Why Traditional Karate is Not Effective for Self Defence

I see a lot of good points brought up by Matt and Thomas. I feel that many in the TMA's have lost their way and strayed from practical application. This does not mean that the systems themselves are bad or inferior, but that the methods that some use to teach them are. OTOH, I believe that a lot of people in both MMA and RBSD systems/programs are in so much of a negative reaction to these abuses that they fail to see or give proper credit to the positive values of TMA's when they are taught and trained correctly.

It's my opinion that, at least to a large extent, MMA and RBSD systems are simply in many ways taking the TMA's back to their roots. Of course, they are more based on the situation of our time, but the more "discoveries" they make, it seems to just to more clearly point out what the original intent of many traditions really were/are. I am not suggesting that anyone has to be limited to just going by the guidelines of the TMA's, I do find them as a good source for researching and the development of effective strategies for today. You just need to ask the question; what was the battlefield use of this technique or strategy? Rather than accept the handed down version usually taught by the "armchair warriors".

I am probably not expressing myself very well tonight due to fatigue. Let me try this another way. In Okinawa, Itosu took the combat systems of the Ryukyu islands and modified them for the practice by school children for both fitness and character education, thus changing it from a -jitsu to a -do. The original "-jitsu" was a leading (and constantly evolving) RBSD system of the day (and one of the best in history), but was purposely modified for the use of children and made "less dangerous". It was this "school children's art" that Itosu's student, Funakoshi exported to mainland Japan and later greatly influenced other systems such as tae kwon do among others.

Many of the "traditions" handed down in the training were ways of keeping things safe for the children in practice and to keep them from becoming more dangerous to their peers and others than they were mature enough to handle. Unfortunately, some of these practices can and have watered down the combat effectiveness of how many pracice these TMA's. I feel that if you look back to the actual roots, and take things in their original context, there is a lot of value to present day MMA and RBSD programs can learn and apply from this source. I don't feel that I would ever want to be limited to
"the old ways" as my only sourcce of knowledge, but I don't think anyone from the "old school" would either. It's always been about evolution and growth.

Giving credit where it's due, I think there has been a great value to the world as a whole by the Character ed, ect. that came from the "-do". I just have never understood why, at least for the adults, you can't reintegrate the combat effectiveness of the "-jitsu" (and obviously try to take it to the next level) into this as well. They don't need to be seperate.

 

Great thread!

This thread has great value to me, because this EXACT conflict has arisen during my martial career. Let me outline.

-Studied Karate for 5 years: While I became incredibly fit, I often wondered if it would really work. Also, if I moved my hands out of "side/hip chamber" before a punch, I lost a LOT of power. The worst aspect of my experience is that I have become incurably "stiff". Try as I might, I can't seem to reverse the "hard/linear" aspect of my previous training.

-Studied Kenpo 5 years: While more fluid and adaptable than Karate, I found some HUGE flaws. The flaws generally stem from the instruction, rather than the style itself, so this isn't a "kempo bash". During my training, we made use of "static feed" drills, namely "Person A punches at person B, then waits for person B to react". I felt that this was HORRIBLE is regards to self defense. Combat is fluid and chaotic, not regimented.

-Finally, after 12 years of training (two more spent in military...no complaints there!), I have moved on to a modified version of "Krav Maga combined with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu". While I am not saying that these arts are superior, they offer what I wanted: 1. Freeform/adaptive drills, 2. No regimented forms/defensive maneuvers, 3. A view of combat that reads "The only wrong thing to do in combat is to do nothing at all".

There. I'm done.

May you achieve
Satori

 

Great points Kwan. The fact is, we're all in the rediscovery business. It's all been done before. Perhaps a little differently, but trust me, its been done. Until we gain new arms or new legs or a radically different set of weapons, its all been done.

This just got hit home again two nights ago. I was attending my Water Boxing lesson, a rare internal Chinese style, and in the process of learning the base movement from the dragon set. Shock, agast... form!!!! Any way, I start to analize it and sure enough it's exactly the same movement, conceptually and technique wise, as the Blauer S.P.E.A.R., a RBSD delivery system that I think very highly of. Here, in a very Traditional Martial Art, is a motion that addresses the flich reaction and intercepting an attack before the power is generated.

Now I'm not suggesting that Blauer stole from Water Boxing. Rather that the human body hasn't fundimentally changed in centuries and a good idea is a good idea.

- Matt

 

I don't believe that any style is inferior to another, but do believe that within certain styles unrealistic methods of training have been propagated.

We see examples of poor [enter style X] everywhere, not just poor karate. But do to the popularity of Karate and the speed with which someone can become an instructor, poor training methods are spread quickly and far.

I've seen really poor quality Krav Maga and Muay Thai out there, so should I think these styles are 'inferior'? No, because I've seen some really excellent examples too.

I have seen some very good, effective karate. I have also trained in Karate and believe that it has helped in the development in my right cross. But I also believe that there are a greater abundance of poor methodology of training in Karate in general.

Are these 'more effective' arts more effective because they are 'newer' to the world market, and there hasn't yet been enough time for poor training practices to creep in?

Time will tell.

Dons flak jacket, stands near the middle.

 

MMA is unrealistic in the sreet,it's only effective in competition,it's all shooting in and groundwork which would get you battered in a street fight

 

As a karateka I have to say that this article raises some very good points, although no doubt some of these are unpalatable to traditional karate. I've got to agree with the gist of Matt's, Thomas's and Kwan's replies.

To expand slightly on what Kwan said.....you have to understand the origin of the modern so called 'traditional' oriental arts. These arts were developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and continued to develop throughout the 20th century. The Japanese arts in particular are very much a result of the cultural transformation that began with the Meiji Restoration in, I think, 1868. You only have to look briefly at the writings of the founders of the major systems (Kano, Ueshiba, Funakoshi etc.) to see that self-defence was not where they were at.

The one crucial flaw in this article is that it lumps all oriental arts in together. Looking at karate in particular, it takes no account of the fact that not all karate schools follow the modern/traditional model. There are systems in Okinawa that never bought into Funakoshi's or Itosu's vision. More and more in the west we see schools popping up that are attempting to capture, if not the actual technique, at least the spirit and intent of the old Okinawan schools. My own dojo is one such example.

The long and the short of it is that, if you're interested in self-defence, then you have to make your training realistic rather than ritualistic. And there are more and more Karate schools that do exactly that.

Mike

P.S. When it comes to stiffness and rigidity, well I can certainly say that I'm one karateka who can flow with the best of them.

 

Muay Thai and Boxing better than karate??????????

Hey,

First off all, I am tired of so many people saying that Muay Thai and boxing are better arts than karate. I will make this post short and full of nothing but supporting evidence.

Watch Ultimate Fighting Championships III: The American Dream for an example of a ****o-ryu/goju-ryu karate expert, Harold Howard, KO’ing a certified Muay Thai kickboxing instructor, Roland Payne.

Watch K-1 Ichigeki for an example of Kyokushin karate expert, Glaube Feitosa, KO’ing kickboxing veteran, Alistair Overeem in the first round!

Watch Ultimate Fighting Championships IV: Revenge of the Warriors for an example of a traditional Japanese Taijitsu expert, Steve Jennum, toss, punch, and just plain o’ beat the mess out of, before submitting professional boxing champion, with a record of 35-8-0, with 28 wins by knockout, Melton Bowen.

There are bad styles of karate, such as my style (unfortunately), Shotokan, and there are good styles of karate, such as goju-ryu, kempo (I forgot to mention my favorite fighter, Sensei Chuck “The Iceman” Liddell,” a 4th degree black belt in the art of The Pit Kempo [aka Kuzen Kempo aka Hawaiian Kempo], who, I believe, needs no introduction) and kyokushin. So, please, stop all this nonsense about traditional karate does not work, etc, etc. I have had friends who have used karate extensively in street fights. It just depends on how well you are trained and how much effort you put into your fighting style.

I study boxing as well as karate because boxing offers quite a few benefits over karate, such as fast hand combos. However, it is wrong to rank one fighting style over another. “It is not the size of the dog in a fight that counts, but the size of the fight in a dog.”

Have a great day, my brothers and sisters in the martial arts!

Your brother in the martial arts,
Darting Viper

 

I too am sick of people saying Kickboxing and Muay Thai are better than traditional arts, like some forms of kung fu. They kick, I kick, they punch, I punch. They knee, I knee. They elbow, I elbow. They work their strikes on pads, I work my strikes on pads. They hit the heavy bag a lot, I hit the heavy bag a lot. I do tiger claws and palmstrikes (with resistance, on pads) and panther fists, they don't. So why are they better again?

 

Mike,

I agree on all points. This is part of why it's important to not only know the lineage of your art, but try and understand how and why it was developed.

After I read about three of your posts I knew this one the case. I've met Karateka who can flow. They typically come out of the Okinawan arts, or are ones who have back traced their lineage. But I'm sure you've met your fair share of the ridged type.

As far as MMA not working in the street... unless that was a case of extreme sarcasism, it's a rather uninformed view.

- Matt

 

style vs style

EDIT: Tejitsudo, I don't believe its bashing.
It so is

A lot of people are fooling themselves, thinking TMA will defend themselves.

how to ostrecise 95% of map members well done.

This is such a blatant style vs style thread.

 

Do you guys think this applies to some of the Southern Kung Fu styles???

Because I know ALOT of those guys can kick some serious ass in a streetfight. . . . but they are quite different from karate, so. . . . .

 

If traditional karate sucks that's fine, just do a search on Mas Oyama and take up kyukoshinshinkyukuokukykushin. However the hell that's spelled.

 

First of all this is not a style v. style thing. Note that Thomas, Kwan Jang, Mike Flannigan and myself all practice what are broadly considered TMAs from Korea, Japan and China respectively. And we all agreed with many points raised in the articles. At the same time we all, to varying degrees, still dress up in pajamas and ascribe to certain cultural practices common to our given arts.

At the end of the day the article applies to arts, traditional and modern, that are not approaching things from a realistic training methodology.

People, youre getting stuck on the wrong level. This isn't about style. I wrote a counter a few posts back about how you implement the recommendations made, with some changes, and still have a system that was Karate. Take a step away from the style and see the training issues that this is really addressing.

- Matt

 

You just need to do it right, and focus on the fighting aspect.

We kung-fu people classify students into two broad categories: Fighters and Performers.

Learn all the kata and forms you want, but if you don't take the time to break it down, find all of the "useful" moves, and teach yourself and ask your Sifu about the actual application, all you are going to be is a performer

I choose to be a fighter.

 

But it isn't traditional v. modern. That's the point. If anything what we are calling traditional isn't in any way traditional, see my previous post. What we're talking about here is a methodology v. methodology thread. And, with very few exceptions, methodology is not a fixed component of style.

I challenge anyone to prove that statement wrong.

- Matt

 

However traditional the style, I only actually USE the stuff that seems to work in a real-life situation.

That's why we spar everyday - going all out really helps you learn how to fight.

 

Erm, I might have met one or two (thousand) in my time, yes.

Mike

 

i skimmed through it. I think that this is yet another way of trying to say that TMA's dont work. I do kung fu, I think that is wrong about the deep stances being bad, the legs generate alot of power for punches, especially in kung fu *remembers his kung fu teacher going from low horse stance to front stance and punching very fast :-s, scary* also i would like to say that some TMA's like kung fu CAN actually teach meaning to their forms, forms weren't created to be a dance they were training in southern kung fu Each movement has several applications, this is where chi nah comes in . even my sifu doesnt think karate is being taught very well these days he was watching some kids doing a well known karate and they were really bad.

 

ok heres my 2 cents worth

It's not about the style its about the person the practicioner of the art that limits himself. If you train in a disipline and limit yourself by the moves in that one disipline and don't use your brain or think about the situation at all then yes you will get your ass handed to you. But if you in a street fight use common sense use what you know about the world like man breaks in my house, he has a knife, i sneek around behind him in the dark and club him like a seal. I don't do the honorable thing and face him head on. Basically IMPROVISING can make up for loop holes in a certain art.

 

????????? - Horse stance is of little use outside the training hall.