TRADITIONAL KARATE -vs- FULL CONTACT KARATE

Discussion in 'Karate' started by mani, Jun 18, 2003.

?

WHAT IS MORE EFFECTIVE

  1. TRADITIONAL KARATE

    76 vote(s)
    48.4%
  2. FULL CONTACT KARATE

    81 vote(s)
    51.6%
  1. tai-gip

    tai-gip New Member

    Ahhh remus what do you mean not created with an enemy in mind...... maybe tai-chi sure but karate is designed to break what they attack you with then knock-out/kill the attacker that would suggest logicaly that its got an enemy in mind as opposed to the soft gentle flowing motions of tai-chi (at least until you learn what you could do with it lol)
     
  2. remus

    remus New Member

    tai-gip, i never said karate was created with no enemy in mind else it would be just another form of exercise. I said it was not created with any particular enemy in mind(Japanese,Korean,English,American....). I said that in response to your post earlier saying that karate was created because the Japanese were physically larger. In the first place even if the Japanese were larger Karate would still be no match to them since during that time the only Japanese the Okinawans have to fear are the Samurais and no amount of Karate mastery will enable one to successfully fight against a Katana weilding Samurai. No amount of body conditioning will enable one's body to withstand the blade of a Samurai.
     
  3. Goju

    Goju Yellow Belt

    I don't think thats entirely true,, It is true that plain skin won't withstand a blow from a kitana, but not all samurai were great swordmen like musashi was. At that time,, in general,, the okinawan people did know karate and kobudo. I know that karate was practised more by upper class families, but workers and peasants learned ti and tode from chinese merchants in okinawa, and then they would pass it down, creating different styles and whatnot. The people of okinawa were mainly proficient in the use of weapons and could defend against them too. Not all samurai were feared. The okinawans had sticks, staffs, kama, swords etc too and they were good at them. Even miyamoto musashi was beaten by a jo wielding okinawan!
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2003
  4. remus

    remus New Member

    Even a seasoned karateka won't stand a chance against a second rate Samurai. Unless the person weilding the Katana is a beginner, but even then the odds are the beginner with a sword will still win against the Karateka. A person weilding a Katana need not be as good as Musashi to beat a weaponless person in a fight. Don't believe those demonstrations given by karatekas fighting a "supposed" Kenjutsuka and the Karatekas win because that is indeed only a demostration and each and every move of each participant has been rehearsed and the outcome already predetermined. But a Karateka fighting against another unarmed opponent, now that is another matter. You have to remember that the Samurai were often the Judge,Jury and executioner and any time they want they can cut down any peasant without even a provocation. Those were the real Samurai and not those romanticised in TV's and movies. And any peasant who lays a hand on them will get the ire of other Samurais so i think anybody in his right mind will be afraid of the Samurai. That's why they were able to control most of the populace during their time. I remember reading somewhere that a Jo weilder was able to defeat Musashi but i am not sure if that person was Okinawan. Jo was not an exclusive weapon by the Okinawans, the Japanese had them too. What basically my point is that an UNARMED Karateka has no chance even against a seconde rate Katana weilding Samurai. Now if that Karateka is a Kobudo expert with the appropriate weapon then he has a chance. But as to who would win, it will depend on who was the much better fighter and who was luckier during that day. No fighter is ever undefeated, unless you count those who have retired,because there will always be someone better and faster.
     
  5. Goju

    Goju Yellow Belt

    still. it all depends on the fighter not what they have in their hand
     
  6. tai-gip

    tai-gip New Member

    ok ok look any weapon is an extension of the body and has the some form of movement ... would you say the same to a second rate samuri holding a stick against a karateka ........ the sword has the same range of movement though admitedly the stick wont shave as close as a blade ...... its still being controlled by the person weilding it it still comes at the speed they could throw hand attacks (in most cases slower) and is still limited by the range of human motion ..in fact it limits in attack the natural movements the human body can make ...i would say a second rate samuri would be in trouble against the karateka
     
  7. LilBunnyRabbit

    LilBunnyRabbit Old One

    And for that matter it won't remove limbs. Its a completely different scenario. A blade just has to touch you, a stick has to strike you hard. I'd also love to see someone run through with a stick, which cuts off half your attacks.

    I take it then that you've never done fencing. The sword can actually move faster than hand attacks, or at least the tip of it can.

    And massively increases the effectiveness of those attacks, besides, you can hold a sword with one hand and still fight with the other, both feet, knees, elbows, legs, shoulders, teeth...

    The samurai has both the advantage of range and the fact that they need a single strike against the karateka in order to maim or kill. The karateka must be capable of ignoring pain, because they're going to get cut no matter what, and must also be capable of moving in on a target with razor sharp steel facing them. On top of this once in they have to finish the samurai as quickly as possible, since while they're in close their back is exposed to the blade, and if they punch or strike normally then the samurai will most likely stagger back and they'll be back out at range. No, I don't think the samurai would be in trouble.
     
  8. remus

    remus New Member

    Sorry but i have to disagree again. What a fighter has in his/her hands matters a whole lot. A second rate Katana weilding Samurai against a seasoned Unarmed Karateka will never stand a chance.
     
  9. remus

    remus New Member

    Sorru guys, its the other way around. A seasoned Karateka against as second rate Katan weilding Samurai will never stand a chance.

    Hehehe..sorry for the confusion....
     
  10. tai-gip

    tai-gip New Member

    This is the opinion section right where we cant actualy say what would be more affective just say what we think ..????

    I have heard seen discussed this and people who focus to much on a weapon limit themselves...

    the sword cuts the two striking hands to one (traditionaly, obviously it can be used with one) and they tend to forget about using legs as per hand fighting..

    my point is if you rid from your mind the fact its a sword which is intended for striking with one edge (someone tell me how many "edsges" you can strike with on the human hand) so that limits the variaty of attack lines it can follow

    ..therefore it can be blocked on the other three edges or evaded ...

    more dangerous....



    hmmm it depends how far you have taken your training but there comes a point in training where every strike you may land will either kill or severly maim as will a sword the differance being there is two hands and two legs coming at you not just a sword ..

    yes it looks more lethal but the reality is the person has confined there attack to one form try it with a wooden boken because the threat factor seems less its ok you can do it ....

    Same principal if you get cornerd by a bigger guy.... will you let fear control you .... :)

    It would be more interesting with double sword or butterfly swords etc.... though the still have the single intended striking edge
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2003
  11. Chris J.

    Chris J. Valued Member

    Hi,
    Again we would need to identify 'traditional'. Go back a few years, and contact was a good deal heavier but fighting similat to today. Go back further and we see no sparring at all, just Bogu practice which was a sort of full contact thing using protective gear and helmets. Go back further and there was nothing but one man teaching another, one on one. And the occasional REAL FIGHT, over food, or some other vital thing. To the death was the rule, because Okinawa was a small island and it did not pay to leave an enemy alive once they had proven themselves so audacious.

    What is full contact? Even UFC now has rules, etc. Modern pads are designed to protect the attacker, to avoid broken feet, etc. The primary striking areas are not covered (i.e. the heel, ball of foot, etc.). Some years ago a guy insisted we go 'full contact'. I finally agreed, but was reluctent to strike that way until he had hit me a couple of times. ;) Although I had pads on, several of his ribs broke.

    Sparring in general is nothing like a real fight is. People do get somewhat better prepared to withstand pain by increasing the contact level, but there are rules that do not come into play in real fights.

    If you dig far enough into the older versions of the katas, you get to the true techniques that were once used in day to day survival, and warfare. This is no longer found in modern styles of Karate, etc. What is best? Full contact, or the so called 'traditional'? Neither one is best. The old ways are best.

    -Chris J.
     
  12. hEmPY

    hEmPY Banned Banned

    Traditional Karate or Full Contact Krate? :confused:

    Kyokushin Karate :D
     
  13. Goju Dale

    Goju Dale New Member

  14. Alex_JHH

    Alex_JHH Cardboard Tube Samurai

    I do kyokushinkai karate, which is a full contact style. However, I also enjoy doing the Kata. So it works both ways. Also, I have little experience on what a traditional MA and a non-traditional MA is, so no vote here :D
     
  15. Rhineville

    Rhineville Valued Member

    I have two cents...
    ...may they buy you insight...

    Gosei Yamaguchi, son of Gogen Yamaguchi said that...

    "There's too much reliance, today, on training equipment. If a karateka could execute a technique and come within an inch of hitting the body with his full force, it was a beautiful thing. But now if one does not hit his opponent, it isn't considered a valid point..."

    Back in the day they trained hard and punched hard, but didn't hit hard.
     
  16. dori_kin_86

    dori_kin_86 Hu Flung Pu

    Full contact Karate is sport, and nothing but sport, but it is easy to get into, and remember. (not really easy, but you know what I mean)

    Traditional Karate was made for life and death situations, but only if the training is truly traditional, without the traditional kata training and dicipline, it is just a bunch of robotic movements with no purpose.

    I will have to say traditional for the street, because I train in Traditional Kempo Karate, and have seen the power of true, traditional instictual kata training in the street, and I have to use it once and the fight was over in four seconds. (for more info on traditional karate read my intro).

    Full contact for the ring, because it is not easy to turn on you instincts in a point arena (you WILL get disqualified if you do, hint hint) and it is hard to turn on your instincts when you know your life isn't threatened.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2004
  17. shitokai

    shitokai New Member

    Traditional pure and simple. It is tried and tested. Will the other styles be around in 100-200 years? If so, the traditional styles will still be around, still be older and still be effective.
     
  18. hedgehogey

    hedgehogey Banned Banned

    I have to disagree. Full contact fighters like Andy Hug have achieved success in K1 and PRIDE. And of course there's the legendary Mas Oyama...

    What does traditional have to show? Nothing.

    How can you say that the kata will suddenly help a person when they're attacked, even if they've never sparred? That's just irresponsible.

    You cannot learn to fight just by doing kata. You MUST actually hit a person who's fighting back.
     
  19. Tommy_P

    Tommy_P New Member

    At one time kickboxing was considered full contact!!

    Kenpo or Kempo? If your talking about kempo as in systems such as Ed Parker taught, these are modern systems, more or less eclectic.

    Mas Oyamas' Kyokushin is considered a traditional Japanese system.
    Remember all Japanese systems are fairly new, but made up of older Okinawan styles. Kyokushin is basiclly Shotokan and Goju with some Chinese influence thrown in.

    True, in a sense, but that's because one equates traditional with point sparring and excessive kata training. That's some modern sport based in tradition.
    What is traditional anyway? At one time students walked to class in some dirt backyard carrying a lantern, now you drive a car there and have a soda machine in the dressing room.
    Before the advent of competition, karate was to kill or mame...to defend, the thought of full contact or "not"? didn't exist.

    This is true but infortunately not always believed. Allot of traditional black belts would be in for a rude awakening if they ever walked into the wrong bar on a good night!!! Well let's call it modern traditionalists :)

    If you want to be a painter you have to get some paint on your hands!! ;)


    I look at these mixed ma fighters today and eveyone sees it as "the new thing". I say, is it?? I think it's just going full circle back to what karate/ma originally was. No points, no rules, kill or be killed, use what you got fighting. Maybe THAT"S traditional.



    Tommy
     
  20. hedgehogey

    hedgehogey Banned Banned

    Umm...it still is.

    Oyama was the father of full contact karate. And, though the no face punching rule is a major weakness, Kyokushinkai remains one of the most, if not the most effective karate system there is.

    I'm going by the definetion used before me on this thread, that is traditional being karate practiced primarily with "deadly" techniques on a compliant partner and katas, while full contact karate is practiced by hitting another person full contact.
    Certainly these may not be the correct ways to define those terms, but i'm going by the definetions others used in this thread.
     

Share This Page