Why not, well, here is the abridged person: 1. People are ignorant They expect that every karateka by some peculiar miracle will maintian the exact same rigid stance and use the exact same techinques. Who would expect a karateka can actually use imaginative combos or *shockhorror* footwork. 2.. Family Schools aren't an accurate benchmark Family karate schools where all you do is techniques and zero sparring, situational defence, locks, trappng etc etc are not karate at its best. You only see the best of karate fighting from Kyukushin schools and a few select other schools. 3. Kung Fu is the only martial art. If anyone uses MA in a video its kung fu... nobody attributes anything to karate
But it's far more similar to kickboxing than what you get taught in kata and kihon. These are karateka who are fighting full contact and are thus not representative of the majority of shotokan clubs, let alone karate in general. I also did wado ryu for 2 years, observed classes in shotokan, and discussed techniques and experiences with students from other styles. Tang soo do does not use the "why use your hands when you could use your feet" philosophy as it was based on shotokan (kong soo do was the original direct translation, this was changed to tang soo do in honour of the Chinese T'ang dynasty). Tang soo do is no more different to shotokan than wado ryu is. The stances, punches, blocks and even most of the kicks are the same.
I don't disagree on these points. This is an excellent point which I hadn't considered which probably explains the "lack" of live training and sparring in a lot of schools; fights are quite rare events for most people today. The problem I have with this argument is that the basic bare bones techniques used in the ring and the street need not necessarily be that different in a full contact fight. Kickboxing might have originally been designed to provide full contact karate, but the traditional punches were replaced by those of boxing and the kicks were found to be inferior to those of muay thai when the two styles clashed. I don't see why protecting the face is less important when you're being hit by bare knuckles. Did they punch to the face?
If they're not going to use those rigid stances and techniques then what's the point in learning them? But while that may be the best of karate it's not the majority of karate by a long way.
The idea was to use movement to protect the head when further away. When closer in, the elbows and arms were engaged/controlled. So instead of blocking close to the body and using the boxing gloves to help absorb the blows so you can roll with them, the opponent was blocked further away from the body and their arms and elbows were checked. It is very hard to check arms and elbows when wearing boxing gloves, so sport boxing evolved down a different strategy than barefisted combat arts. Boxing is still very good for barefisted combat, IME, but barefisted boxing does not look the same as boxing in the ring with padded gloves on. Look at UFC with the 4 oz gloves, that is closer to what barefisted boxing looks like, IMO. Yes they did strike to the head and face, but from what I remember, the punches weren't full power to the face or vital areas. It wasn't true fighting or competition but it was training.
no i train kickboxing. Im not sure what your point is here. My point was that i think a lot of people including you, and most karateka, have a general misunderstanding of karate. I never said he made it work - just that he has a better understanding.
I must admit, I used to be a right style fascist, but after cross-training, I grew out of it. Just about every martial art gets the "why train in [insert your martial art here], it doesn't look effective." blah blah blah, treatment. A fair few of the people who ask this sort of question have never done MA before or haven't tried any other MA. Or they've had a few beers and it stupid MA conversation time at the pub. I find the best answer is along the lines of "I enjoy it and it suits ME." Anyway it's not the martial art, it's the person! Best form of self-defence is staying out of fights altogether.
I totally agree with you. Ive said things along those same lines time and time again on here. I think people should just accept and enjoy the fact that there are many different martial arts styles out there. Its what makes martial arts so interesting. The way some people preach youd think they would be happy if there was only 1 martial art. If that was the case there would no longer be Martial arts. Who really cares which one is best? Its a little childish. The people who slagg off every martial art but their own are actually very dumb, and are actively helping to destroy the very thing we are all apart of.
Yes, but I believe MMA supports my point - they use modified boxing-style punches rather than anything that looks like karate even though the glvoes are tiny.
Or some, like me, have tried many styles and observed what happens to the exponents of certain styles in competition. That's fine, but the issue of effectiveness is separate. Then what's the point training if it all comes down to you and the training will have no effect on how good you are? No-one said otherwise. We're talking about what will work when you do fight.
My apologies re: your style, but if I have a "misunderstanding" of karate it's because there are so many awful clubs out there, and if most karateka don't understand karate either, doesn't that strike you as ever such a slight problem? I wasn't commenting on Iain Abernathy's karate, I wasn't commenting on the original Okinawan styles, I was commenting on the abundance of crap in modern mainstream karate that leads people to criticise it. And yes Bridge, I mean people who HAVE done karate and other martial arts and have made informed decisions. I don't know if you mean me but I certainly wouldn't say I "preach", I simply participate in debates on here. I don't go up to people in real life and tell them that their style is crap and nor do I pm people on here to start arguments because it's annoying to be forced into a debate that you're not interested in. This, however, is the open discussion forum, and 1) no-one is forcing you or Bridge to read this thread or post in it and 2) the original poster asked why karate gets criticised; he didn't ask people to simply refill his confidence in it. If you train purely for fun and self defence means nothing to you then of course it's pointless to discuss which style is best. But if you want to train in something effective then it's a very relevant question. There's nothing wrong with a little critical thinking.
Timmy Boy, Perhaps I should have put my opinion across a little bit more neatly. Or perhaps i did not elaborate enough. In this context, I am defining style as a set of techniques and approaches. It is not the style alone that decides how well someone can defend themselves. But the person, the instruction and training they receive and how suitable it is for them. You can get 2 different schools that teach the same style but have entirely different training approaches, that is down to the instructors and can be tailored to suit an individual. I doubt there is a single style that works 100% of the time for all practitioners. The people who slagg off certain styles often miss these points. And that is my point.
Hi All I guess the general media may also influence the perception that people have of karate. Watch "Enter the Dragon" and see Bruce Lee beating many guys wearing a Karate Gi and that may not help. I find that many people who are commenting about the "Street Effectiveness" of Karate have probably never even encountered a real situation. Terry O'Neill has already been mentioned here as someone well capable of dealing with an assault. My former training partner in Karate is nearly 30 years experience of dealing with street confrontations and his only art is Karate. As mentioned, Karate didn't let me down too. Much of this debate is really about personal values, beliefs, confidence and competence. Unless entering the martial arts for asthetic or leisure reasons, ultimately,w e are all learning how to fight or deal with physical assault. It really doesn't matter what view someone else expresses, so long as we are confident in our own ability to defend ourselves. If a Karate-Ka seeking that confidence does have it after a few years of training, then maybe they need to review their chosen art. Healthy debate is always a good thing because it helps us to grow and understand our own arts and perception of it. However, a Critique and a Criticism are two totally different things. Timmy Boy raises some useful points. Yes, there are and have been some very poor representations of Karate for decades. There are also some excellent ones. I travelled 34 miles each way every day to get a quality Karate Sensei to teach me. What you put it will determine what you get out of your art. Turning the debate on it's head. Which techniques have worked for people in an actual fight? For me it has been reverse punch, knees, elbows, foot sweeps and the head butt. Hmmmmm These are found in many other arts too. These techniques worked because the timing and range changes at that time dictated what to use. Nothing more and nothing less! Karate-Ka train to hit hard and with destructive power. So, for the benefit of both sides of the debate. Which Karate techniques do not work?...and Why? Respectfully Peter
I must say, I appreciate Timmy Boy's input. It's useful to make you think by having someone who says "why bother?" to all the traditional baggage in karate. It doesn't change the fact that I love karate, but it means I have to think about which parts of my training are priorities to me, and to focus on learning the functions of techniques which I would usually practice "just because".
yeh there are lots of shoddy clubs out there and your right, i believe thats where the misunderstanding comes from. Its not a slight problem! its the reason i stopped training karate myself, and it is a point i have brought up on MAP before. Its a big shame in my opinion and, sorry to drag his name up again, but iain abernathy is what i believe is real karate - the full system being taught and improved to how it should be. So yes i can understand your reasons for not liking karate on a whole, because there is a lot of bad karate schools. And i wasnt directing my comments at you or anybody on MAP in particular in my post.
Also, i believe a lot of this debate has been based on karates effectivness in competition. Which the origional question wasnt about.
