Actually I was agreeing that the basic technique of karate has combative purpose and suggesting that it could be a mistake to dismiss the elements of form because they don't look like the common standard of effective technique. A further example would be morote uke, less about keeping a guard up and more about engaging both hands to successfully control, unbalance or strike the opponent. Nothing in the context of the movement within the kata remotely suggest a guard posture. Equally if instead of reinforced block I called it a crash/crush technique for moving forward into an attacker to enable clinch and control methods, would it become a mire effective realistic technique? All that would need to change between the two descriptions is the attack being presented and the timing. Ultimately what makes effective technique is foundation on which you lay them. In my view Karate's (especially Shotokan as I know less about other branches) limited presence in MMA has been due to the lack of solid advanced combat knowledge. Karateka were supposed to gain knowledge of how to fight from study and training of kata application. Virtually none of the ryu did this after WW2. Shotokan filled the knowledge gap with ever more layers of detail in the solo routines, making their perfect performance an unattainable end that in theory would bring enlightenment to those who pulled it off. Add sport kumite and you have enough martial to maintain the illusion without ever needing to really advance your students. Add a few prodigious masters whose study of the fundamentals, speed distance and timing meant they really could punch a hole in most people and you have all the idols you need to keep the faith strong. MMA was the best thing to have happened to TMA, a total wakeup call. But there were effective fighters before MMA. Learning what works is not just about copying the guys in the ring.