Karate Myths and Misconceptions

[AndyMaBobs]

Not detracting from 10th planets effectiveness, but from the whole ancient deadly killing art discussion that predates sports, while 10th planet wouldn’t exist without the sporting aspect.

Yup completely agree!

 

[panamaican]

Figuring out a scoring system is definitely the biggest hurdle for putting together a competition format for old-style karate methods. It's easy to engage in sparring that's appropriate for it, because nobody is trying to win or keeping track of points, but as soon as you try to figure out victory criteria, it becomes a serious challenge.

My initial thought was to go the knockdown route, essentially, with the striking being full contact and one of the ways to win being knocking down your opponent with strikes, but add in the factor of requiring competitors to maintain at least one point of contact with their opponent, and allowing victory by successful throws or submissions, as well. The trouble with that is, of course, getting people to participate in full contact fighting, of any kind. Here in Arizona, there is no full contact karate competition circuit, which would be the easiest existing format to partner with--it's all point karate, with the occasional event that includes some sort of semi-contact continuous sparring, which is about as close as I could find.

Trying to find an option that doesn't have heavy striking contact is going to end up much more like a tui-shou competition, with the addition of joint locks, chokes, and possibly some additional takedowns. There would still need to be strikes, of course, but I can't think of a way to incentivize them without heavy contact, because the range is too close to really keep track of who is landing. Maybe just requiring strikes and penalizing for "lack of activity" if they aren't used? Kind of a lame option, but it would accomplish the goal.

It's pretty difficult i've found to exactly simulate the character of neutral/stand-up game in an MMA match, without actually, you know, just having an MMA match.

It's easy to make a point fighting criteria for striking (scoring hits), or for grappling (scoring takedowns or riding time); but making one that can score both at the same time gets a bit trickier. By what means would you even relate the value of strikes with the value of takedowns or grappling moves in general together? It almost seems like you are committing category errors to begin with.

I think the most straightforward method would be to simply, take an already existing takedown ruleset, like folkstyle or sumo, and just make all strikes fully legal on top that framework. Or likewise on the other hand, take an already existing point striking ruleset (like amateur/olympic style boxing), and just make takedowns and groundfighting legal on top of that.

One idea i've played around with myself is, rather than doing a match as a 'whole thing' where all scoring maneuvers are tallied up together at the end, you do it in terms of multiple sets, which have potentially multiple win criteria, and it is winning a set itself that gives you a 'point', and the overall winner is first to X number of sets. That way you won't have to try and 'mix' points scored by either takedowns or striking together somehow.

One example might be, say, pushing a guy out of bounds or making him touch the ground with something besides his feet is one win criteria for a set; at the same time, say, landing three scoring strikes in a row without being scored on in turn in between is also a win criteria.

In this manner, people with game plans looking to either take people down or keep it standing would both be tested to not tunnel vision and become complacent with their strategies, just like in an actual mma match (without actually having to involve the ground fighting that makes takedowns valuable in mma in the first place). Even more than that, i see it as a more possible method of selecting for people who can look to do both depending on the situation or opponent, like GSP.

This is very much off the top of my head - each fighter picks a kata. They know which kata they chose but not their opponents. During the course of the competition, they have to land sequences from the kata on their opponent. First to a set number of points wins. They can land anything they want during the fight but only the kata sequences score.

 

[Dougall]

This is very much off the top of my head - each fighter picks a kata. They know which kata they chose but not their opponents. During the course of the competition, they have to land sequences from the kata on their opponent. First to a set number of points wins. They can land anything they want during the fight but only the kata sequences score.

You should check out Practical Applied Karate Tournaments (PAKT). They include categories for complaint bunkai, non compliant bunkai, vertical grappling with strikes etc. They seem to be a move in the right direction towards making kata less of a performance art and more of a practical training tool.
Short video and info in link below;
https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/pakt-2018
Current Ruleset;
https://shogunpracticalkarate.com/pakt/

Haven't competed in one of these yet but they certainly look more exciting than you your standard karate comp

 

[rmongler]

Tbh, i always viewed kata like the lock-flow drills in catch wrestling; not something you try to do in it's entirety as like a literal competitive tactic for use, but rather a mnemonic device, to help remember and pass on techniques in days before printed or digital recording media.

 

[ARIZE]

That's how my TKD trainer describes them: A library of techniques... It's how every technique should be done in perfect conditions, but obviously not during a fight or sparring.

 

[Hotora86]

I know that a lot of people out there have varying degrees of experience with, or exposure to, different forms of karate (or "karate," as the case may be), but I also know that there are a few of us here on Sherdog who tend to be the ones to defend the art and try to bust myths and correct misconceptions about it. This thread is partially a rant, to that effect, but also an overview of some historical information about karate, and an invitation for people to ask questions about karate, or educate people about it.

Honestly, I don't enjoy having to do things like this, because it means that karate instructors all over the world have failed their students. They have perpetuated exaggerations, myths, and outright lies in the interest of "honoring" their instructors, or making karate seem like some sort of Zen exercise or magical ancient practice. They have taught movements that they understand only from a purely mechanical sense, without any real knowledge of what those movements are for, or how to make them work for karate's intended context. They have adopted kumite (sparring) methods that are largely incompatible with the material the art is meant to teach and, as such, teach it as a completely separate skillset, rather than a training method for getting better at applying karate techniques under pressure. They have clung to the idea of "tradition" so strongly--without even realizing that most of those "ancient traditions" they hold dear are less than a Century old--that they choose to worship the ground upon which the old masters walked, instead of following their path and continuing their journey to develop karate. This is so widespread that the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo will be including karate competition, for the first time, and they chose exactly this type of karate to showcase--it is almost as if that is how people actually WANT karate to be.

These days, karate is derided as an activity only suitable for small children, and pretty much any karate dojo that doesn't teach Kyokushin (or one of its off-shoots) is immediately considered to be a McDojo, until proven otherwise. As much as it pains me to say it, karate has EARNED this terrible reputation, and since the majority of dojo seem to be meeting those expectations, I can't say it isn't a valid stereotype. What I can say, though, is that the karate that is popular, today, that bears this reputation, is not what karate used to be--what it could be, again. The sad part is that most people--even those who are actively practicing karate--have no idea what karate used to be. With that in mind, I would like to clarify a few things about karate, in the hopes that people might see that there is more to it than most realize, and maybe even help people see the value in it.

Where Does It Come From?

Karate originates from Okinawa, which is currently part of Japan, but the Okinawan people and culture are decidedly different from what you will find on mainland Japan, and they do not consider themselves "Japanese." When karate was transplanted from Okinawa to mainland Japan, it went through a lot of changes, although that process started in 1901, when Itosu Anko officially introduced karate into the physical education curriculum of public schools. This means that "Japanese karate" is taught, practiced, and used quite differently than "Okinawan karate," but even on Okinawa, a lot of Japanese methodologies have been adopted, because Japanese karate is more popular.

Chinese Influence?

People like to highlight the Chinese influence on karate, often despite the facts--the Hakutsuru (White Crane) craze in the karate world throughout the 80's and 90's, for example. There were certainly times where Chinese martial arts influenced karate, but karate was also influenced by Siamese (modern-day Thailand) martial arts, and Japanese martial arts, and likely many others. Of course, the Okinawans also had their own native fighting methods, as every culture does. In reality, there are very few styles which can claim to be heavily influenced by Chinese arts, and those are styles that fall into the "Naha-Te" classification, such as Goju-Ryu, Uechi-Ryu, and Ryuei-Ryu.

Who Made It, and Why?

There is a popular myth that karate was developed by farmers and fisherman to fight the invading Satsuma samurai after they had their weapons taken away, so they used farming tools as weapons, and they had to practice in secret because martial arts were banned. While this would make for a very cool underdog movie, it simply isn't true. Karate was developed by nobles and royalty on Okinawa, who practiced it either for their jobs (many nobles held positions as guards, police, or military leaders), or for the enjoyment of it. The only weapons that were ever banned on Okinawa were firearms, although there were restrictions on common folk carrying weapons--as mentioned, though, they didn't develop karate, anyway. The practice of martial arts was never banned, either. The only restriction was that it wasn't to be taught publicly, mostly so that it couldn't be used to build up any sort of revolution, but it could be taught to small groups in private, which is pretty much already how they were doing it, anyway.

What Was Its Purpose?

As mentioned, many of the nobles who practiced karate held jobs that would require martial arts skills. One of the most famous masters in karate history was "Bushi" Matsumura Sokon, who was the chief bodyguard to the Okinawan King (three of them, technically). Others were police officers, or guarded castles and gardens. With this in mind, you would expect karate to primarily involve methods for quickly disabling attackers, either by rendering them unconscious, unable to function, or restrained. Karate had to be fast and functional, and many of the people responsible for developing karate over time had reputations for testing their skills, either in challenge matches or just by getting into fights. These skills carried over into personal protection, as well, given that nobility would be rich targets for assault and theft.

What Is "Traditional Karate?"

Most of the karate that people call "traditional karate," or sometimes "budo karate," is fairly new, and strongly influenced by the Japanese culture. When karate was brought to Japan, it was stripped of many of its grappling methods, like joint locks and takedowns, because the Japanese already had extensive, popular grappling arts (Judo and Sumo, for example). What the Japanese wanted from karate was a strictly regimented physical education program that was martial in nature to help prepare young people for military service. It didn't have to be functional for fighting--they would teach them proper Japanese arts for that once they joined the military, after all--so that type of material didn't have to be included in the curriculum. The belt system from Judo was borrowed in order to ensure a hierarchical structure, which would also serve participants well once they joined the military.

Once Funakoshi Gigo (son of Shotokan founder, Funakoshi Gichin) gained a position of influence in the Japanese karate community, the art was aimed even more heavily toward physical fitness/challenge, and competition. While the Okinawan people had been experimenting with full-contact bogu kumite (armored sparring), the Japanese simply took the sparring methods of one of their native arts--Kendo--and copied it for use with only the most basic karate techniques. This is how we have ended up with a karate that is long range (like Kendo, but without a sword to make up the distance), focused almost entirely on punches and kicks (the part karate did better than jujutsu), and which borrowed most of its "traditions" from native Japanese arts. Of course, as we all know, competition is how martial arts inevitably spread, and the Japanese did a much better job of developing a competition format for karate than the Okinawans did, so that is the type of karate that took off.

Does Karate Have Grappling?

Karate absolutely includes grappling methods, although most schools have dropped much of that from their curriculum over time, since it doesn't fit into the common forms of karate competition and, thus, is not popular. As mentioned, karate was largely used for law enforcement purposes, so it would make sense for it to include a good number of methods for controlling an opponent, as much as it would include methods for simply striking an opponent. For the most part, these methods are focused on standing grappling, in conjunction with striking--limb control, joint locks, takedowns, etc. There are some groundwork methods within karate, but they are mostly focused on getting back up, kicking away a standing opponent to make space, or taking down a standing opponent to put yourself on an even playing field.

Some people like to retcon more groundwork into karate than it originally had, usually by claiming a kata (Naihanchi) is meant for grappling on your back, because of the similarity of the stance and stepping to the guard position seen in grappling arts, but this retconning is unnecessary. While karate, itself, has a specific context it is intended for, and contains methods for that purpose, karate masters have long advocated cross-training. This advocacy was not limited to striking arts, but also to weapons arts and grappling arts. For example, Okinawa has a native folkstyle submission grappling style, called tegumi, or muto, which was a very popular pastime for Okinawan youth even into the early 20th Century. We have written descriptions of this practice, and it is described as including takedowns, joint locks, chokes, and pins, with the intention of making your opponent tap out. Even to this day, you can find Shima tournaments on Okinawa, which are a form of belt wrestling, focused on throwing the opponent. Many Okinawan masters trained in Sumo, or Judo, to supplement their karate training, and recommended this practice to their students. There is no need to retcon groundwork into karate, because karate practitioners have always just cross-trained in grappling arts that do it.

Why Don't We See This "Old-Style" Karate In MMA?

We do, in a way--it just isn't being done by people who practice karate. The human body can only be manipulated in so many ways, so there is a lot of crossover between martial arts, and there are plenty of fighters out there using techniques that are present in karate, even if they have never practiced karate before. So, if that's the case, why don't we see more karateka in MMA doing it? To be perfectly honest, it goes back to the lack of a good karate-centric competition format to build skilled fighters with. The karate we see in MMA, today, is the long range, striking-only type of karate, because that is what was made popular by competitions. As it stands, the best competition format to include both the striking methods and grappling methods of karate is MMA, but it is hard to get karateka to compete in MMA, to begin with, because they are taught to feel that MMA is almost the antithesis of karate and "traditional martial arts." On top of that, because of karate's reputation as a "safe" activity, most of the people who seek out karate instruction aren't really looking to fight.

What we would need, in my opinion, to start bringing the older, practical methods to the forefront, is a good competition circuit that is specifically designed and intended for "traditional" karateka to compete in, but which forces them to incorporate the limb control techniques, joint locks, chokes, and takedowns of the art in conjunction with the striking. As it stands, all we really have are long range point fighting competitions, mid-to-close range knockdown fighting where grappling is prohibited, and the occasional full-contact circuit that allows some sort of grappling here and there, but usually just ends up being sloppy point fighting or MMA in a gi, without any real focus on including techniques from old-style karate.

To the surprise of most people, karate actually used to have a method of pressure testing and fighting using those old-style methods. It's called "kakedameshi" (literally, "hooked testing," although it could more accurately be called "hooked hands testing"), and has been described as something like a "very aggressive version of Chinese push-hands," where participants strike each other, joint lock each other, choke each other, or throw each other down, all in an attempt to get the other person to submit. A key point to this is that kakedameshi is entirely done at close range, with the arms "hooked" onto each other in some fashion. It actually looks somewhat like the clinch sparring of Muay Thai, although Muay Thai generally doesn't include the joint locks, chokes, or some of the throws, that karate would. Of course, since this is a very specific range of fighting, it is incomplete, but I think it would be an excellent start.

Personally, I would love to set up a competition circuit focused on developing this type of fighting, because if it took off, we would actually get to see old-style karate practitioner improve their combative skills on a wide scale. As it stands, most people training in this type of karate only get to engage in that type of sparring within their dojo, or maybe a few like-minded people here and there, and that is just too small of a scale to really spread. Unfortunately--and this may just be my jaded outlook--I don't expect that to become terribly popular in the face of the more well-established karate competition formats, especially in the face of Olympic participation.

Great post, stuff that I've been pushing into Sherdog general consciousness with posts and threads ever since I joined the forum. I've noticed that most people here are more receptive to smaller "bites" of knowledge tho, so this thread has predictably gotten derailed and branded as "wall of text". Sherdog gonna Sherdog. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The only thing that was new to me was kakedameshi. I knew about tegumi already but kakedameshi seems a bit different, more Chi Sau-ish. Seems kinda rare / obscure too, as the only kakedameshi related videos I've found are... of you.

 

[BudoNoah]

Tbh, i always viewed kata like the lock-flow drills in catch wrestling; not something you do as like a literal competitive tactic for use, but rather a mnemonic device, to help remember and pass on techniques in days before printed or digital recording media.

That's how my TKD trainer describes them: A library of techniques... It's how every technique should be done in perfect conditions, but obviously not during a fight or sparring.

They are the library, or curriculum, of karate, that's true, but just like the lock-flow drills you mention, they are made of a series of functional techniques--if you take a lock out of the flow drill and put it into the correct context, it should work, and the same is true of the movements of kata.

Great post, stuff that I've been pushing into Sherdog general consciousness with posts and threads ever since I joined the forum. I've noticed that most people here are more receptive to smaller "bites" of knowledge tho, so this thread has predictably gotten derailed and branded as "wall of text". Sherdog gonna Sherdog. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Thanks, and lol, yeah, but it was worth a shot!

The only thing that was new to me was kakedameshi. I knew about tegumi already but kakedameshi seems a bit different, more Chi Sau-ish. Seems kinda rare / obscure too, as the only kakedameshi related videos I've found are... of you.

In my discussions with other karateka mentalities similar to mine and my Sensei's, it's more common than it would seem, but for whatever reason, you are correct that you can't really find any videos of it--at least, not videos that are labeled "kakedameshi." For example, the Karate Culture guys do it, but don't call it "kakadameshi." I believe they usually just call it "sparring" or "tegumi," although tegumi isn't the same, given that there are no descriptions of it including strikes. It is also a natural progression from kakie/kakidi, so some schools that do it don't necessarily call it "kakedameshi," and instead just consider it to be a form of sparring with kakie/kakidi. And it's not surprising that it looks like chi sau, given that it's described as a "very aggressive" form of tuishou (pushing hands) by Nagamine Shoshin, which is basically a more free-form application of chi sau, as best I understand, not being a Chinese stylist.

As for the videos that I've posted, I've only ever put up kakedameshi-ju (soft) training, because I find that it is easier for people to see what is happening than kakedameshi-go (hard) training, and it's easier for people to start with. At some point, when I have my health back on track and the doctors clear me for such training, I'll put up some more hard-style kakedameshi. The thing is that people will tend to gravitate toward one or the other, when they both have their benefits. The Ju approach allows you to develop tactile sensitivity, and the ability to relax and flow as you move and adjust to your opponent's movements. The Go approach makes use of those skills, but under higher pressure, which is good for testing, but makes it hard to develop the skills in the first place. Personally, I like to have people slowly escalate from one to the other when they are learning, so that they can see how things change as resistance increases.

 

[BudoNoah]

This is very much off the top of my head - each fighter picks a kata. They know which kata they chose but not their opponents. During the course of the competition, they have to land sequences from the kata on their opponent. First to a set number of points wins. They can land anything they want during the fight but only the kata sequences score.

It's not a bad idea, but I do see two complications. First, it would almost require that everyone involved would have agreed on the exact same applications for the movements of the kata, which is very difficult to accomplish. Otherwise, the trick would be getting judges who are quick enough on their ability to identify movements in application as movements from kata, regardless of whether it was an application they used in their training or not. Second, and admittedly less important, is that it is a bit limiting for the competitors, since the ability to flow from one kata into another can be very useful. Limitations are a great way to enforce adaptation, though, so it does have that benefit.

You should check out Practical Applied Karate Tournaments (PAKT). They include categories for complaint bunkai, non compliant bunkai, vertical grappling with strikes etc. They seem to be a move in the right direction towards making kata less of a performance art and more of a practical training tool.
Short video and info in link below;
https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/pakt-2018
Current Ruleset;
https://shogunpracticalkarate.com/pakt/

Haven't competed in one of these yet but they certainly look more exciting than you your standard karate comp

I followed those, a bit, through Iain's forum, and they look fun! We don't have any of those, out here, unfortunately, but they are a good start. They haven't been around all that long, yet, but it would be interesting to see how they progress and develop.

 

[panamaican]

It's not a bad idea, but I do see two complications. First, it would almost require that everyone involved would have agreed on the exact same applications for the movements of the kata, which is very difficult to accomplish. Otherwise, the trick would be getting judges who are quick enough on their ability to identify movements in application as movements from kata, regardless of whether it was an application they used in their training or not. Second, and admittedly less important, is that it is a bit limiting for the competitors, since the ability to flow from one kata into another can be very useful. Limitations are a great way to enforce adaptation, though, so it does have that benefit.

I think the first complication isn't a complication if the judges are adequately familiar with the kata and with applications themselves. If there aren't enough competent judges, doesn't that speak to the core problem in and of itself?

The 2nd complication isn't really a complication either. A karateka can land any techniques he/she wants so there's no penalty for flowing between kata. But part of knowing that you're good at a martial arts technique is showing that you can land it when necessary. The kata themselves tend to have a decent range of techniques so, given enough rounds, I find it hard to imagine that someone can't land 3 techniques at some point.

I do want to swing back to the judges and applications part for a moment. I know that we all say that plenty of movements have multiple applications (the gedan barai thread for example) but even then there's a limited number of applications. One of the problems, imo, is that people make up and call any series of movements "bunkai". So much of it is bs that would never work in a real situation. If a judge is practicing ineffective karate in their private study or the competitor has been training ineffective karate at their local dojo, that needs to be gradually stamped out. And forcing the judges and the competitors to focus on high percentage techniques over "if they do this, you can do this complicated series of set ups and counter responses," should be the goal.'

What's the point of knowing 26 kata (or more) if you can't apply even one of them regularly or recognize the proper application of one at speed?

 

[BudoNoah]

I think the first complication isn't a complication if the judges are adequately familiar with the kata and with applications themselves. If there aren't enough competent judges, doesn't that speak to the core problem in and of itself?

The 2nd complication isn't really a complication either. A karateka can land any techniques he/she wants so there's no penalty for flowing between kata. But part of knowing that you're good at a martial arts technique is showing that you can land it when necessary. The kata themselves tend to have a decent range of techniques so, given enough rounds, I find it hard to imagine that someone can't land 3 techniques at some point.

I do want to swing back to the judges and applications part for a moment. I know that we all say that plenty of movements have multiple applications (the gedan barai thread for example) but even then there's a limited number of applications. One of the problems, imo, is that people make up and call any series of movements "bunkai". So much of it is bs that would never work in a real situation. If a judge is practicing ineffective karate in their private study or the competitor has been training ineffective karate at their local dojo, that needs to be gradually stamped out. And forcing the judges and the competitors to focus on high percentage techniques over "if they do this, you can do this complicated series of set ups and counter responses," should be the goal.'

What's the point of knowing 26 kata (or more) if you can't apply even one of them regularly or recognize the proper application of one at speed?

As I said, the second complication isn't all that much of an issue, to me--I just like being able to flow from one kata to another, as appropriate (some folks in my circles call this "wormholing," which is a fun term for it). Without incurring penalties for doing so, it doesn't matter at all, really.

You are absolutely correct in your points about the first complication I brought up. As I alluded to in my initial post, the wider karate community has EARNED the poor reputation it has, and part of that is a lack of understanding of how to apply the kata, and a lack of ability to apply the kata. That, of course, is going to lead to a lot of karateka not being qualified judges. There are plenty of karate instructors out there who are perfectly capable of recognizing applied movements as movements from kata, without specifically designated applications to look for, but I find that there tend to not be all that many of them in one reasonable geographic location for putting together tournaments. Obviously, that isn't true, everywhere, but for the most part, these instructors are fairly spread out.

For that reason, having set applications for them to look for is an easier way to get them started, both judging and competing--essentially setting up something like the Gokyo curriculum of Judo. I'm honestly not fond of that, though, because it is pretty much impossible to get everyone in the karate world to agree on a specific set of applications for kata (you could get them to agree that a technique works, but not necessarily where it comes from), and because it doesn't really leave room for exploring other possible functions of the movements of kata. You have a point about people making up applications that don't work, but that would essentially be weeded out through this process, since a technique that doesn't work doesn't score.

 

[ARIZE]

They are the library, or curriculum, of karate, that's true, but just like the lock-flow drills you mention, they are made of a series of functional techniques--if you take a lock out of the flow drill and put it into the correct context, it should work, and the same is true of the movements of kata.

I respectfully doubt that. Gonna give some examples why. (From ITF)
First, the techniques in katas are not something that i fighter will use instinctively. Even if they drill katas every day, there are so many different techniques, that the time spend on one of them is meaningless. Even the techniques trained in "1 steps" (self defense part) are not trained enough in comparison of matches/sparring techniques. There is no way i can imagine a TKD guy throwing an elbow, or a knee instead of a kick/punch in a confrontation. Even if he spend 10 years drilling the katas with them in it.

And it's not only how many times you did them, but also in what context you used them in. A match/sparring is a lot more close to a fight than a Kata. So the moves you would use in a fight are probably the ones that you have been tasting under fire. You will rely on something you know is working from your own experience.

But, even if you are able to use those techniques, i have lots of doubts about theire effectiveness. Against an untrained adverser, i agree, some may work. But lots of them are kinda dangerous for you own safety against experienced fighters.
If you take the basic straight punch in TKD katas: It's a very powerful strike. It has been studied to be the perfect punching technique for making the most of damage. It's the same technique they use to break boards in competition (not talking about fake ones in demos). But that thing is completely useless in a fight against a experienced person. The strike start with your arm by your hips longer path and rotation, you have to take a step with it to add the weight of your body, etc...
It leaves you completely open to any counter to the face, it's slow as fuck, has a huge tell, and they don't even train the reset. You stay with the arm extended and move to the next technique.

Another example is the horizontal elbow strike. Again, versus an untrained guy, it can make lots of damage. But the way they teach it is fuckin ugly. Huge raise of the elbow and huge motion of the arm instead of the rotation of the body.
The one they teach for self defense purposes, that you wont find in Katas is a lot better.

I dont believe katas are completely useless. Doing the proper technique, in slow motion, for a side kick, is very beneficiary. You learn good balance, proper breathing etc... But i don't agree that the techniques you only see in them, can and should be used in a fight/match/sparring.


Goddamn karate nerds, made me write a lot more than i expected too...

 

[BudoNoah]

I respectfully doubt that. Gonna give some examples why. (From ITF)
First, the techniques in katas are not something that i fighter will use instinctively. Even if they drill katas every day, there are so many different techniques, that the time spend on one of them is meaningless. Even the techniques trained in "1 steps" (self defense part) are not trained enough in comparison of matches/sparring techniques. There is no way i can imagine a TKD guy throwing an elbow, or a knee instead of a kick/punch in a confrontation. Even if he spend 10 years drilling the katas with them in it.

And it's not only how many times you did them, but also in what context you used them in. A match/sparring is a lot more close to a fight than a Kata. So the moves you would use in a fight are probably the ones that you have been tasting under fire. You will rely on something you know is working from your own experience.

That's kind of my point--people should be sparring using the techniques in the kata, so that they actually CAN use them instinctively. Solo kata practice is a supplement for when you are training alone, or when you want to focus on performing techniques at full power, through their full range of motion, without having to consider the safety of another person, but even in those cases, you should be visualizing the application of the movements, and those visualizations should be based on applications you have actually done.

But, even if you are able to use those techniques, i have lots of doubts about theire effectiveness. Against an untrained adverser, i agree, some may work. But lots of them are kinda dangerous for you own safety against experienced fighters.

If you take the basic straight punch in TKD katas: It's a very powerful strike. It has been studied to be the perfect punching technique for making the most of damage. It's the same technique they use to break boards in competition (not talking about fake ones in demos). But that thing is completely useless in a fight against a experienced person. The strike start with your arm by your hips longer path and rotation, you have to take a step with it to add the weight of your body, etc...
It leaves you completely open to any counter to the face, it's slow as fuck, has a huge tell, and they don't even train the reset. You stay with the arm extended and move to the next technique.

Another example is the horizontal elbow strike. Again, versus an untrained guy, it can make lots of damage. But the way they teach it is fuckin ugly. Huge raise of the elbow and huge motion of the arm instead of the rotation of the body.
The one they teach for self defense purposes, that you wont find in Katas is a lot better.

I can't speak to how the ITF does things--they are several large steps removed from the karate that I practice--but I will say that the way you may be thinking of those techniques being applied is not the same way that I am thinking. If you are talking about something like this, then I would agree it is a terrible example of something to use in a fight:

That is, unfortunately, how the vast majority of karate practitioners teach and train to use their strikes. I think the largest part of the problem is a misunderstanding of the hikite (pulling hand), or the "chamber." It isn't just there to look clean, or "set up" for the next technique--it actually has a function! If it is controlling the opponent, which is what it was intended to do, then you are decidedly less open to being hit on that side of your body. On top of that, you get to pull your opponent toward your strike, effectively causing them to run into it:

I dont believe katas are completely useless. Doing the proper technique, in slow motion, for a side kick, is very beneficiary. You learn good balance, proper breathing etc... But i don't agree that the techniques you only see in them, can and should be used in a fight/match/sparring.

Which goes back to my first point--people should be sparring using kata techniques. That does require, however, some actual function knowledge of how they are meant to be used which, as we've covered in this post, most people unfortunately don't.

Goddamn karate nerds, made me write a lot more than i expected too...

Lol, yeah, we do that sometimes. Sorry

 

[JabToucher]

[/QUOTE

I hate it when a dude starts on me at a bar and starts doing all this at me!

 

[Ilk]

My experience with karate is positive. My older cousin was training karate with a legit coach and I was dreaming one day to train to. They had lots of full contact sparing. Most of the practitioners were winning competitions. I think the coach still trains people.

Later in my teens I met a black belt friend and a blue belt friend. They were teachig me some karate. What I noticed immediately is shin and fore arm conditioning. We sparred some, but I did not really learn to fight.

A couple of years ago I sparred my black belt friend and he was no match. Although the guy was not practicing anymore.

What karate needs is a legit kick box sparring or MT like sparring and wrestling sessions or judo sessions as in my experience with karate it had many throws. Accordimg to me current kick boxing is what modern day karate is or should be.

And all these katas should be implemented in good shadow boxing, bag work pad work routines.

 

[spacetime]

Joint manipulation and throws in traditional Karate (not counting Wado Ryu, Kyokushin and ITF TaeKwonDo which do have it in their curriculum) was lost because not all original instructors were taught it when Karate was mainstreamed. It had nothing to do with the fact that Judo already existed.

 

[Hotora86]

You should check out Practical Applied Karate Tournaments (PAKT). They include categories for complaint bunkai, non compliant bunkai, vertical grappling with strikes etc. They seem to be a move in the right direction towards making kata less of a performance art and more of a practical training tool.
Short video and info in link below;
https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/pakt-2018
Current Ruleset;
https://shogunpracticalkarate.com/pakt/

Haven't competed in one of these yet but they certainly look more exciting than you your standard karate comp

This looks great! Karate competition with pad work, non-compliant bunkai AND clinch fighting?? Finally!

 

[BudoNoah]

My experience with karate is positive. My older cousin was training karate with a legit coach and I was dreaming one day to train to. They had lots of full contact sparing. Most of the practitioners were winning competitions. I think the coach still trains people.

Later in my teens I met a black belt friend and a blue belt friend. They were teachig me some karate. What I noticed immediately is shin and fore arm conditioning. We sparred some, but I did not really learn to fight.

A couple of years ago I sparred my black belt friend and he was no match. Although the guy was not practicing anymore.

What karate needs is a legit kick box sparring or MT like sparring and wrestling sessions or judo sessions as in my experience with karate it had many throws. Accordimg to me current kick boxing is what modern day karate is or should be.

And all these katas should be implemented in good shadow boxing, bag work pad work routines.

Positive experience is good, and I'm glad you got the chance to see karate that still incorporated older methods, such as throws. I will point out, though, that the curriculum of old-style karate is more like close-range MMA than kickboxing. The longer range striking was much less prevalent in karate, at the time, so the kickboxing approach to karate is newer.

Joint manipulation and throws in traditional Karate (not counting Wado Ryu, Kyokushin and ITF TaeKwonDo which do have it in their curriculum) was lost because not all original instructors were taught it when Karate was mainstreamed. It had nothing to do with the fact that Judo already existed.

Personally, I see it as a combination of circumstances that really led to the removal of those techniques. I do think that Itosu had started removing some of those methods--and may not have even known all that many, to begin with, given his training history--so his students would have learned fewer of them, but even with that, we have examples of his students teaching joint locks and takedowns, so they at least knew some. Even Funakoshi Gichin documented a number of those methods in his books, and taught them to his students--at least his early students. We do know that Funakoshi was on quite friendly terms with Kano Jigoro, the founder of Judo, and even used Judo dojo space on a fairly regular basis. I don't think it is a very big leap to suggest that he might not feel the need to teach things that his friend is teaching in the exact same place on the exact same day. That isn't to say that he did it "because Judo already existed," but more along the lines that he could just tell his students to cross-train with his friend and learn that type of material. Aside from that, we also know that the Japanese culture of the time was strongly nationalist and xenophobic, and had a tendency to consider their culture to be superior. That superiority was definitely in play when it came to Okinawa, which they considered to be a backwater country, so it wouldn't be much of a leap to think that the Japanese wouldn't be terribly interested in the grappling methods of backwater hicks, since they already had such great, proper Japanese grappling arts.

 

[JohnPJones]

I think one of the biggest misconceptions/myths surrounding karate and holding it back is too much emphasis on imitating or recreating a culture that most here in the west don’t actually understand.

So many people try to create an enclave of Japanese culture within their dojo because that’s ‘traditional’ but 99.9% don’t actually know anything about the culture besides the limited exposure they got in the dojo they trained in.

 

[BudoNoah]

I think one of the biggest misconceptions/myths surrounding karate and holding it back is too much emphasis on imitating or recreating a culture that most here in the west don’t actually understand.

So many people try to create an enclave of Japanese culture within their dojo because that’s ‘traditional’ but 99.9% don’t actually know anything about the culture besides the limited exposure they got in the dojo they trained in.

I think the incorporation of the native culture of the art can be a fun and interesting way to expose people to different walks of life, and it can also provide some insight into the history and development of the art. Some people DEFINITELY go overboard, though, and often they are the ones with the least understanding of the culture, history, and language involved. We have a guy out here in my area who claims to be a 12th Dan, because when he was a 10th Dan (*eye roll*) we invited him to our dojo to see Master Ken's first live show, and when he found out that Master Ken was an "11th Dan," he thought it was serious and lost his mind, so he promoted himself. He's got a website just full of Japanese terminology and cultural references that are straight up incorrect. My Sensei and I actually stayed up reading his website for entertainment while we were on the road a couple years ago

 

[JohnPJones]

I think the incorporation of the native culture of the art can be a fun and interesting way to expose people to different walks of life, and it can also provide some insight into the history and development of the art. Some people DEFINITELY go overboard, though, and often they are the ones with the least understanding of the culture, history, and language involved. We have a guy out here in my area who claims to be a 12th Dan, because when he was a 10th Dan (*eye roll*) we invited him to our dojo to see Master Ken's first live show, and when he found out that Master Ken was an "11th Dan," he thought it was serious and lost his mind, so he promoted himself. He's got a website just full of Japanese terminology and cultural references that are straight up incorrect. My Sensei and I actually stayed up reading his website for entertainment while we were on the road a couple years ago

keeping some of the parent culture I think is important, but I think it's important that an instructor understands the parts of the culture they keep.

but I guess is it better to over honor the parent culture, or just leave most of the cultural elements out if you don't understand them? after all even Toguchi made some changes to how he ran class to accommodate American GIs who asked more questions about what and why things were being done.

I personally would rather see effective karate without any Japanese culture pretense, than see awful karate full of pseudo-Japanese culture.