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.
For whatever it's worth, Renegade, I read your post as being in support of RNE02. Even if (s)he didn't.
It's lack of representation in MMA is almost exclusively due to inefficient and poor training methods for that arena - kata being foremost That is not to decry it as a method for other training (although my personal feelings on it are well known) just that it is exceptionally ill-suited for a combative environment such as MMA
My pet theory is that back in the day the headshots were set up with the heavy lead hand shot ("cutter" blow) and it was thrown seldomly. This was due to knuckles smashing easily on bone and the shot needing to be picked more critically than the headhunting that now occurs A fight would go until someone could not continue. tehre was no 10 count or anything along those lines and if you broke a hand early on with lots of headshots you would have problems When gloves came in it took a while to modify the stance to refelct the new ability to punch with lower risk of damage
combative environment or sport environment? or both? IMO it's the inconstancy of training methods between clubs that hold it back (or club focus) but this could also be said for KungFu etc.
Both if you want my honest and personal opinion, but certainly within the context of a full contact "sport" competition.
For me, it's more about ridiculous, elitist, self righteous attitudes that "the TMA way is the best way" and anything outside of that is generally looked down on. I think if more krotty nuts actually put their money where their mouth was then it would be probably do better in an MMA environment. Or, you know, everyone would switch to Muay Thai. Which I'm down with either way.
Performing kata and training the principles behind it are very different things but in general I agree. The only trouble is that as has been suggested, training methods are actually quite inconsistent, ie different folks are doing different things and always have done. I've never done anything in kickboxing, boxing or muay Thai classes that I had not first experienced in a karate class. Also if you train with sport karate clubs you'll find a distinct lack of kata and high incidence of sparring sessions and two man fighting drills supported by focus pad drills etc. T You won't find much no holds barred stuff or defences against holds because they have different rules. As a result don't expect them to win in MMA. Where you will find people grappling is the self defense schools, but they are often not big on sparring. They will likely do more scenario training and defense against more habitual, thuggish attacks and knife awareness work (as I was trained). They fight well but are no match for a MMA trained athlete. Then there are the budo karateka... The training is not the style. It is how the style becomes individualized to our goals; how it becomes an art.
Nothing at all? It's not that I don't believe you, I'm not in a position to judge. I just find it dubious. I would have thought there are mechanics that are completely different and not experienced in a Karate class. I could see you have your versions of anything found in a boxing, kickboxing or a Thai style, but have you honestly never experienced anything new in these styles?
In terms of stylistic differences, yes of course I've experienced New and different methods. I had meant in terms of training exercises. There have been small differences in emphasis, but nothing more than I'd expect in any different ma school. Apologies for not being clearer.
MMA is hardly no holds barred, have you seen the list of barred techniques and target areas of the body?
The low guards come from a time in boxing when they also had to defend takedowns as boxing at the time contained grappling and throws.
In some ways yes, but in other ways it is the worst thing. There is now the mistaken belief that if it does not work in the ring then it does not work "for real". This mistake is made by people who confuse sports/points fighting with Self Defence. Conversely, just because it works in the ring, doesn't mean it works "for real". Triangle choke someone in the cage and you win, triangle choke someone outside the chip shop on a Friday night and his mates will use your head as a football.
Or maybe you choke him out while your mates fight his mates. Or maybe you apply some common sense and instead of using your sport grappling ability to triangle someone you positionally dominate them from the get-go, poke them in the eye and then get up and run.
I think you're misunderstanding the value of MMA. Sure, there are fans who suggest that if it doesn't apply to the ring, it's worthless. But ask yourself this: What training method are YOU employing that gives you BETTER real-time feedback on your technique than MMA would? It's not all-permissive, but it permits more than any other format does. If it works in the ring, it may or may not work in real life. But you've at least got some credible cause to believe you could use it on a fully resisting opponent. The things that aren't allowed in MMA competition generally don't carry that level of assurance. They're more theoretical.
This is nowhere near as common or as erronoeus as those who confuse studying a martial art as being teh same as studying self defense "sport" fighter - specifically full contact stylists - will win in a confrontation because their training methodlogy is train under pressure to perform under pressure. This is far better prep for "reality" than having a list of deadly eye pokes that you never get a chance to apply against an unwilling opponent
What I find funny is that MMA gets decried as being only a "sport" by TMA folk and yet pretty much every single sparring or competition format devised to test TMA's, bar some of the stick fighting nutters like the Dog Brothers, are more restrictive, less realistic (less realistic...no contest is ever real), have less contact, don't include any vertical structures, have less legal targets, try to artificially divide striking from grappling (and vice versa), reward aesthetically pleasing technique over effective technique or any number of other concessions to a style agenda. Physician...heal thyself.
