Karate in MMA

Discussion in 'Karate' started by Renegade80, Aug 19, 2014.

  1. Fish Of Doom

    Fish Of Doom Will : Mind : Motion Supporter

    @kframe: if you're doing it correctly, you're using much more than your rotator cuff. additionally, trained rotator cuffs can get quite huge and strong, and knockouts are not only a function of maximal power (but it does help). plus, as i said in my first post, you don't fight using kihon movements in the first place, and as i said in my second, the motion is convertible into both a backfist and an uppercut with minimal tweaks, both of which are strikes that make people drop like flies when they connect solidly.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2014
  2. Hannibal

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

    If it is markedly different in training from fighting then it's inefficient training because it is not fit for purpose...presupposing that purpose is combat of course

    It's telling that the example chosen to show "traditional" is an exceptionally low level MMA bout. Show it at a significant level and you have a case; as it stands you are making a thunderstorm out of a fart
     
  3. Hannibal

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

    I mean the "mae geri" style kicks that you see in MMA are probably developed from the teep rather than karate, not that the Mae Geri itself has a Muay Thai genesis. This is due to the higher frequency of muay thai training in MMA rather than any technical superiority of course
     
  4. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    Lack of repeatability isn't meaningless if the author of the blog expects his reading audience to believe that the techniques discussed have wider implications than "look what this guy managed to pull off!" If the point of the article is simple to illustrate that a fighter managed to use some clear karate moves in a bout, I'd say yeah, that's true. Good on him.

    But if the point is any larger than that at all, I'd say there's a bigger debate to be had.
     
  5. dandjurdjevic

    dandjurdjevic New Member

    No, there really is no "bigger point" other than the one you mention. As I've explained elsewhere, my thesis isn't that "karate works in MMA". Anyone following my writing over the years will see that my position has consistently been that karate, as a civilian defence art, was not designed for one-on-one competitive fighting, where both sides are trying to "beat" the other side. Rather it is a defensive art. In my view this changes the dynamics considerably, making it an odd fit with MMA. Machida's "counterpunching" style is as close to its spirit as MMA allows, yet in my view even this grossly simplifies the design function of karate and other traditional martial arts.

    Yes, I have pointed out from time to time that certain traditional techniques (from karate etc.) might be useful in the Octagon. But what surprised me here is that rather unlikely, "dojo floor" basic movements were used - and successfully too.

    I'm certainly not suggesting that this provides some sort of model for success in MMA. In fact, I rather suspect that against the more highly rated competitors, these exact tactics would have significant limitations.

    In other words, that this fighter could use basic dojo training methods in the Octagon seems to me more the exception than the norm. Personally, I wouldn't even advocate Machida's (highly modified, but still competition-karate inspired) approach to MMA.

    But what these and other examples indicate to me is that a karate/tma methodology (its way of punching, kicking, moving, stances, guarding, entering, deflecting, evading etc.) is not quite as "useless" (in an MMA environment or otherwise) as was so stoutly maintained in the past. And we all remember just how stoutly maintained this was.

    The reason I've not gone on to make the points exhaustively in my article is that lately I haven't had the time to finesse each point given other projects. So for me, this is a "micro blog". ;) I trust that my readers will understand what I'm saying in the wider context of my writings.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2014
  6. Renegade80

    Renegade80 Valued Member

    As I said, I'm not making anything of it at all.

    Again though I'd dispute your statement: Shotokan in particular has always struck me as remarkably true to form in that the modification from the perfect training model of technique performance to the fighting form is minute.

    The difference is akin to a soldier firing a handgun at a target range vs firing a handgun inside a house after being ambushed. Variation in the form is bound to occur and I never encountered a karateka who didn't recognize the fact.

    Is it less efficient to have an ideal form of technique? Perhaps in the short term. Again not really relevant to the discussion at hand.
     
  7. John Titchen

    John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

    I'm not sure if you're referencing Uchi Uke or Ude Uke here, both of which are highly effective as strikes and whether done static or with forward motion are devastating. I would add that in both cases the fist is not necessarily the striking surface, and the forearm can be used to great effect against the brachial plexus or across the temple and ear (which in themselves can cause TKO or set up a solid linear strike from a position where a linear strike was not possible).

    Ude Uke is one of my pet peeves as it is frequently trained in kihon in a manner that is clearly lifted from kata out of context, in other words with the arm pulled back before lashing forward to strike. That's a great combination if you are using the push-pull to extract from the beginning of a clinch and then counter-strike, but makes no sense if the arm is not trapped or is already forward. The classic Ude Uke/Uchi Uke Gyaku Zuki Gedan Barai kihon combination is great for training the ips and feels good to do, but makes a nonsense of any correct distancing/timing or application of the movements.
     
  8. rne02

    rne02 Valued Member

    Gedan baria is not a block, there are no blocks in karate. It has quite literally 100's of uses (Sensei John Burke teaches 100 uses for gedan barai, none of which are blocks), it can be used for takedowns, arm bars and all sorts of things, but it there are no "blocks" in karate. Funakoshi himself tells us Gedan barai can be used for an armbar, so we have no reason to doubt him. Bear in mind Karate was carted for civilian self defence against "villains and ruffians", not for scoring points in the cage against a trained/skilled martial artist, so a lot of the applications are not relevant for MMA/point scoring sports/competitions.

    Oi-zuki is a great technique in context, but again the context is certain civilian self defence situations, it is not (as is often mistakenly taught) an attack in it's own right. If you seize an assailant and hit them and the stagger backwards and end up further than you intended, oi-zuki is used to make up the distance that gyaku-zuki wouldn't reach. As in MMA or opponent doesn't have sleeves to grab, and their skin is probably sweaty, the applications of oi-zuki have no relevance in MMA.

    There is no such thing as "chambering at the hip", this also is mistakenly taught as such by instructors who do not even have a basic understanding of their own art. Hikite (the hand the returns to the hip) is used to grab or seize an opponent pre-emptively in a civilian self protection context and pull them onto the strike being delivered with the other hand or arm. This increases the power of the impact (in the same way that a car hitting a wall at 30mph has x amount of power, but two cars driving head on into each other both doing 30mph has much more impact), it also ties up the assailants limb (if you grab the sleeve or seize the arm) meaning they can't hit you with it.

    The confusion comes from performing it in kata, when people don't know the true reason for something they take a guess, and usually come up with nonsense like "chambering at the hip" :)

    The key to remember though is that Karate was not originally devised for point scoring/sparring. It was developed to be used pre-emptively in civilian self defence. In modern times it has been changed to be more sport orientated, but at the end of the day you are taking something from the context in which is was designed to function, and placing it into a completely different setting. You can't expect it to just work as that's not what it was designned for, it needs to be adapted.

    It's a lot like Aikido, Aikido is great at what it does, but it was does designed to score points or inflict damage in a consensual test of skill with another trained martial artist. Hence you don't see much Aikido in MMA either. That doesn't mean Aikido has no value, it just means it doesn't work well in that environment as that isn't what it was designed for. That's a bit like putting a banana in the cockpit of plane and then when it is unable to fly the plane saying "banana's are totally useless". :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2014
  9. rne02

    rne02 Valued Member

    Blocks don't work, or rather they only work in the dojo when a) your opponent is far enough away (i.e. unrealistic attacks from six feet away) and b) you know what attack is coming.

    The other point is that there are no blocks in Karate. They are only taught as such either a)to children (as the true intent is far too dangerous to give to children, or b) by instructor who believe they are blocks becasue they do not even have a basic understanding of the art they claim to teach.

    When Anko Itosu introduced Karate into the Japanese & Okinawan school syllabus he realised that nature of these techniques were too dangerous to give to children. So he set about disguising them by teaching the children they were "blocks". The idea was that children would go up and down the dojo doing line work and kata year after year. Then once they left school they would be strong enough and fit enough to defeat 10 men. This is how he sold the idea to the education system, by telling them they would have generations of fit & strong adults that could go straight into the military.

    Here is Itosu's 10th precept and his closing paragraph in the letter he explaining why karate should be introduced into schools:-

    10. In the past, many masters of karate have enjoyed long lives. Karate aids in developing the bones and muscles. It helps the digestion as well as the circulation. If karate should be introduced, beginning in the elementary schools, then we will produce many men each capable of defeating ten assailants.

    If the students at teacher training college learn karate in accordance with the above precepts and then, after graduation, disseminate this to elementary schools in all regions, within 10 years karate will spread all over Okinawa and to mainland Japan. Karate will therefore make a great contribution to our military. I hope you will seriously consider what I have written here – Anko Itosu, October 1908


    The idea was that then, when they became adults, they would go on to the karate proper, and the true nature of these techniques would be revealed to them. Unfortunately it was this children's version of Karate that became popular and spread around the world. And so today we have generations of karate instructors who believe that various techniques are "blocks" and mistakenly teach there students this, who then go on to become instructors themselves and regurgitate the same nonsense to their students (blocks/chambering at the hip/you are turning in 8 different directions in kata as you are fighting 8 different people, etc etc).

    So, in short, a) blocks only work inside the dojo and b) they're not actually blocks anyway.

    :)
     
  10. B3astfrmthe3ast

    B3astfrmthe3ast Warning:Extreme power!!

    I think Karate, just as any other TMA will have a positive effect on a MMA fighter not saying that it could be a stand alone style but if you have a MMA fighter who is a Karate black Belt he will be able to "Blitz" well meaning he can get in get off a few shots and get out just like if a MMA fighter is a TKD black Belt he will have Kicks from everywhere and some good footspeed or if one studied Tai Chi he will have a more patient approach to everything so I think that karate in mma does have it place just as any other TMA
     
  11. Kframe

    Kframe Valued Member

    Im referencing Uchi uke. I see what your saying, but what about the twisting motion of the arm? The arm moves forward and up and with a twist. In my usage In sparring I have only ever been able to use it as a deflection.

    Now I don't understand this notion of there are no blocks in karate. Seriously no defenses? Here I was laboring under the assumption that I was using uke to defend my self in sparring. I guess in one sense your right, there are no hard blocks, but I believe and use, soft deflection. That being said, I need to find a new place to spar.
     
  12. John Titchen

    John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

    Yes / No. :Angel:

    Gedan Barai (Down Sweep) can be used to block or parry, as can many of the Uke (Receiver) techniques, and that action can be done with a number of the different stages of the component biomechanics (including the extended arm beforehand taught in a number of karate systems). Blocking however is not however the most effective application for the majority of the Uke techniques.
     
  13. John Titchen

    John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

    It's not designed for the dynamics of sparring as utilised in the framework of most karate clubs or competitions. Most of the Uke are designed to work in a framework of close quarter HAOV.

    The twist in basics is often exaggerated and a small twist is all that is needed for some applications and often just changes the impact area or striking surface.

    Here's a photo of me (at long range) showing Morote Uchi Uke to strike in 2003.
    MUU12 copy.jpg

    Plus an Uchi Uke to control/setup (again at long range).
    UCU53 copy.jpg

    With regard to no blocks - that doesn't mean there are no defences. If I tell a person with no training to defend themselves without counter striking and then attack, I can guarantee that through flinching and parrying and shielding they are going to use more natural and effective 'blocking' motions than any Uke technique as it is normally shown in the karate curriculum. One of the reasons why karate beginners are so awkward in prearranged sparring is that they are being asked to do unnatural defences against unnatural attacks, they have to practise these many times to be able to do them at speed (and even then they generally need to know the nature of the attack in advance). Using Karate Uke techniques to 'block' is rather like taking the engine from a sports car and putting it into a bus: it may run, it may even move the vehicle, but it is not really suited for the job.
     
  14. John Titchen

    John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

    Here's a better example (from 2013 and as a trial shot for my new Pinan Godan book) of how I predominantly use Uchi Uke these days.

    DSC02302 copy.jpg
    DSC02303 copy.jpg

    Here it's being used for a fairly unskilled collapse and grab, one arm high one arm low, not the sort of situation that tends to come up in sparring but something I often see in scenario training.

    PS Yes that is the same Gi, ten years later. :)
     
  15. rne02

    rne02 Valued Member

    I know what you mean, it takes some getting your head around. When I was on a course and the instructor told us "there are no blaocks in karate" I thought he was a nutcase, but once he explained karate (for the first time) started to make sense.

    Martial arts have only become more sport orientated in the last 100 years or so, and as part of this sparring was introduced. But Karate was crated long before this, so why would someone create uke movements for blocking in sparring when there was no sparring? Karate was developed for civilian self protection, the idea to pre-emptively attack and overwhelm the enemy until you have to opportunity to escape. Not to have the back and forth exchanges you would want in sparring. You don't want to be "blocking" your enemy as you don't;even want them having the chance to attack.

    Yes nowadays MA's are most sport/competition focused and we now have sparring, during which you would cover/parry like a boxer but you wouldn't use you "uke" or gedan baari as that isn't; what they were created for. How many times do you see boxers use Age Uke to stop a head punch?

    As for the actual applications you are better off checking out the YouTube channels of people liek Iain Abernethy and John Burke etc as they are much better at explaining these things than I can in print.

    :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2014
  16. Fish Of Doom

    Fish Of Doom Will : Mind : Motion Supporter

    hey dan!

    *waves*
     
  17. John Titchen

    John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

    I'm not familiar with John Burke's work.

    Does he have a youtube channel like mine or Iain's where he puts up videos?
     
  18. rne02

    rne02 Valued Member

    he does yes,

    https://www.youtube.com/user/thebunkaiguy

    I'm training with him again in September, looking forward to it.
     
  19. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    Fair enough, but as a writer, you have a tone. And the tone of that post is, honestly, a bit smug. If that's not your intent, that's fine. But that's how I (and I'd imagine others) read it. Bear in mind that I'm neither a karateka nor an MMA guy. I don't think the tone of this blog entry does much for you. It reads a bit like "I told you so!" I get it. I get that there are loud mouthed MMA fanboys who make blanket statements about other styles. But arguing with them is like playing handball on the curtains. Doesn't matter how hard you hit the ball. It ain't coming back. The serious MMA practitioners I know of just require reproducible evidence of something's value. Mo Smith boots a few people in the head, and head kicks start to be taken more seriously. Marco Ruas foot stomps his way out of a few bad spots and suddenly they're on the menu again. Etc.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2014
  20. Renegade80

    Renegade80 Valued Member


    Saying it doesn't make it so.

    You say blocks don't work but give no reason or explanation.

    When I refuted these arguments on OSS forum you had no counter point, so I won't go into it all again except to say that this view is as flawed and dogmatic as the block kick punch approach of Japanese karate.

    If it's possible to dodge a punch then it is possible to block a punch. The more committed the punch the more effective the block as you create more of an opening and greater disruption to balance.

    The reason you don't see it in MMA is that sport karate is not committed (I'll come to kyokushin etc). The sport karateka use light fast techniques with no concern for counter attacks or knockouts. Thus they have no need for blocks, just parrys. With this being the main fighting style taught the one or two folk who transplant themselves into MMA bring the light fast stuff with them. They don't have a background in using blocking techniques against a live opponent.

    Kyokushin folk do block, but with no head shots bar kicks most blocks are just covers: the art is shaped by its rules.

    The best evidence I've seen for blocks working in full contact fighting was a set of photos from an old book on bare knuckle boxing from I think the late 19th century. The fighters used a guard identical to traditional karate, they showed common techniques from the ring identical to high and mid section blocks.
     

Share This Page