Karate blackbelts in MMA

[Azam]

Yeah I still don't agree
http://fightland.vice.com/blog/fighting-motives-the-kingdom-with-no-weapons
I'm not saying the dudes flawless, but I think if you're talking about analysts online he's the best guy out there

He is the best analyst out there for karate for sure and overall. But I think his expertise as far as karate goes is with WKF point fighting, point fighting in general or combat sports involving karate.

Outside of that I feel that a lot of it is regurgitated information that's already available out there on the net including the Okinawan article you linked.

Then again he doesn't do that many karate inspired articles. I think it may be less than a dozen in many years of writing.


The place I use to frequent a lot was the shotokan way forums - I think the karate knowledge available on there pretty much shits on everything I've seen written as far as karate is concerned. It was a treasure trove of information & discussion on all things karate - I learned a lot of stuff from the users on there. Unfortunately the forum was taken down though.

 

[Hotora86]

Man you guys are all really high on Enkamp but he got handled pretty easily. Sure I saw potential, but Taleb is a decent fighter with some solid fundamentals and didn't really have any trouble shutting Enkamp down. He cut him off at will, faded the axe kicks and fancy stuff aimed at his head, took angles to get behind Enkamp when he spun to the body, caught a few kicks, landed low kicks pretty much whenever he felt like it, rocked Enkamp with a left hook in the pocket and controlled him on the ground--though I won't hold that as much against him because of the size difference. Also Enkamp is lucky Taleb didn't start going to the body until the third round because he had absolutely no answer for that.

Enkamp is young and talented, but he got beat by the same blueprint that style of fighter always gets beat by. Steady pressure, angles to counter linear rushes, low kicks to stifle movement, body punches once they're cut off, counter punches to the head once you get them to open up in the pocket and takedowns whenever you get them squared up or with their back turned. It's the same thing Edgar did to Yair, Holzken did to Daniels, Woodley did whenever he could be fucking bothered to against Wonderboy, Weidman did to Machida, RDA did to Pettis, the list goes on.

Styles make fights I guess. I have to agree with you about Enkamp tho - I was disappointed ny his movement in the cage. He didn't back out nearly as well as Machida or Wonderboy. Both of them may have been effectively countered by top competition at some point but they still got very far using the bread-and-butter point-fighting skills they had mastered.

Tenshin on the other hand looks like someone who won't be countered as easily.

 

[Hotora86]

That style doesn't work all that well in MMA either. Even though everybody likes to talk about how it's harder to cut someone off in the cage than in a ring, guys still get cut off all the time--especially those sideways, in-out TMA guys. As I said in my previous post, they all lose the same way once they hit a certain level of competition. I don't even mean this in an art vs art way, I'm saying that fundamentally you can't rely on linear movement unless there's no penalty or obstacle to prevent you from backing up forever, and you can't rely on long-range techniques forever when effective short-range techniques are allowed by the ruleset.

I won't argue but I'll add to your last point:
if you're hell bent on relying on long-range techniques then you have to maintain distance - both with your own movement as well as by stifling the opponent.

Again, Machida was a master at this way up to his undefeated title fight. He was always in range while his opponents were always out of range. Distance was key for his gameplan and his TDD was on par. I actually think he made a mistake by changing that attitude at some point, trying to look for the finish more, trying to please the fans instead of winning.

 

[Hotora86]

I'm not looking to invalidate styles. Yes, those guys made it to the championship level. They're extremely talented and skilled fighters. I'm not trying to take away from them. I'm just pointing out that they have certain stylistic weaknesses that always get taken advantage of sooner or later. Every style has it's flaws, and that's actually why I pointed to such high level fighters. Clearly they're all great fighters, but no matter how far they've taken that skillset it always gets shut down by the same game plan.

The takeaway here is that a solution needs to be found to those problems I listed. The style very obviously works, now we need some guys to make it work even against a disciplined, pressuring, body/leg and wrestling based attack.

To be fair you have admit that though the gameplan is obvious, it's implementation isn't as easy as it sounds. I'm sure Tito and Randy though about it and failed. Hendo and Mousasi are also smart guys who had the blueprint but also couldn't win. So it's still skill vs skill and not rock vs scissors.

 

[CFGroup]

Man you guys are all really high on Enkamp but he got handled pretty easily. Sure I saw potential, but Taleb is a decent fighter with some solid fundamentals and didn't really have any trouble shutting Enkamp down. He cut him off at will, faded the axe kicks and fancy stuff aimed at his head, took angles to get behind Enkamp when he spun to the body, caught a few kicks, landed low kicks pretty much whenever he felt like it, rocked Enkamp with a left hook in the pocket and controlled him on the ground--though I won't hold that as much against him because of the size difference. Also Enkamp is lucky Taleb didn't start going to the body until the third round because he had absolutely no answer for that.

Enkamp is young and talented, but he got beat by the same blueprint that style of fighter always gets beat by. Steady pressure, angles to counter linear rushes, low kicks to stifle movement, body punches once they're cut off, counter punches to the head once you get them to open up in the pocket and takedowns whenever you get them squared up or with their back turned. It's the same thing Edgar did to Yair, Holzken did to Daniels, Woodley did whenever he could be fucking bothered to against Wonderboy, Weidman did to Machida, RDA did to Pettis, the list goes on.

I will counter your logic and say the blueprint you point to has been beaten time and time again by all these guys to some counters are incorporated to help neutralize it. So you're arguing a logic that has been disproved by all the movement based fighters till the style you are touting adapts thus making it not the original "MMA style" that beats movment.

It's all a circular cycle of innovation and adaptation on and on.

But to your points...

Yeah, I'm not sure why those guys don't adapt to that basic strategy and work around it. Transitioning to kickboxing from TKD full contact it was all about breaking down why I was getting my ass handed to me and adapting to some of those points you observe.

Low kicks is the first and formost tactic to incorporate. We spend all those years training flexibility, speed, power and timing kick low is so easy and will slow down any fighter or get them to react defensivelly. Part of me thinks ego is part of it, but I don't care as long as it's effective.

We train all that movement but don't design new patterns to mask the straight line advances that can be read. We can study and incorporate angle based movement just as well as the next when we drop the ego and look to the successful examples.

In short all your points can be analyzed and patterns incorporated to adjust to them as well as keep the movement and final techniques.

But then that's the cycle of innovation and adaptation.

 

[a guy]

Styles make fights I guess. I have to agree with you about Enkamp tho - I was disappointed ny his movement in the cage. He didn't back out nearly as well as Machida or Wonderboy. Both of them may have been effectively countered by top competition at some point but they still got very far using the bread-and-butter point-fighting skills they had mastered.

Tenshin on the other hand looks like someone who won't be countered as easily.

Yea that's something I've been seeing a lot of on this forum. Somebody like Enkamp comes in and survives a fight with a decent veteran, suddenly it's validation for TMA guys. Someone like Yair beats up an old, washed up, significantly smaller BJ Penn and it's more validation. Like guys we get it, TMA works in MMA. We've all known that for years. We've had multiple UFC champs with TMA backgrounds and tons of successful competitors. Now can we stop worshiping every guy TMA guy and stop talking about MMA guys like they're all the same.

Wait is Tenshin coming to MMA?

 

[a guy]

I will counter your logic and say the blueprint you point to has been beaten time and time again by all these guys to some counters are incorporated to help neutralize it. So you're arguing a logic that has been disproved by all the movement based fighters till the style you are touting adapts thus making it not the original "MMA style" that beats movment.

It's all a circular cycle of innovation and adaptation on and on.

But to your points...

Yeah, I'm not sure why those guys don't adapt to that basic strategy and work around it. Transitioning to kickboxing from TKD full contact it was all about breaking down why I was getting my ass handed to me and adapting to some of those points you observe.

Low kicks is the first and formost tactic to incorporate. We spend all those years training flexibility, speed, power and timing kick low is so easy and will slow down any fighter or get them to react defensivelly. Part of me thinks ego is part of it, but I don't care as long as it's effective.

We train all that movement but don't design new patterns to mask the straight line advances that can be read. We can study and incorporate angle based movement just as well as the next when we drop the ego and look to the successful examples.

In short all your points can be analyzed and patterns incorporated to adjust to them as well as keep the movement and final techniques.

But then that's the cycle of innovation and adaptation.

It's not really that the style adapted and wasn't the original "MMA style". I don't know why you think that exists. MMA has a vast range of styles. What really happened is guys like Machida came in with years and years of experience in striking arts, so they beat up guys who didn't start training striking until 3-5 years ago. Then they hit the top level of competition and have more difficulty making the style work because they find guys with enough experience to impose the right gameplan on them.

There are two main weaknesses that need to be addressed by this long range, in-out, kick heavy style of fighter.

1) Defense in the pocket. These guys always get hurt exchanging in the pocket. Wonderboy got dropped by Woodley and Ellenberger, Machida got dropped by Jones and knocked out by Shogun, Enkamp got rocked by Taleb, Yair got cracked then wrestle-fucked by Edgar, Gunni got dropped by Story, the list goes on. To be successful in MMA skill in the pocket is one of the most important things, and if you can't win there you NEED to be able to force the guy to stay outside (unsustainable) or beat him in the clinch. There's a reason wrestlers and boxers have always held the most championships and have been the longest reigning champs. It's not because those arts are superior, it's because they develop skill in the pocket and clinch that allow those fighters to dictate distance and pace. These TMA guys need to find solutions and figure out a way to stop getting hurt in the pocket.

2) Cage cutting. These guys also always end up with their backs on the cage, which takes away their ability to use their excellent distance control and thus ends with them being predictable, easily timed and easily set up. This goes hand in hand with defense in the pocket. These guys need to control distance as much as possible,but understand that you can't keep the other guy outside forever. The answer can't be to back up more, eventually it has to be to find a way to close distance on your own terms, turn the guy and escape back to the center. No amount of anglular footwork in the world will prevent you from getting cut off forever. You need to be punching off those angles, and you need to be ready to step inside and shoot or smother then turn.

As for for tactics, a lot of these guys have tried to incorporate low kicks and not done well. Fundamentally, throwing low kicks while being driven backwards is very risky. Also, throwing them against somebody who's ready to step in and throw hands or catch them is very risky, which guys as usually waiting to do against longer range styles. Low kicking is how Wonderboy got taken down and elbowed in round 1 of the first Woodley fight. The problem with low kicking is that first you need defense in the pocket, otherwise you're just stepping into the other guy's range for a pretty low reward strike.

Angle based movement is a necessity, but again it only gets you so far. Without the ability to fight in the pocket all angles really do are buy time against a good cage cutter. Sure they'll work magic against a Hendricks type who follows you, but not against a cage cutter like Weidman.

So yea, we've seen these guys make it to the top. We haven't seen them innovate to beat a certain style yet. It's time to address the core weaknesses that links all these losses.

 

[a guy]

To be fair you have admit that though the gameplan is obvious, it's implementation isn't as easy as it sounds. I'm sure Tito and Randy though about it and failed. Hendo and Mousasi are also smart guys who had the blueprint but also couldn't win. So it's still skill vs skill and not rock vs scissors.

It's implementation definitely isn't easy against someone like Machida. He was an undefeated world champ for a reason. The thing is though, he also had probably a decade of striking experience on most of his opponents. As I said in another post, fundamentally this long-range style needs to develop a system to fight in the pocket and not get hurt there, because in MMA you're gonna be forced to fight in the pocket once you hit a certain level of competition and you're gonna get hurt or finished there if you don't have some very good answers.

 

[CFGroup]

It's not really that the style adapted and wasn't the original "MMA style". I don't know why you think that exists.

So yea, we've seen these(TMA) guys make it to the top. We haven't seen them innovate to beat a certain style yet.

Strawman argument...

U just contradicted your point.

How can you have "I don't know why you think that(MMA style) exists"

And

"W haven't seen them innovate to beat a certain(MMA) style yet"

Collage debate not your strong point?

And don't ever mention Waidman in the same breath as a good tactition or cage cutter. He's been obliterated his last two fights with amateurish telegraphed mistakes...

LOL!

 

[Jimmy Jazz]

It's implementation definitely isn't easy against someone like Machida. He was an undefeated world champ for a reason. The thing is though, he also had probably a decade of striking experience on most of his opponents. As I said in another post, fundamentally this long-range style needs to develop a system to fight in the pocket and not get hurt there, because in MMA you're gonna be forced to fight in the pocket once you hit a certain level of competition and you're gonna get hurt or finished there if you don't have some very good answers.

isnt machida more a puncher than a kicker though? you have to get up close to land punches.

 

[Jimmy Jazz]

Yea that's something I've been seeing a lot of on this forum. Somebody like Enkamp comes in and survives a fight with a decent veteran, suddenly it's validation for TMA guys. Someone like Yair beats up an old, washed up, significantly smaller BJ Penn and it's more validation. Like guys we get it, TMA works in MMA. We've all known that for years. We've had multiple UFC champs with TMA backgrounds and tons of successful competitors. Now can we stop worshiping every guy TMA guy and stop talking about MMA guys like they're all the same.

Wait is Tenshin coming to MMA?

yeah he's 3-0

 

[a guy]

Strawman argument...

U just contradicted your point.

How can you have "I don't know why you think that(MMA style) exists"

And

"W haven't seen them innovate to beat a certain(MMA) style yet"

Collage debate not your strong point?

And don't ever mention Waidman in the same breath as a good tactition or cage cutter. He's been obliterated his last two fights with amateurish telegraphed mistakes...

LOL!

Man...are you serious? The style I'm talking about isn't the "MMA style". It's a basic pressuring style. One that exists in boxing, kickboxing, MT, fuck even in wrestling or BJJ. There is no "MMA style". There are many styles that get used in MMA, and a basic pressuring one is the bane to all these fighters we're talking about once they hit guys who they don't have a decade of striking experience on. Instead of being a smug asshole, maybe respond to my actual points which are that these guys need to develop:

1) Defense in the pocket and

2) A solution to cage cutting footwork

Weidman walked Machida and Silva both down regardless of what he's doing now...

BTW, can you tell me who else got fucked up by both Rockhold and Romero in his last two fights?

 

[a guy]

yeah he's 3-0

Oh shit I missed that. Awesome.

 

[a guy]

isnt machida more a puncher than a kicker though? you have to get up close to land punches.

Somewhat sure, but Machida's style of punching is also long ranged. Usually just one shot then he's out, and Machida is actually a great example to study because he was very good in the clinch so it wasn't easy to catch him in the pocket. And yet, guys still did. Jones, Shogun, Weidman, Rockhold and Romero all found a way--Weidman was the only one of those who failed to finish him.

 

[AndyMaBobs]

The trouble with discussing a lot of these match ups, is that everyone worth their salt agrees that styles make fights. Yet when it refers more specifically to martial arts styles people jump to its the practitioner, not the martial art.

Now it's true that Samart Payakaroon has more in common stylistically with Lyoto Machida, than he does his fellow nak muay Dieselnoi - but I also think it's true that martial arts like karate, which tend to have a more rigid structure to learning - do tend to develop more similar approaches to fighting.

When you go to a Shotokan class, there is a very clear idea of what shotokan is, and even between styles, Gunnar Nelson (goju) has much in common with Lyoto. I think that is because you go to a karate class, you learn your basic reverse punch and front kick, you learn your katas and there is a syllabus. Whereas in Muay Thai, what you learn depends heavily on who you train under - obviously there is variation from coach to coach in karate but I don't think its AS varied as muay thai.

So when there is such a stereotypical style to point based karate, I think it IS fair to say that styles do indeed make fights, and even if you're a very good karateka, if you fight in a very rigid karate style like Machida or Nelson, you will stylistically come across issues with low kicks, and hooked punches. Purely because those styles don't tend to teach defence for hooked punches and low kicks, and actively teach you a way of punching that involves you dropping the guard.

If I hypothetically put a guy who ONLY trained karate hand techniques against a boxer, even if they'd trained the same amount of time, he's still liable to get knocked about because of the fundamental flaws in those techniques.

I realise that might sound like I'm invalidating karate, but I think karate is far from useless, hell I'm sure there are some wing chun guys who would wipe the floor with me - but I do think that people like to turn a blind eye to the old phrase, styles make fights, when it becomes more about karate vs muay thai vs boxing - and less about infighter vs outfighter.

That's just my thoughts.

 

[a guy]

The trouble with discussing a lot of these match ups, is that everyone worth their salt agrees that styles make fights. Yet when it refers more specifically to martial arts styles people jump to its the practitioner, not the martial art.

Now it's true that Samart Payakaroon has more in common stylistically with Lyoto Machida, than he does his fellow nak muay Dieselnoi - but I also think it's true that martial arts like karate, which tend to have a more rigid structure to learning - do tend to develop more similar approaches to fighting.

When you go to a Shotokan class, there is a very clear idea of what shotokan is, and even between styles, Gunnar Nelson (goju) has much in common with Lyoto. I think that is because you go to a karate class, you learn your basic reverse punch and front kick, you learn your katas and there is a syllabus. Whereas in Muay Thai, what you learn depends heavily on who you train under - obviously there is variation from coach to coach in karate but I don't think its AS varied as muay thai.

So when there is such a stereotypical style to point based karate, I think it IS fair to say that styles do indeed make fights, and even if you're a very good karateka, if you fight in a very rigid karate style like Machida or Nelson, you will stylistically come across issues with low kicks, and hooked punches. Purely because those styles don't tend to teach defence for hooked punches and low kicks, and actively teach you a way of punching that involves you dropping the guard.

If I hypothetically put a guy who ONLY trained karate hand techniques against a boxer, even if they'd trained the same amount of time, he's still liable to get knocked about because of the fundamental flaws in those techniques.

I realise that might sound like I'm invalidating karate, but I think karate is far from useless, hell I'm sure there are some wing chun guys who would wipe the floor with me - but I do think that people like to turn a blind eye to the old phrase, styles make fights, when it becomes more about karate vs muay thai vs boxing - and less about infighter vs outfighter.

That's just my thoughts.

Well said, and that's what I'm trying to get at here. I'm not saying Karate is bad. I'm saying that there's a certain style shared by all these guys of various karate and other TMA backgrounds that always gets beaten by a certain style for the same fundamental reasons. Thus, someone looking to use that style in MMA needs to find solutions to those stylistic problems, otherwise they're gonna hit a wall sooner or later depending on how tough, athletic and talented they are.

 

[CFGroup]

Thus, someone looking to use that style in MMA needs to find solutions to those stylistic problems,

U just used the strawman again...

U didn't say "pressure style" U said "MMA" as if MMA is a style vs a TMA style...

It doesn't look like U know U r doing it...

But OK debate continuity isn't your strong point.

And my points about adapting footwork movement is all about adjusting for pressure...

And yeah I did get my ass handed to me till I re evaluated that part of my game and made adjustments to compensate.

 

[a guy]

U just used the strawman again...

U didn't say "pressure style" U said "MMA" as if MMA is a style vs a TMA style...

It doesn't look like U know U r doing it...

But OK debate continuity isn't your strong point.

And my points about adapting footwork movement is all about adjusting for pressure...

And yeah I did get my ass handed to me till I re evaluated that part of my game and made adjustments to compensate.

No man, read what I said. I didn't say MMA style, I said using that style IN MMA. I'm talking about pressure which is just one style that can be used in MMA, and is the counter to the long ranged style all these karate and TMA guys adopt.

You're just blatantly ignoring my points to be condescending. I made a point about why footwork isn't enough to adapt for pressure, but you're too defensive to focus on what I'm actually saying.

 

[Hotora86]

The trouble with discussing a lot of these match ups, is that everyone worth their salt agrees that styles make fights. Yet when it refers more specifically to martial arts styles people jump to its the practitioner, not the martial art.

Now it's true that Samart Payakaroon has more in common stylistically with Lyoto Machida, than he does his fellow nak muay Dieselnoi - but I also think it's true that martial arts like karate, which tend to have a more rigid structure to learning - do tend to develop more similar approaches to fighting.

When you go to a Shotokan class, there is a very clear idea of what shotokan is, and even between styles, Gunnar Nelson (goju) has much in common with Lyoto. I think that is because you go to a karate class, you learn your basic reverse punch and front kick, you learn your katas and there is a syllabus. Whereas in Muay Thai, what you learn depends heavily on who you train under - obviously there is variation from coach to coach in karate but I don't think its AS varied as muay thai.

So when there is such a stereotypical style to point based karate, I think it IS fair to say that styles do indeed make fights, and even if you're a very good karateka, if you fight in a very rigid karate style like Machida or Nelson, you will stylistically come across issues with low kicks, and hooked punches. Purely because those styles don't tend to teach defence for hooked punches and low kicks, and actively teach you a way of punching that involves you dropping the guard.

If I hypothetically put a guy who ONLY trained karate hand techniques against a boxer, even if they'd trained the same amount of time, he's still liable to get knocked about because of the fundamental flaws in those techniques.

I realise that might sound like I'm invalidating karate, but I think karate is far from useless, hell I'm sure there are some wing chun guys who would wipe the floor with me - but I do think that people like to turn a blind eye to the old phrase, styles make fights, when it becomes more about karate vs muay thai vs boxing - and less about infighter vs outfighter.

That's just my thoughts.

I am both a huge Karate fan as well as a huge Machida fan but I will admit that both fights against Shogun showed exactly what you and @a guy said - that Shotokan is vulnerable to low kicks (1st fight) and hooks (2nd fight).

Then again, you could argue that "standard" plodding MT (as it is most often taught in low/mid level gyms) is vulnerable to the same Shotokan dart-in point game - as showcased perfectly by Machida vs Thiago Silva.

I think the only conclusion is that, indeed, styles make fights BUT the outcome still heavily relies on the level of skill of each fighter. Thiago Silva also tried to walk Machida down but he just wasn't skilled enough. Weidman was.

 

[CFGroup]

No man, read what I said. I didn't say MMA style, I said using that style IN MMA. I'm talking about pressure which is just one style that can be used in MMA, and is the counter to the long ranged style all these karate and TMA guys adopt.

You're just blatantly ignoring my points to be condescending. I made a point about why footwork isn't enough to adapt for pressure, but you're too defensive to focus on what I'm actually saying.

No actually I'm smugly pointing out that you are assuming that distance can't find counters to pressure like pressure found counters to distance.

Plus the fact that what you guys call "Karate"(such a sophomoric term to anyone who's taken the time to learn about Japanese martial arts) is already adapted to a skill set outside it's functional purpose. The function of martial arts were to stand off at distance and incapacitate the enemy until a weapon could be recovered. The Japanese "Karate" tries to keep some of that phylosophy by structuring it's training and sparing in the way it does. Arts like BJJ, Judo, wrestling, boxing or Muay Thai do not. The focus on the individual aspects of 1v1 combat in a safe non lethal environment.

All of you sport and MMA purists forget that.

So in fact any high level success of "Karate" in sport sparring against arts that are specifically adapted to the ring is as much achievement as needed. It is already not in it's intended environment.

If a Enkamp can make it past 3 rounds and only get beat up a bit than he's a successful display of distance based fighting. His opponent was trying to KO him and couldn't. Plus the fact he took the fight with no camp and 12 days notice and facing a weight cutter who use to fight a division higher.

That's why I'm picking apart your assumptions and making you clarify you terms.