why

Discussion in 'Karate' started by wado nasskc, Nov 13, 2006.

  1. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    An officer and a gentleman! :D
     
  2. Timmy Boy

    Timmy Boy Man on a Mission

    But I would argue that the art is a huge factor in the kind of training you are likely to receive. Muay thai, for example, is a full contact competition art; there is no debate within it about what "works" because you see what works for it every time they fight, and teachers who want to get results have to provide decent training. In karate, although you may get some instructors who are more realistic than others, the absence of full contact competition (and its dismissal as irrelevant by many instructors) leaves the debate open and allows for the instruction of big steaming piles of horse crap.

    Furthermore, if you define a style as a set of techniques and approaches as you say then there can of course be some styles which are inferior simply because they lack certain important techniques. For example, judo (at least as it's usually taught today) lacks any striking at all, so no matter how good you are at judo you still have a big glaring weakness compared to a more well-rounded martial artist (for the record I do like judo, I just acknowledge its weaknesses). I know people are sick of hearing it, but if you look at successful MMA fighters today, you will see that the good fighters are well rounded because it has simply been shown that this approach is more effective; you may want to use kickboxing, for example, but you still need to know at least some grappling so that it's not completely alien to you and you can defend against it. If it was purely about instruction, and the style in terms of techniques had nothing to do with it, this wouldn't be the case.

    Of course there are always exceptions to the rule; wingchun lawyer trains at a muay thai club where they learn a little bit of grappling, gangrelchilde trains at a kung fu club with hard sparring, etc. But no matter how much people might want to talk about Iain Abernathy, Geoff Thompson and Terry O'Neill, most karate clubs simply aren't that realistic, aren't that hardcore and are what generates the torrent of criticism that modern karate receives.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2006
  3. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Timmy Boy,

    You bring up good points about karate and the need for realistic training. However, to me, it is a bit like looking at the trees and missing the forest.

    Much of public opinion is like this, people will focus on a few specific things and then make generalization based on that. For instance, people will look at UFC fight results and from that come up with an opinion of what works in a street fight.

    A flaw in this thinking is that the opinion is based on what is "seen" not what is learned through experience. The eyes can only really see and understand based on how experienced and knowledgable the person is. Much of combat, much of martial arts is hidden from those not experienced enough to see what is really going on.

    Much of self-defense is stacking the odds in your favor, this is the same thing in combat. I say stacking the odds because nothing is a sure thing, nothing is for certain.

    When I look at a UFC match, I just enjoy the sport, but besides that, I am looking at the moves and opportunities, playing a bit of a couch coach. In the long run, however, I'm not looking at a style, I'm looking at what is being done to stack the odds in the favor of one or the other combatant.

    For instance, I'm not just looking at a BJJ trained person winning by armbar, I'm looking at how he got there. Did he have a threat of a choke or a body triangle or what not, did he keep constant pressure on his opponent at all times leaving no gaps in transitions... etc.

    So I'm not seeing a style, I'm seeing what a person does to stack the odds in their favor -- In competition and in real world.

    If you look at karateka in this manner, the style goes away as some will do much better at stacking the odds in their favor than others even though they may study the same martial art style, even from the same teacher and be the same rank.

    If public opinion was based on how well people do in stacking the odds in their favor then I believe style verse style would not matter as much.
     
  4. Hiroji

    Hiroji laugh often, love much

    I know this is a martial arts forum, and everyone is supposed to debate and all...

    But we are discussing how effective a certain martial art would be if you needed to protect yourself in a fight. Thats what gets debated, everyone joins in almost everyday here on map - me included.

    Yet how many of those people - me included - have ever been in a fight before?? how many of you have actually used whatever martial arts training in a fight? And im not talking about a competition fight.

    I bet not many. I havent. So are we really able to say what is effective or what isnt?

    And please, no internet warriors telling of how they took on 3 guys and zombie.
     
  5. Timmy Boy

    Timmy Boy Man on a Mission

    To me there are many things that affect your ability to fight. Your strength, aggression, level of fear, cardio/endurance, experience and ability to intimidate others are all things that affect you in a great way which is why the argument that the person matters more than the art isn't completely wrong. However, martial arts training is still one of those areas which can help. I'm not an athletic person, nor am I naturally aggressive, intimidating, or particularly strong for my size, but training hard in a full contact art with resistance training can help me to make up for this. It makes me fitter, gives me experience of mixing it up with people and drills techniques and skills into me, so I'm not so disadvantaged against people who would kill me otherwise. If you train hard in something decent it can improve your fighting ability dramatically and I think the results of MMA competition, where certain styles do better than others in certain areas, speak for themselves.

    So in short, of course there are other factors that can make a difference, but martial arts are supposed to improve your ability to fight and some of them simply don't.

    Also, the problem with relying purely on your own experience - not that I would discount it - is that if you do that you only see through your eyes. If I go to a good karate club it doesn't change the fact that there are bales of crap out there, if you want to make a value judgement you have to look at the bigger picture.

    Also, if you've NEVER been in a fight, I envy you. I would have thought most people had been in at least a few. I've had fights, not against anyone particularly impressive, against a weapon, or (victoriously) against multiple attackers. (Sorry, that was meant for Hiroji.)
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2006
  6. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Just to clarify, I don't believe I ever said to rely purely on your own experience. What I meant is that the level of experience and knowledge someone has in an area will influence what they see and to a large intent what opinion they make about something.

    Some people aren't ready for full contact training, but they have great potential. We had one woman who did not want contact because she saw how we pound on each other in training but even still she wanted some way to train with us. It took a few years but she reached a point where she was dishing out and taking the punishment as much or more than others... she eventually reached her black belt.

    I could say that X, Y, and Z are important factors for a warrior to train in, but would I also be correct to assume that if not X, not Y, and not Z that what is left is just crap? Most people are not ideal warriors, but they have potential. Ask whether what someone trains in is right for them and will help lead them down a path for them to reach that potential?

    Matt Thornton writes a lot about "alive" training and as part of that he talks about progressive resistance. Starting resistance at one level and progressively increasing to challenge the individual. I believe many would consider progressive resistance to be as important as full contact training and maybe more important as far as the learning process goes because progressive resistance eventually leads to full contact training.

    When I look at a training program and practices, I don't look for full contact training, I look first for the use of progressive resistance because in my experience and knowledge, that is what is more important to start with.

    It seems that some people are calling karate crap because they don't see full contact training or anything that resembles MMA but they are completely BLIND to the fact that the school has a good use of progressive resistance, those that are comfortable with progressing to full contact can do it or they can go into MMA or kickboxing. I remember one black belt I knew about fifteen years ago we called "Sho", he was a black belt from Japan and they trained hard. After not seeing him for about a year, I met up with him, and he was buff, gained twenty pounds in muscles I swear. I asked him what he had been up to and he told me that he had started to fight full contact kickboxing. Not every black belt goes into full contact kickboxing, not even all of the ones from Japan, but you can see that there was nothing stopping him from doing so. He trained in the same karate style as others, some went on to full contact, some did not.

    Did Sho consider karate to be crap because it wasn't full contact kickboxing? Not from what I could tell because he stayed in karate even while training for full contact kickboxing. Karate was how he built his foundation and on that foundation he continued to build into cross-training, etc.

    I state this clearly as I can, NOTHING in karate keeps someone from progressing to full contact fighting should they choose that.

    Don't call Karate crap, call the people crap :eek: (doesn't sound so nice does it?)
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2006
  7. Timmy Boy

    Timmy Boy Man on a Mission

    Rebel Wado,

    1) I get the point about progressive resistance, but the thing is that even in a full contact art you're not going to get thrown in at the deep end and forced to do hard sparring until you and the instructor believe that you're ready for it, so there really is no need to do something like karate just as a stepping stone.

    2) Following on from this point, getting a black belt in karate takes years unless it's some McDojo belt factory, and even then it's only considered the beginning of the proper training. If you use karate as a stepping stone then you could waste years, as I did, doing useless training.

    3) Live training isn't necessarily painful or any more physically demanding.

    4) Not all of the criticisms levelled at karate are to do with resistance; there is also the issue of techniques in kihon and kata not being used in sparring, which to me shows that a) they're impractical and b) they're not being ingrained. The main problems for me, technique-wise, were:

    * Chambered punches - maybe Iain Abernathy understands them but my instructor and most karateka don't, and they didn't get used against resistance. The reason is apparently that it's exaggerated, but I would argue that the physics are completely different and it ignores the necessity of guarding your face.

    * Hard blocks - too slow, and it's unrealistic to expect to be able to "damage the limb". Again, the soft blocks used in sparring are not the same in terms of mechanics so the 'exaggerated movement' argument doesn't apply either.

    * Stupidly low stances - you're about as mobile as a pedal-powered lorry. The footwork used in sparring is completely different.

    * Hitting the air or compliant partners allows the imagination to run riot with ridiculous attacks and counters that will get you killed, and these are often suggested by the instructor as well.

    So if you take the techniques into account as well as the lack of live training, then the only way karate can possibly serve as a stepping stone is that it is, at least, a martial art. But a crap one. Which is exactly my point about most karate clubs out there.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2006
  8. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Good points.

    It would be interesting to come back to this thread a few years from now to see if we have personally changed opinions or thoughts on some of the things mentioned.
     
  9. JSKdan

    JSKdan Valued Member

    Tommy Boy

    You have some good points but you a look at this for a start
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsGGyrVJOXY#[/ame] and tell me that that did not work.

    Your point about the Mcdojo is a fare point but part of this has been a misunderstanding of what they are doing.

    Stupidly low stances where not always a part of karate but to see part of the problem as some will not see the wood for the trees ( It is one way to help people get stronger when training ), the thing is that some have missed the bit where the stances should get smaller.

    * Hitting the air or compliant partners allows the imagination to run riot with ridiculous attacks and counters that will get you killed, and these are often suggested by the instructor as well.

    The bit that some miss hear is that your partner should be thinking that he is going to take your head off but with control and you should be wanting to kick or punch holes in them.
    From what I have seen not enough clubs train like this and get a false sense of what they can do if it hits the fan.

    I dont know the clubs you trained at but when my last club closed ( almost 10 years ago ), it took me 3 months of looking to find a club I was happy with and it has made a big difference to my training, also seeing some people come from other clubs now makes me glad I found this club.

    I also tried a kickboxing club when I was 17 ( now 38 :eek: where did the time go :cry: ) and that was crap but we did hard sparing ( the basic where crap ).
    I have seen kickboxing clubs that I dont think much of( I am not saying all kickboxing clubs are crap because I have seen a few bad ones but you say the same about karate ), from what I know now and I am still learning.

    Karate has longer history a round the world and with all things that big, you will find the cowboys coming in and some also opening clubs that have training for 2 years :rolleyes:

    Chambered punches
    Is where you start but this is basic but if you want boxing and see when people get cut it will be from a punch that has twisted in one way ( not as much as a karate punch ) but my teacher is 63 coming to 64 and if I can hit half as hard as him I would be over the moon ( He is still training after 36 years )
     
  10. John Titchen

    John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

    Sorry about the delay, I was away all yesterday acting as a dummy for a new sumersdale martial arts dvd. I think Timmy boy has raised some very valid points - but there are a few things I would like to add.

    The punch only comes from a chamber because the chamber is a 'leftover' from a prior move (in a Kata - not necessarily in real life). This left-over is the pulling and retention of someone's limb or neck - in real life you generally only get this as far as your ribs (unless you are doing an elbow attack on the pulled arm). The exageration to the hip is stylised - its only useful purpose is training a strong pull back motion (but this is academic if you don't actually practice the trap and control in the first place). I've seen punches go from the face and chest area in kata as well as in the sparring context. For example if I wa inside your right arm after you'd haymakered and I'd stopped it with a left foetal head protection, my left hand would drop onto your biceps and hold and pull (trying to control and unbalance) while my right forearm slammed into your sternum and clavicle.

    'Blocks' = translate correctly - receiving techniques. These aren't blocks - karate doesn't really teach much in the way of blocks because the body natually does these. These are all manner of nasty close range slaps, grabs, forearm and side fist slams and body wrenches. Perfect for close quarter work. Punches form a tiny part of Kata techniques in the overall picture - with good reason if you consider the range that most fights kick off at and close into. Once a normal fight starts you are inside the range of one arm's length after the first punch if you haven't gone down from it. I haven't heard the exaggerated movement argument for donkeys years! I'm working on a project that I hope will enable people to bring proper Uke technique usage into mainstream Kata training in an acceptable form )and Moosey has seen a taster of this) - but I imagine there will always be some people who prefer the clean and safe unrealistic method.

    The more I train at close range the more I move back to deep crouching postions like Fudo dachi for greater stability and speed. The footwork in sparring (and the range) is very different to the majority of real fight footwork - predominantly due to the different distance initiators at the beginning of a fight.

    Of course, but it is often best to start with compliant partners so that you can learn a technique to begin with.

    The majority of Karate techniques are fantastic for real fights. But I agree with you, the way they are understood and practised by the majority of karateka means that they are little more than an aerobic exercise. In terms of street effectiveness though I would be hard pressed to find what I felt were viable reasons for putting kickboxing (which again is predominantly just the punching and kicking you see from the majority of modern karate training) ahead of average Karate (whatever that is) in street effectiveness. Neither seem to me to train that crucial scenario angle all that much.
     
  11. Bridge

    Bridge Valued Member

    We'll have had a few more years "maturing" time by then! :)

    Long live the debate though it is funny how every style has another style which it mocks.

    We do need to constantly question what we do and what others do (not just dissing it) in order to keep standards up and maintain purpose.
     
  12. Timmy Boy

    Timmy Boy Man on a Mission

    I agree with almost everything jtwitchen has said. I have tried very hard to make it clear in this thread that I'm not criticising all karate training, merely that which has established itself in the mainstream. It may be that there are perfectly rational explanations for the things I don't understand, but the problem is that the instructors don't seem to understand them either.

    The only point I would disagree with is the one about kickboxing. I know there are clubs out there which call themselves "kickboxing" but are really just glorified aerobics - I went to such a club the other day. But if you mean the kind of kickboxing taught at competitive clubs where they train people to fight in the ring, then I think it is better than most karate training. It may be limited to only punches and kicks, and for this reason I certainly wouldn't say it's all you need for self defence, but at least those punches and kicks will be taught in a realistic way.

    JSKDan, you can show me videos of karate working all you like, and I won't disagree with you because it's not my point. It's the "misunderstanding" among so many clubs, so many students and so many instructors that gives karate the bad name it has, and so I think I'm justified in saying that most karate is crap even though some of it isn't (I really like kyokushinkai, for example, I think it's one of the best striking styles around apart from the lack of head punches in most sparring).
     
  13. Llamageddon

    Llamageddon MAP's weird cousin Supporter

    Just a little observation, and I'm not having a go at anyone here, but do you not agree that we could have saved alot of time if the bit about criticising the misunderstandings was stressed more, rather than lots of people leaving the thread with the perception 'most karate is crap'?
     
  14. JSKdan

    JSKdan Valued Member

    Tommy Boy

    When it come to the "misunderstanding" you are about right and the problem is that some karateka will not look pass what they have learned but from the one that have you will on whole see some thing different.

    The "misunderstanding" goes back a long way and some just dont like chance :eek: ;)
     
  15. Timmy Boy

    Timmy Boy Man on a Mission

    If the misunderstandings of karate are in the minds of the instructors as well as the students then this is a legitimate criticism of karate.
     
  16. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    Basically, what's needed in karate is more quality control on who can declare themselves an instructor.
     
  17. Haduken

    Haduken Valued Member

    i have really really tried not to get drawn into this thread, as i know that I will end up writing a thesus if i get carried away arguing with Timmy Boy. However, a few points i must raise:

    1) stances are often taught very poorly - they are not rigid, fixed positions. they are not for strengthening legs. they are not positions to fight from. They are transitional positions, 'snapshots' in time. Zenkutsu dachi (froward stance) is for generating linear horizontal power and movement, as in a straight punch or kick, or in a drive or takedown (try grabbing someone and pin them against a wall, or drive them across a room - you will probably move through a 'zenkutsu position' - look at any wrestler in the UFC pin an opponent against the fence with, he is in zenkutsu!). Shiko datchi - the 'low' stance is used for linear verticle power - so thats, lifting something (someone) up, or pulling down. look at any wrestling throw and you will see shiko used... look at someone lower there base and weight when they are about to be thrown and you will see shiko... look at someone drag soemone down into a clinch and you see shiko. Sanchin dachi, is about rotational power generation. anytime you see a boxer throw a hook, or an upper cut he will be in a (loose) sanchin stance...

    I agree with much of what has been said - MOST karate you see out there these days IS a load of crap - but karate, the martial art, is not crap - just the ass clowns that teach it poorly. this is no different than any other style being taught poorly (like those kickboxing classes that just teach aerobics).

    Boxing punches and karate punches are the same thing. end of.

    punching and kicking the air is usually a pile of rubbish - but again, it doesn't have to be... why do you think boxers do shadow boxing??

    kickboxing was invented by karateka that were only interested in sparring... fact.

    fighting with big mitts on is very different to bare knuckle... your bare fist does not protect your head like a nice big pillow.... try a boxing guard without the mitts and you will see why every bare knuckle boxer throughout history in any style kept his guard further away from his face.

    i have yet to see anything in MMA which does not already exist within goju (i can't speak for all styles). But I have seen plenty in goju which does not exist in the sporting format styles like kickboxing/mma etc.... Multiple attackers, knife defence, weapons defence, weapons on weapon drills, multiple on multiple fight tactics, etc etc
     
  18. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Really? I was always under the impression it was "sanitised" muay thai - an art which has an ancient pedigree within itself.

    And where does Savate fit into that history? Both are totally independent of karate

    I assume you mean within a striking capacity on this. I haven't sen too many triangle chokes in Goju for example!
     
  19. Hiroji

    Hiroji laugh often, love much

    depends.

    There are many forms of kickboxing.

    American kickboxing developed out of full-contact karate.

    Thai boxing is a different art. Very similar in some ways - but the biggest difference in the rules of competition. Thai boxing allows leg kicks, knees, elbows, clinch...ect.

    also savate, which is similar to american kickboxing, but they wear shoes and aim to strike with the toes because of this.
     
  20. Haduken

    Haduken Valued Member

    well ok... 'kickboxing' does have muay thai influence, but... the term itself was created by the Japanese boxing promoter Osamu Noguchi for a variant of Muay Thai and Karate that he created in the 1950s; this term was later used by the American variant (whic came from full-contact karate). When used by the practitioners of these two styles, it tends to refer to them specifically rather than the martial arts they were derived from.

    the reason I say it came from karateka that wanted to spar, is because it is an adaptation of what the karateka were already doing, to convert it into a ring sport - "There were "Karate vs. Muay Thai fights" February 12, 1963. The 3 karate fighters from Oyama dojo (Kyokushin later) went to the Lumpinee Boxing Stadium in Thailand, and fought against 3 Muay Thai fighters. The 3 karate fighters' names are Tadashi Nakamura, Kenji Kurosaki and Akio Fujihira (as known as Noboru Osawa). Japan won by 2-1 then. "

    Originally Posted by Haduken
    i have yet to see anything in MMA which does not already exist within goju


    I assume you mean within a striking capacity on this. I haven't sen too many triangle chokes in Goju for example!


    actually i meant striking, throwing, takedowns, submissions, whatever - and funnily enough we were practicing triangle chokes and variations on tuesday night :) in 'karate' class.
     

Share This Page