the method currently used is so obviously inefficient that either A) we don't understand what the "blocking" techniques are really for, B) shotokan isn't designed for fighting but some other equally viable pursuit, or C) some combination thereof. I think that any fighting skills learned in arts such as shotokan are by-products of a practice intended to achieve some other objective.
I think I see part of where we're disagreeing here. You've picked up on my argument as being "Every bit of shotokan karate is about fighting". I'm not saying this - I think JKA style shotokan does incorporate a physical workout into it's basic training at the expense of training in fighting techniques. In fact, I think that a lot of what you do as a beginner in shotokan is physical callisthenics and has very little fighting applicability per se. This is why going through the JKA shotokan syllabus from the start is deadly boring for anyone who's come from a different martial art as they probably have the physical attributes in place already and are ready for learning the useful stuff. Even the pair work you practice as a beginner is an exercise in distancing and targetting and movement and learning to throw a proper punch rather than an exercise in "fighting". However, I think a lot of other karate styles do this too - the repetition of basic motions, the exaggerated blocks etc etc - but since they lack the physically demanding stances and motions of shotokan, their callisthenics are actually less effective. In the end, what you get out of a shotokan black belt is a decent fighter - the time leading up to that is a means to an end.
But the workout itself is hardly the most efficient one you can do, is it? Lessons are for learning to fight first and foremost, strength can be concentrated on outside the lesson by using weights or bodyweight conditioning, which is far more effective. What you're doing is unnecessarily compromising both. Yes, I know that not everyone wants to go down the gym, or even to do harsh bodyweight conditioning such as what Ross Enamait advocates, but are you serious about becoming a good fighter or not? But why can't you learn proper distancing, targetting and movement using the actual techniques you will use? The same is true of other karate styles, I agree, hence I feel able to offer an experience-based opinion on this. The TSD and wado ryu that I did suffered from the same problems. However, I don't think the fitness gained from training in the shotokan way as opposed to just training hard anyway is significant so I wouldn't think there's a vast gap in fitness. I'm not saying you can't improve your fighting ability by doing shotokan, but this is nowhere near an efficient way of learning to fight. There's no need for it to take so long just to learn something remotely practical if it really is about learning to fight.
I still can't help but feel that this a) isn't the most efficient way of the learning this particular lesson b) teaches bad tactical habits That would certainly be interesting. I'll be teaching at the MAP event in July, if you're there I'll be very happy to discuss it in more detail - I'm sure it will be easier to do so in person. Mike
I would say that a large percentage of people that take karate in the United States are in it primarily because of trying to get a good workout. Even if they want to learn to defend themselves better, it is the physical workout (e.g. staying in shape) that keeps them coming back to class each time. In addition, it is a social atmosphere. A place to interact with friends and meet new people.
Hi Mike I would have loved to have gone to the MAP event but it is on the same day as my last days training before my grading one the sunday (3rd dan ) so I cant make this one but hopefully I can make the next one
Yeah I'd love to know the answer to this great mystery as to what the Shotokan developers were thinking. As I said before I don't think anyone is that stupid to teach inefficient blocking movements like today's Shotokan. I need to check up on Patrick McCarthy's stuff again as I've only trained with him once, but I was also thinking the answers may be found in the CMAs that influenced Okinawan-te. I've heard Fukien White Crane is a prime suspect. And something about the 5 ancestors or something.
Actually I used to think that the over exaggerated movement of the blocks was designed to train muscle memory. In that you know how technique seems to go out the window once the poo poo hits the fan? But by over doing the movements under pressure you lazyly execute them properly. In other words your sloppy execution of the exagerated techique turn out to be the efficient truncated version, instead of a crappy half block. If you guys get what I mean. But I dropped that idea when I started getting deeper into kata and thought that there's gotta be something else going on here.
There may be no need as you see it but when I train with a small 63 year old that can hit and kick the way he can, then I will do as he has done to get what he has and it is not just monkey see monkey do. All of the movements are broken down so you can get to do it the same way or as close as your body will let you to but you cant see that no hear and as far as you see it ( understndable from what you have seen ) it cant be any good. You might not belive me but Paul Perry or Barry Shearer ( my sensie ) would chance that veiw some what but as I have said before seeing is beliveing
Fitness, health, and safety are probably more of a priority than fighting. Martial arts were outlawed in Japan after WWII, many karate schools only survied because they opened their doors to the public as ways to stay in shape (although they still taught fighting methodologies, they just didn't advertise it). Gah. After a dozen or so pages of replies to the original post, how can it be that we don't understand? 1. First physical line of defense is to use something that is NOT timing based (or rather something that does not depend as much on timing to work). This means, parries (e.g. something like slap blocks), getting off the line of attack (e.g. using angles, footwork, body shifting, distance), protecting vitals (e.g. covering with a shield or fence), some forms of clinching and grappling (the entries or beginning parts), counter grabs (grabbing/trapping the part of the body that is grabbing you). 2. Secondary physical line of defense is to use something that is dependent on timing (or rather something that can be an attack as well as a defense). This means striking (e.g. limb destructions, attacking the limbs), counters and escapes to grabs, clinching and grappling (actually using clinching and grappling to control opponent), trapping. 3. Third physical line of defense is to use something that disregards defense... e.g. committed attack. Hit them before they get you or get them even if they get you too. Constant attack to overwhelm opponent, charging, rapid punching, etc. Karate/shotokan basic blocks don't all fall into the first line of physical defense. Really only the rising block, inward, and downward smother blocks can fall into this category. Outward block, downward circular block, etc. all fall into the second line of defense. In order to use a second line of physical defense, you first should parry block, get off the line of attack, or something from the first line of physical defense. You can use a second line of physical defense without the first line IF YOU TIME IT RIGHT. This is very difficult to do UNLESS YOU ALREADY KNOW WHAT IS COMING. It's just a starting point for some. Those that need to fight will migrate to something that has more full contact training, either with or without pads. There is a long history to follow and it is different for different schools and instructors. Who knows?
