Is this really Karate?

I disagree. A technique doesn't turn into a different technique if you drill it differently; what the drills change is your ability to apply the technique. If it looks like Karate, moves like Karate and hits like Karate, it's Karate - no matter how he drilled it. Though obviously, certain ways of drilling are more effective than others.

Hmm, how about because he has trained in Shotokan since the age of 3 or so?

 

He may or may not be a Karate-ka in mma, but irrespective of this he is certainly using Karate techniques as far as I can see.

 

It doesn't really matter who started the thread. What matters is whether we should be preoccupied with naming styles rather than discussing good martial arts technique.

Sure their styles are often listed, but again, it would be quite difficult to actually tell what styles modern MMA practitioners have studied by simply watching videos of them. They train effectively and realistically first, and as practitioners of a certain style second. In the early days of MMA, the whole idea was, more or less, to have practitioners of different styles square off against one another in "style vs style" battles. The relative homogeneity we see in modern MMA is a result of precisely the phenomenon I'm talking about: style doesn't matter. It's how you train, not what you train.

Nobody is going to argue that different styles don't take different approaches to training. All I'm saying is that we should be more concerned with the methodology behind the training than with the name of the training itself.

Again, no argument here. There are certainly many ways to achieve success, which is evinced by the variety of approaches we see in MMA competition. There are also many ways of learning these different approaches. It's just more useful to actually talk about how to learn them than it is to sit in our armchairs and classify whether or not they belong in art X.

This really comes down to the question of why we practice martial arts. If it's to be effective fighters, then there is arguably one best way to do that; even if it hasn't been discovered yet, it is theoretically possible. If we train in martial arts for historical/philosophical/personal interest reasons, then the discussion becomes different entirely.

 

The style name is the label to define that methodology in this respect. These are not individual techniques we are talking about here - it's about ingraining things like movement - not a quick thing to do.

I agree, in fact its better to train them than it is talk about them.

You are not wrong here it does come down to why we practice ma. My reasons may be different to yours but it makes me no less the martial artist, and as others have eluded to in this thread Karate is more than training for MMA style comps.

Gary

 

And the obligatory "Machida doing kata and enbu" clip:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmC9TajeY9E"]YouTube - Familia Machida(Lyoto/Chinzo/Take) fazendo kata com sensei MACHIDA[/ame]

 

I couldn't disagree more with this underlying assumption of your argument, and this is one reason why we're reaching such different conclusions.

Let's take a stereotypical boxing gym and a stereotypical Muay Thai gym. Essentially the exact same training methodologies are used in each gym. Does this mean the two instructors are teaching the same martial art? Not in the least, I say. But the only differences between the two are theory and technique, not training methodology.

I would also disagree that MMA has taught us that mechanics don't manner, only training does. I think both factor into the result, as does the person's natural ability and attributes. Cro Cop fights fundamentally differently than, say, Royce Gracie. Not because there's a fundamental difference in their training methodoogies, but because there's a fundamental difference in the mechanics and techniques of their core arts. Similarly, Machida's stand-up style is remarkably different from most other people out there--the commentator during Evans v. Machida wouldn't stop talking about it. His guard is unusual; the distance he keeps from his opponent is unusual, his round kicks are unusual, his sweeps are unusual. All of this stuff was giving Rashad Evans real heartburn...and all this stuff is related to technique, not training methodology. (And all these techniques and strategy which the commentator felt were unusual were, in my belief, straight-up Shotokan strategy and technique).

There's a whole lot more to MMA than style, of course--a fighter's individual ability, strategy, and the intensity of their training are absolutely huge. But the techniques and strategies of each fighter's core art help make them the sort of fighter that they are, which then colors what happens in the matches. So the style of martial art does matter. Not because "X style beats Y style" in a rock-paper-scissors manner, but because it helps make the fighter who they are, because it helps form their strategy and helps comprise their skill-set.

 

But when the thread's title is "is this really karate?" not "is this good martial technique?", I think responses like mine are entirely appropriate. They're answering the question the original poster asked, even if they don't answer the question the original poster should have asked or whatever.

Can't disagree more. From watching them, it seems pretty obvious to me that Lesnar is a wrestler at heart and Cro Cop is a kickboxer at heart and Machida is a karateka at heart. The differences in their technique and their strategy are very pronounced to me...and technique and strategy both factor into who wins each match, right?

 

Fair enough. I mean, whether you want to call it karate or not is more or less irrelevant- what I would argue though is that if you think you can walk into an MMA tournament after only doing karate and win, you're sadly mistaken. And I'm not slating karate by saying that either. The same goes for boxing or TKD.

 

[edit] This thread is why I love MAP. A thread that had all the potential in the world to be a "lolz yer style suxx" thread has become an intellectually-stimulating discussion about what it really means to practice a "style" of martial art. [/edit]

If you mean "you" as in me, specifically, I never said that, and I don't think that. I definitely couldn't. But that's a very, very different question from the question of whether Lyoto Machida's core art is karate.

If you mean that no karateka will become a serious, successful, professional MMArtist without crosstraining...I agree there too. But when's the last time there was a successful professional mixed martial artist from any core style who didn't cross-train?

If you mean that it would me impossible for a dedicated karateka who has physically intense karate training (including free-sparring, work with focus mitts, etc, which some karateka do and some don't), and good natural ability, to enter an amateur MMA event and win, then I disagree. There's no guarantees (are there ever guarantees in competition?) but it certainly could happen, just like a boxer could do that. It wouldn't be me, because I lack a natural ability at fighting, because I don't train enough to win any sort of tournament (family and work commitments), and because my current dojo doesn't have enough kumite as part of the regular training to make me a champion...but just because I couldn't do it doesn't mean that nobody coming from a strictly Shotokan or Kyokushin or Enshin or Goju background could.

 

I think people is missing the fact of the term MIXED martial arts. I seen that his strikes are naturally mixed with karate and boxing. the ground work is jiu jutsu I could say brazillian but why the gracies got it from japan and i don't see the different of the two when i train in both over the years. but the guys a pro fighter getting paid for money and have to adapt to all situation. His not a world champion tournament champion in forms,weapons,etc. he's a mixed martial artist A*K*A a concept fighter. stop picking and let the guy train hard and respect what he do just as everyone should respect what others do.

 

Just for the record, he's never trained in boxing. His martial arts experience:

1978: born.
1981-present: Shotokan karate under Yoshizo Machida, 8th Dan in JKA Shotokan karate.
1990: starts training in sumo.
1993: starts training in BJJ.
"College years" (presumably 1996-2000, based upon his age): dabbles in Muay Thai in Thailand and wrestling in Japan.
2000: runner-up in Brazilian sumo championships.
2001: wins Pan American Karate tournament.
2003: Machida's first MMA competition (Inoki's New Japan Pro Wrestling: Ultimate Crush).
2007: Machida's UFC debut.
May 23, 2009: UFC light-heavyweight champion.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyoto_Machida

So his striking game is based upon 28 years of karate, a couple years of traditional Muay Thai, and around six years of MMA-specific training.

 

yeah and you're asking if it karate or not. look i don't know the guy or his stats just my stats and my skills. I'm only going by what i can see and muay thai is still boxing. in other words his a mixed martial artist. MIXED meaning he merge all of the styles into one meaning his training to win a belt and some money not a gold metal so again what does it matter as long as he's happy then i'm happy for him.

and his a light heavyweight...hmmmm... thats my weightclass:woo::jawdrop::evil: class.......cool:woo::kick::kick:

 

must train harder to beat the champion....ha ha ha ha haaaaa!!!!!! ok i'm finish on going for a jog now.

 

wow dude....you study him a little to hard there.....So do you have a match against the guy or something? i agree with snoog it doesn't matter bout what he did its whats he doing now and it looks to me he hard some good footwork as for being specific you can have it. as long as he's strong enough for the championship belt that means those of us that actually training in his field has to train harder. but stats don't make the person its just a blueprint of what he did. but thats for the info

 

Saying he took a couple of years of MT is actually an overstatement. I think he said in an interview he took a couple of MONTHS of MT in Thailand and that was the limit of his MT training.

 

It seems to me that the debate in this thread centers around just what it means to say "I practice art X". I think we can all agree that the videos posted by the OP do not resemble what most people think of when they hear the word "karate". That usually conjures up images of a dojo full of people wearing white gis practicing solo forms or partner drills/point sparring. Nothing wrong with that, it's just the commonly held belief.

Now, what we have in this thread is an example of what happens when someone goes and breaks stereotypes. This doesn't resemble the common perception of karate at all, hence the title of the thread. I'm not saying that methodology is what makes a style (as in Mitlov's MT vs boxing example), nor am I saying that it's not useful to use style names as convenient bookmarks for technique. All I'm saying is that when people ask questions of this type, they often go like this:

"I am a karateka. I see these videos of this guy training, and I want to train like that too. I'm just worried that it isn't karate, because if it isn't I guess I'll have to find some other way to train."

I know from experience that this is a common perception. In my days of TMA training, I would often overhear students saying, "here is an interesting escape to deal with attack X. Unfortunately it's not part of our art, so we shouldn't practice it here in the dojo." That is the kind of useless classification and nitpicking that causes an art to stagnate. Yes, I go to my BJJ class fully expecting to learn ground work, and I go to my boxing class to learn striking. The names of these arts tell me roughly what I can expect to learn. Still, more important than analyzing what to call someone's training is analyzing why it works for him/her, and how we can incorporate that into our own practice.

 

Why does the commonly-held perception even matter? Why is that a factor for what it means to say "I practice art X"? This is the commonly-held perception of MMA:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/7/15/

The commonly-held perception of a mixed martial artist is Kimbo Slice, or maaaaaybe Brock Lesnar (in terms of both fight strategy and overall personality). There's no room in the commonly-held perception of MMA for Georges St. Pierre (in terms of precision, tactics, or personality). Does that mean that he doesn't really do MMA?

If commonly-held perceptions of MMA don't define what MMA really is, why would commonly-held perceptions of karate (normally based on McDojos and /or Walker Texas Ranger) define what karate really is?

I'm sorry that's been your experience with karate and karateka. But I'm seeing the exact opposite in this thread. I'm seeing a bunch of MMA guys saying "that's not karate! That can't possibly be karate!" And a bunch of karate guys responding "actually, that IS karate. It may or may not be how I train, or what my karate looks like, but that is indeed karate."

 

From personal experience, a few months of MT really brought my Karate/TKD/KF background into perspective, and how I from that time on applied techniques. The way they train, the thoughts behind the techniques etc, and sure maybe some of that was picked up by Lyoto, but his techniques, at least his kicks are so not muay thai, even his leg kicks are no muay thai, his mid and high kicks are not muay thai. His stance is not, and his guard is not, his game in general is not MT.

His punching in my opinion, while effective for him, quick and brilliant would be very very sub MT as I havent seen him go into an exchange and really unload or even jab and set up, or even try and counter in a way I see lots of MT guys do it

There is just so much astoundingly Karate stuff in his style that yeah the only thing he may have got from MT is an understanding of how the guys he was going to fight will hit him and maybe the knee thing, which has been argued isnt only in MT. He doesnt even really block, or counter or evade in a MT way, he just trains his karate in a MMA rule set from what i can see

 

Kicking is my bread and butter so that's the bit I'll comment on. Looks like some Karate, some Muay Thai, and even some TKD.

But christ is it sloppy! Respect to him for fighting in full contact, but I've seen a lot of amateurs kick better than that. Technique-wise, I mean. It looks to me like he's still trying to learn them.