Why Traditional Karate is Not Effective for Self Defence

My first impression when reading the article was that it was probably an RBSD person using the old “scare people so they will buy my books/videos/seminars/products” tactic. I took a look at the website and see that this is, in my opinion, in some part true. I believe the author markets some first aid products (ClotQuick) and does some seminars and such.

Beyond the fear-mongering though, there are good points. The advent of MMA and RBSD has caused a lot of TMAists to take a serious look at the way they train and to modify what they do. I don’t think it was ever fair to knock all TMA schools before and I don’t think it’s fair now. I do think people need to look at schools closely before joining them however and I believe that modern schools should be open, creative, and training in modern trends and techniques.

I figured I’d take a few quotes here and add my two cents (since the thread is going along fairly nicely so far)

Fear mongering and intentionally hiding the fact that these schools actually do something besides wear uniforms and practice religious rites. He doesn’t mention anything about the ACTUAL TRAINING going on… just the background stuff. (Compare to his description of RBSD, which covers some as
pects of techniques and philosophy of their employment)

The point is correct… but in most TMA systems I have always seen multiple strikes and attacks intended to incapacitate an opponent if the first one or two fail.

Interesting example. He states that the Koreans had the best team in the world due to their meditation (and focus) practices. Just because they failed to win gold doesn’t mean that the meditation didn’t help them. It just means the other guy was better. I suspect that the “Van Halen” guy probably used the music to block out other thoughts and distraction to provide a way of focus on the target. Different ways of doing the same thing.

These items have been debated before. In my opinion, if a school focused ONLY on breaking and kata, it wouldn’t be the best idea. Most schools use breaking and kata to help develop basic technique skills, breathing, focus, target acquisition and etc and may only spend a relatively small amount of time on them. And, there are ways to get those same skills without doing kata and breaking. Just because a school does these doesn’t make them bad. They do other things besides breaking and kata

All of this stuff (and the pre-emptive strikes mentioned earlier) are some of the good things that have come out of recent trends and have become things that more and more schools are integrating into TMA schools. I agree that all of this is important… but I don’t have to order his products to get those skills. I can get them from a lot of instructors out there, whether it is in a school or if I am integrate those skills through cross training.

And

I agree with this completely and think there are a lot of schools out there that follow this. And there are some that hide behind closed doors and pretend it’s not necessary. I don’t think the labels “coach”, “master”, “RBSD”, “TMA”, “MMA”, etc really have any bearing on what’s actually being done in a school. The main thing is to get out and check these places out.

The author ripped apart his friend’s idea of sending his kids (age 9 and 11) to a Karate school because of the name alone… I would’ve instead offer to go with them and checked out the school after discussing my concerns with the instructor. I wonder if he signed them up for his RBSD school (or do they allow kids? And if they do, do they teach them the full curriculum?)

Overall, not a bad article but a bit to overly biased against an overly-generalized art form.

 

It’s called Sniping. I can even tell you how to defend against nuclear weapons. It’s call preemptive strike. You can only train for so many things. If someone wants to take you out and they have the will there will be a way.

 

How is always more important than what.

 

I was thinking you could teach something and practice it with full resistance and it still not be practical in a SD situation. I do see what you mean by how, in respect to a lot of things.

 

Sounds like someone is bitter that they didn't pass their belt test. :cry:

I take karate and have no illusions about it's self defense capabilities. My instructor repeatedly tells us that katas and point sparring are not for self-defense. We practice katas out of tradition and respect and we supplement our training with grappling and RBSD.

 

great points but about the stances i think that stances are pretty pointless. while at the beginning they may strnethen the muscles and increase your balance no one in their right mind would actually stand and fight like that. In kung fu we do all kinds of funny stances but never in sparring

and about the tonfas don't cops use them??

 

The same is true for MMA practitioners. There is always someone better.

 

Good points made by Mrs Owt and Thomas!

I also know people who have successfully defended themselves using TMA. They don't stick their heads in the sand and insist on doing everything exactly as it was done 1,000 years ago. They look at their beloved art and ask "What do I have to add to this to bring it up to date and fill in any gaps?", and they train that, too. This way, you get the best of both worlds.

 

Yes they do, it's called the PR-24, and some even carry the equivelant to a nunchuk.

 

If you insist


This article is rediculous. It is very short on facts and very long on retoric. Anyone who thought this was a good article, I would like to challenge you. Consider all your presupositions about karate, reverse them, and then read the article again with a skeptical eye. I think you'll see he makes few if any points and none score too deep. Don't fall into the trap of beleiving something to be a good argument simply because you agree with the premise.

First, I don't beleive he did. I think he had some critisizm of karate but I don't think he called it ineffective. Secondly, this is a weak attempt to insult karate without actualy insulting it. If your premise is that karate sucks, just say it. Dont say "Well, I wont say it but Bruce did so you take what you want from that.....".

And enter the fear mongering. What friggin martial art is he talking about that trains you in case of poison gas and snipers? Levels of violence have grown? Not in America.

Ah more fear mongering. Yes, karate is ineffective because it doesnt teach yourself how to defend against attack while on the toilet. Thats when the super gangs get you, ya know.

Good thing Krav Maga teaches you such effective techniques as sleep fighting

If you rely on martial arts to defend yourself against any of these scenarios, you are going to die(assuming the home invader is armed). You can't out ninja a bullet. If your that worried buy a gun, it's more effective in terms of cost, time, and effort then any reality based martial art.

Are you scared yet? If your not then your a commie who hates his loved ones!!!

I can tell you for a fact your wrong(kinda). Your right in your little straw man argument, but your wrong that most ppl wont tactics now. If you want to feel safe now, as I said above buy a gun. Or a dog, only 5% of burglarised homes have dogs. Or if you can't get either then use peper spray, I'd much rather spray a guy then scrap with him. There's a reason cops carry it.

Most ppl study a martial art for fitness, fun, challenge and also to defend themselves. It's a terribly inefficient form of self defesce if thats all your wanting to get out of it.

All the proof you needed this guy is an idiot. Karate would look terrible in a movie, it tae kwon do, MT and Kali that look cool.

My karate teacher says this is the focus of karate, to generate enough power to down a man with one blow. But he also actualy teaches us in combinations because you can't depend on it. That doesn't mean it's bad to attempt to generate that kind of force as long as you don't stop attacking.

We're taught to strike pre-emptivly. I don't think this guy spent much time in a dojo.

The stances are low for training, but much higher and more fluid in practice once you have built your leg muscles up. I've seen my sensei flow much better then a boxer across the floor.

It all depends on what you want to get out of it. But if you never put anything mental into it, you wont get anything mental out of it.

As a Christian who meditates(irespective of karate) I find his opinion here uninformed and small minded. Mediation was never designed to make you a better fighter in and of itself, it makes you a better person and fighting is part of your person. He seems stuck on this idea that the only goal of anyone in MA is to learn to kill todays super criminals.

Breaking is a good demonstration of technique, but I don't think it's been used as a training practice since the 60s. Doing it for your tests is not frequent enough to cause any damage.

Again, the assumption that there are no other goals but killing terrorists on steroids with sniper rifles. I admit there's no kata for that....yet.

Beware anyone who uses the term 'street' more then twice if their not giving you directions. You simply can't simulate all conditions, so until we can actualy have a danger room(like in Xmen) we will just have to make do. I doubt Systema classes meet in icy parking lots wearing tennis shoes at midnight any more then karate classes do.

I'd refute his facts here if he had any. All he says is "well, me and my friends all can see...". I got news for you, the plural of annectdote is not data.

The knife is a modern weapon? I'll have to inform the history channel they've been wrong all this time.

Firstly, this directly contradicts his evidence that karate is useless in a street fight since it indicates karateka are handling unarmed attackers just fine. Second, I quesiton any martial art that claims it has effective techniques vs. fire arms. I beleive even Krav Maga admits it can only 'hedge your bet'. Third, this isn't even evidence just opinion. You'll have to do better then "When you typically hear...".

Karate isn't only about becoming a whirling ball of death, it has a crazy philosophy that it's a journey not a destination. Kind of like life......

This seems like deliberate ignorance. Anyone who thinks about the practices of karate know that your not worshiping the sensei. In western culture bowing is a sign of worship, but in the east it's the same as a handshake. This is a non-issue essentialy.

Overall, this article made hardly any points and had zero facts to back them up. It was an excercise in mental masterbation whereby the author and his like minded readers could all congratulate themselves on how superior their training was without actualy examining the varying motives and resoning behind other choices.

 

good friggin' article... my sentiments exactly...

 

Ok, the article is well written and researched. The points that it raises fall mainly into three categories:

1. Training methodologies
2. Techniques & strategy
3. "Values"

So I'll breakdown my comments on each. I'm not encorporating quotes only because I'm being lazy (or rather I'm currently pressed for time).

The issue of training methodologies is a long standing issue. A training mix that is heavy on breaking and kata is a faulty mix to begin with. I firmly believe that there is a purpose to Kata, but it should never become the focus of a modern art. Breaking is at best a good confidence building tool. Any other benfits from it are better gained through live bag and pad work. There is nothing preventing Katare or any other martial art from updating it's training mix. Same for the encorporation of scenario based self defense training (which should be noted is somewhat controversial still, even in the modern martial arts community).

On the techniques and strategy's point, ironically I only saw three issues on a quick read:
1. Critque on punching power
2. Low stances
3. One punch theory
4. Rigidity
Ironically, I think all three of these issues stem from attempts to codify Karate as a fighting system. When the system becomes more important than the fighting, many bad habits develop. If you go back and look at application pictures of martial artists (including folks like Oyama) it's difficult, if impossible to find pictures of them in deep stances. And traditionally, the only purpose of a deep stance was leg strengthing and training. However that isn't always explained to current students.

In regards to punching power, I think that is a systematic issue with karate practioners. The reverse punch is a powerful tool however karate dynamics of body rotation (at least those stressed at lower levels) neuter a lot of power out of the technique. That could be fixed by adjusting the body mechanics of the system, but now we're getting into what I'll address in the third part of my response.

One punch theory, as Thomas states does not preclude further attacks. However, I think that point sparring only reenforces the idea that it's the first punch that makes contact that counts, rather than the punch that puts the person down. This gets back to training mix as I think point sparring is overemphasized in most Karate and TKD programs.

Finally, the rigidity thing. It's a huge issue, though it also should be noted that it varies based on which system of Karate that is being practiced. I've met a number of Goju people who can flow with the best of them. However, by and large, I think the current training methodology for Karate folks really leads to people who have problems adjusting when shifting environments and styles. However, I think that's a broader TMA problem. Which I'll address now.

The final point he raises is my biggest issue with the designation of "TMA." It's the idea that a system needs to be fixed. And this is not a traditional concept. Anything but. This is a product of the last century and it is something I broadly blame Japanese and Korean organizations for (however, that should not be taken as a knock on the specific arts... it's specifically directed at organizations).

Prior to the twentieth century, every art was in a constant state of flux. Why? Because they were being practically applied. When you are fighting for real you can't afford to get bogged down in dogma. The Chinese and Filipino arts are great examples of this. Systems were relatively loose concepts and new systems were regularly introduced to counter existing systems. Preying Mantis, at least according to oral history, was introduced to counter Snake (if memory serves). The same was true of the Filipino arts which were constantly evolving because they were military arts and had to work in battle.

What comes out of this was the idea that ideas and strategies are far more important than specific techniques. Most animal styles in the CMA featured many of the same techniques. But there applications were often very, very different.

Unfortunately with the advent of "modern, traditional systems" we came to the idea of the codification of techniques. And with that, techniques became more important than ideas. This is because techniques tend to be more easily conveyed and "understood" than ideas (note the quotes are there because I think there are still a lot of misunderstood techniques out there). And this slows down the evolution of an art.

It was also during this phase that arts began to be adjusted for non martial reasons, primarily nationalistic interests (both in Korea and Japan, later in China with the introduction of Contemporary Wu Shu which I'm not going to touch, not even with a 10 foot pole). This was a major blow to functionality as these systems became further abstracted from fighting. This is a path that has been carried to sad extremes by certain organization's fighting rules.

The fact is that trying to keep a system "traditional" is about the least traditional thing out there. And that, in my opinion, is the biggest issue that needs to be overcome. The techniques of Karate aren't bad if applied with the correct strategy, in the correct situations. However, the current mindset of numerous organizations, tends to use hammers to bang in screws.

I think that traditional arts, if practiced and applied as they were traditional done, are very useful. But over the last century a lot of baggage has been added that often prevents them from being used correctly. And that brings us back to the article.

- Matt

 

Awesome reply, Matt... lots of good stuff to think about in there.

On a side note, I also follow the iddea that a art can remain "traditional" as long as its practioners follow the art's underlying philosophy and apporaches... and that this is more important than the actual "techniques" that an art may be made up of. There should be room built into your art to allow for evolution and adaptation... and that will keep it in line with its "traditions" and goals.

 

Actually a gun is a notoriously bad self defense weapon. And there's a lot that can be done from a martial/self defense side to survive those scenarios.

If that is the case then it's immoral and unethical to teach self defense techinques as part of a class. And there are a lot of RBSD people who will disagree with you. I'd like to see your reasons for my martial arts are ineffective for self defense

Clearly you haven't been involved in Mall TKD.

Note that breaking, and mediation are hot issues in the Martial Arts community or at least on this board. Do a search if you don't believe me. It sounds like you train with a good instructor. That's great, but don't make the mistake of thinging that your experience is necessarily a common one.

But that's not an excuse to try. RBSD has come up with numerous ways to stress test and scenario test that are far better than simply throwing up one's hands and stating that things are two unpredictable so why bother. Plus the fact is, like msot things in life, there are only a few real scenarios and then simply interations of them.

This one's been pretty empirically proven over and over again. It's one case where I think most people on the board would support this evidence. And BTW it's not just restricted to Karate.

The six inch folder is a relatively modern weapon. Knife lenght greatly effects the way it is used and therefore the defensive techniques. Most Japanese arts are based on sword defenses, not short knife defenses. Then again, some forms of Kali make this mistake as well.

Actually this is a huge issue, though not restricted to Karate. The power dynamics of Martial Arts make them ripe for building up a cult environment. I've met both TMA and modern schools that have this problem. Though I have to admit that's it more of TMA problem due to the mysticism aspect.

- Matt

 

Ummm.....a gun is a great self defense weapon. Thats why we use them.

If you and I were to fight, would you rather I had a gun or that I didn't? I know I would rather I had it.

And while there may be alot you can teach in those situations, I just don't trust it unless your teaching me how to use a gun. I would very rarely recomend using any non-gun technique against someone with a gun.

That's just plain wrong. It's immoral and unethical to give them the wrong impression about what their getting out of the class, but how can it be so to teach them?

They may at that, and their entitled to their opinions. I think this would be a good subject for a survey.

And I don't think I said MA was at all ineffective, I said for the time and money invested it was inefficient compared to technological alternatives. And I stand by that.

I can't refute your experience, I was merely saying my experience refutes the authors. Since he offered no data, just anectdotes, my counter anectdote stands as a valid argument.

Elaborate please. I have no experience with what your talking about.

If it's true there must be a reasonable explanation. Can you offer one? I just don't see how air kicks make you irreversably rigid.

And again, the plural of anectdote is not data(hate to be a broken record). Your still just giving opinions, not facts that can be proved or disproved.

They had smaller stabbing daggers forever. I just don't see any effective way of dealing with them, can you explain(briefly) what you were taught?

My sensei said if your going to fight a guy with a knife, you have to expect to be cut so your better off beating feet.

A huge issue? How many ppl do you know that have joined a MA cult?

 

BTW, I don't claim to know any more about any MA then anyone(except Pankration90, but I think that's a given ) but I am claiming this article was terrible. I have no problems with the conclusions ppl here have that concur with the authors, I do have a big problem with those same ppl concluding that this article is good simply bc they do concur.

An example would be Yoda. Do you remember Yoda a few weeks ago when a similar writing was posted explaining why grappling was worthless for self defense? I said the guy was a fear monger and consequently made no solid arguments for his case, just that you could be attacked at any moment by 'roid crazed soccer hooligans hepped up on the goofballs. You agreed completely.

Now some one comes along with a similar message and similar arguments, but this time it agrees with your previous conclusions so you think it's the bees knees.

All I'm saying is that I think ppl should read things with a skeptical eye.

 

Removing most of what Karate it? By doing this it would no longer be Karate, but rather MMA.

And there are some Karate styles that DO include groundwork training.

But genrally, if your only interested in SD, don’t study Karate.

 

A gun is a good ranged attack weapon. Note that I said attack. The problem with a gun from a self defense perspective is that you need to have the gun in an accessible place, draw, disable the saftey (which most firearms have) and aim in a split second. This is something that's pretty difficult to do. That's why police can shoot a person with a knife at 30 feet. Because the knife wielder can close that space an start stabbing or slashing before the police can react.

Remember that in most self defense situations you don't begin with a drawn weapon. Plus you have to deal with adrenal dumps.

The fact is, that the more complex your weapon, like a gun, the more difficult it is to deploy.

So, honestly, depending on range and circumstance, I'd much rather have a knife than a gun.

A well conceived weapons strategy will work in most scenarios. Some arts, like Pekiti Tirsia Kali, have worked this into their ever evolving cirriculumn.

If I am teaching you a self defense technique it needs to work. Otherwise it isn't self defense. You stated in your previous posting that Karate is "a terribly inefficient form of self defesce". If that is the case then an instructor is willingly teaching material that can get their students hurt or worse. If the self defense training isn't good, all that's being built up are false notions. And the worst time to have them shattered is when you need to depend on them the most. That's why I consider it to be immoral and unethical. It's one of those things that I'm really hardcore about. People are intrusting us with their lives. And that mean we have a very serious responsibility to teach them the best stuff we can.

I continue to disagree. And I don't think you've supported your arguement. No matter what technology you use, you need to be able to deploy it under stress. And you need to understand more than the technology. Otherwise all you have is an empty panacea, a false cure all that will get you into more trouble than you need. In my opinion, a good reality based self defense program will in a short time provide you ith the most toolchest including: the skills (including awareness, avoidance, and defusion), simple techniques and emotional training needed to protect oneself.

I guess...

When it comes down to it there are only so many attacker scenarios. I tend to break them out as such:

Person is attacking (note this isn't jsut a physical attack, it begins with emotional and moves to psychological/verbal) because:
1. Percived slight
2. Gain (Phsysical, emotional, psychological)
3. Domination (Phsysical, emotional, psychological)
4. Pathalogical/Sociolophatic (mental unbalance)
Just about any type of attack falls into one of those categories. Then you can add the factor of engagement:
1. Confrontation (immediately gets in your face)
2. Subterfuge (asking a question that leds to a mugging, etc)
3. Surprise (random attack)
Then you can add other factors:
1. Single vs. Multiple
2. Visible weapons
3. Hidden weapons
From there you can start to get into scene scenarios
1. Outdoors
2. Indoors
3. Available Exit
4. Blocked Exit

And then start roleplaying. It needs to be done seriously and neither party should know too much about the other. It can be a very effective tool to start simulating confrontations and attacks.

I agree with that. Personally, my opinion is that it's a socio cultural issue that ties back to fundimental aspects of Japanese culture and was transfered from there to Korea.

The problem with this one is it isn't particularly easy to survey. However, comparing Japanese forms to Okinawan forms and then to the root Chinese forms what you will find is that as the transition is made from China to Japan smother circular movements are converted to ridged straight line techniques (as seen in Kata's like Sanchin). This was a specific cultural choice to make the Kata's more Japanese and less Chinese.

Taken a step farther when you compare, for example, the way that power is generated in many Japanese (not Okinawan) Karate system, you will find it mainly relies on muscular power as opposed to a smooth, whipping transfer of energy and intent through the body.

Look, also with 10 years martial experince, I've crossed hands with numerous Karateka and there have only been a select few who aren't ridged. So while I realize this is anedotal beyond form comparison, I'm very confident in the size of my survey (well over 100+ people). So we'll have to agree to disagree here.

All I can say is take a look at systems like S.T.A.B. or Pekiti Tersia Kali. They've been working on defenses for decades. The difference is that they are not just sticking with sword defenses as many other arts are (see the long X block threads).

Research will always lead to new ideas. Again, I reject the idea that there isn't an effective way of dealing with something. That's just lazy reasoning.

Agreed, but sometimes you can't run. So you need to have something that works.

An out and out cult. Few. But I've seen a lot of abusive relationships within the martial arts. Cases where instructors will set up rules that prevent their students from comparing thier skills against others. Instructors that will use their status to sign students up to long term contracts. Instructors that will convice mediocre students that they're good and then allow them to teach beginners because the instructor isn't showing up. And yes, I've encountered one cult in particular.

And we haven't even gotten into the real horror stories.

- Matt

 

I see no reason to do this. However, there should be regular self defense workouts in street clothes. Otherwise all you are doing is replacing one uniform with another. The uniform isn't an issue here.

Correctly teach stances. This of course would mean the retraining of a lot of instructors. But there are a number out there who get it right

Completely disagree. Make sure all instructors understand the function and contents of katas. Make them no more that 10% of all training time. Decrease their role as the student advances (other than asking the student to explore them and find applications within them as part of a testing structure).

Agree 100% and it in no way changes the nature of Karate

The supposition here is that those gross motor skills are not in Karate. They are. Reemphasize them. And then correctly represent that the more complicated moves are primarily training tools to teach sensitivity, flow and body awareness, as well as challenge the mind.

And ground work isn't in there how or why? Or why not teach it with Judo

Totally agree and in no way counter to the idea of Karate.

With tweaking I think all of the proposals make sense and can be built into the art without sacrificing its "traditional" core.

- Matt

 

I'm not gonna say anything, but i'll surelly stand next to you guys