PDA

View Full Version : Misconceptions of Karate



Richard Scardina
17th May 2009, 11:09
There are those who beleive that Karate did not have or train people ground techniques. In other words, these people have the mindset that Karate is strictly a stand-up art. Thus, not having a complete worth in real defense. There are some MMA (I loathe this term) followers whom think it is ineffective in or out of the ring. (I would almost tend to make a statement, that any fight, in or out the ring is Karate given the semantics of the term-definition.)

Could it be that arts like Shotokan (for example-not just picking on), per its current course, give a false impression?

John Connolly
17th May 2009, 18:52
Some MMA greats like Lyoto Machida and Georges St. Pierre are Karateka. Don't sweat it.

TonyU
17th May 2009, 21:13
Some MMA greats like Lyoto Machida and Georges St. Pierre are Karateka. Don't sweat it.
Whom added ground game to their training. Machida is also a BJJ black belt.
Karate has and had ground defense. I beg to differ it had grappling ala BJJ/GJJ or Judo newaza.
Karate having grappling came out post UFC and by Americans/Europeans.
Funny how I never been told, taught, shown by the Okinawan's who I've been training with since the early 80's.

What karate forgot (I'm generalizing here) was to take a grappler seriously or wok the defenses. What the UFC and MMA did was open people's eyes to their holes in their training/defenses.

e-budoka
18th May 2009, 09:20
As I am sure I've previously pointed out in other posts, I am no expert in anything- (much to my wife's dismay ;) ) however... even I have seen techniques from the Bunkai of kata as trained in Okinawa that deal with grounded/ downed opponents - even opponents that are attempting to upend the Karateka- in what I would call a most brutal way.
Sure, this type of treatment (eye gouge/ stomp/ neck crank-break/ tracheal compression) may not be easily defensible in a modern court- but this makes my point that the people who created and (in some cases) are practicing these Kata certainly did -IMHO- have serious and severe solutions in mind when it cam to dealing with the potential newaza threat.
I guess I am opening the discussion that just because you may not be laying down or intending to when/ if you practice this type of Bunkai- doesn't mean that these techniques you'd deploy against a lying opponent- or one who is intending to- are impractical for self defence.

may be waffling now...time for dinner.

Richard Scardina
19th May 2009, 03:35
may be waffling now...time for dinner.


What did you have for dinner? Waffles?

e-budoka
19th May 2009, 13:11
http://www.e-budo.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif
nah- not waffles- pasta- but needed some energy- was in danger of straying too far from the point!!!

Hissho
20th May 2009, 05:14
Second video down, Lyoto Machida. "Karate is my Life."

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/new-machida-training-video-ufc-98-not-badboy-video-978291/

Showing his chops vs. Satoshi Iishi as well.

It is ridiculous to think that anyone can take a kata bunkai and apply it grappling against an equal opponent without extensive, progressive, antagonistic training. That means the grappling stuff won't work against a legitimate threat unless you ...grapple.

Then again, jujutsu doesn't work in grappling unless you actually grapple, so why would karate be any different?

Tony is spot on - Machida is a BJJ black belt who does exactly what ANY quality fighter should do - he applies his karate where it is applicable, his BJJ where that is applicable, and he integrates the skill sets into a seamless continuum.

e-budoka
20th May 2009, 08:45
Second video down, Lyoto Machida. "Karate is my Life."

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/new-machida-training-video-ufc-98-not-badboy-video-978291/

Showing his chops vs. Satoshi Iishi as well.

It is ridiculous to think that anyone can take a kata bunkai and apply it grappling against an equal opponent without extensive, progressive, antagonistic training. That means the grappling stuff won't work against a legitimate threat unless you ...grapple.

Then again, jujutsu doesn't work in grappling unless you actually grapple, so why would karate be any different?

Tony is spot on - Machida is a BJJ black belt who does exactly what ANY quality fighter should do - he applies his karate where it is applicable, his BJJ where that is applicable, and he integrates the skill sets into a seamless continuum.

I agree and [maybe] partially disagree- depending on if I read your response correctly.
I don't think it's ridiculous to apply (dare I say it!!) "anti" grappling techniques from Kata- techniques that are designed to dispatch an opponent that is trying to grapple with you- or whatnot- but to take bunkai NOT intended for this purpose, and try to do something you have no training in [like grapple like a pro] - then yes, that is ridiculous.

Hissho
20th May 2009, 13:54
I think you followed my response mostly - but I would clarify that notwithstanding an art's "anti-grappling" bunkai, if they are not practiced in actual grappling (that is, against a wrestler, BJJ-er, or submission grappler actually trying to dominate you with grappling), then even in attempting to apply said bunkai, you are "trying to do something you have no training in."

e-budoka
20th May 2009, 14:14
ok- fair call.
I guess where my resistance lies is in an [unintentionally] personally researched [albeit unfortunate and regrettable] belief that your opponent cannot impose their will upon you simply by virtue of the techniques they employ. That is to say grappling wont beat striking- nor will striking beat grappling- but rather a man will beat another (OMG did I rally just do the striking Vs grappling thing!!!??)

anyhow, yes no-one should be using techniques they are not fully conversant with in a serious [even life and death] situation.

I will quit by saying though, that just as you say

... "even in attempting to apply said bunkai, you are "trying to do something you have no training in."

so too would one who is a grappler be exercising futility in a match with one who is a well versed/ specialised striker...

where does that leave us ? HOPEFULLY in a state of mutual respect and agreement that hypotheticals frequently turn out the same.

Good day and Good wishes Sir, :)

Hissho
20th May 2009, 15:35
Basically - the futility is not in the skill sets, but rather in the training medium.

Any grappler with a background in competitive grappling has a distinct advantage against a striker who has little or no meaningful actual fighting experience with said striking (boxing, kickboxing, full contact karate, etc.)

Likewise, the non-grappling, albeit highly skilled jujutsuka will be at a distinct disadvantage against the skilled full contact striker of any discipline.

The problem is not in being grapplers or strikers, but in actually knowing how to fight versus only thinking you do.

Bill Sampson
20th May 2009, 17:36
Are we speaking strictly “sports” application of Karate and BJJ and MMA?

In this case I think Kit is spot on. But the rules hobble any system in a way, because rules limit both people in the fight.

Are we are talking street application of Karate and BJJ and MMA?

Then any Karate-ka or BJJ Player or MMA player can introduce techniques and tools that will level the playing field.

My stand up game is much better than my ground game. I am going to loose in the “ring” against pretty much anyone who has done any serious study of grappling. But on the street, if I can articulate the lawful reasons why, and I am in a situation where I fear for my safety and or my life, I am going to employee a blade, a stick, a rock, or whatever it takes (including a firearm) to be the one who stands back up in the end.

Rickster didn’t frame his post to indicate whether we are talking about limited offense/defense or unlimited offense/defense. In a unlimited offense/defense encounter there are no rules that say the Karate-ka, if taken to the ground, couldn’t tear off an ear, gouge out an eyeball, crush the testicles, strike the base of the skull and the spine, bite, or do whatever comes to mind or grab any rock or broken bottle within reach. But then again, the same applies to the grappler as well.

Kabar makes a nifty little knife that you can tie into the laces of your shoes, and makes an effective little equalizer when you are on the ground getting the you know what stomped out of you and you fear that you are going to get an arm broken or you are about to lose your life. Don’t forget your car keys, a person’s ear socket is just like putting your keys in the ignition to start your car. Don’t forget to turn back and forth vigorously.

I hope I didn’t get off on a tangent here, but without clarifying the situation that the encounter is taking place in- we are talking about a lot of hypothetical outcomes. The sitation is going to define what you can and can not do! Study the laws in your area on self defense and use of force. Study the rules before you get into the ring.

If we are talking about a 150 pound grappler against a 250 pound karate-ka, I know where I am going to put my money! Generally speaking, what each person brings to the game in terms of “individuals” is going to decide the outcome to greater degree than style vs. style.

Your mind is your greatest weapon!

Be safe

Hissho
20th May 2009, 19:16
It is just another set of rules - the dynamics of live combat, versus pantomime combat, are the same.

There is nothing preventing the man who is able to so easily defeat you in the ring because of his serious study of grappling from using the very same tools and tactics against you - as a force multiplier to his already superior grappling skills.

Further still, due to his ability to control position as well as your ability to use your hands, it doesn't take much to prevent you from drawing those weapons in the first place, or to put you in such a position that drawing them exposes the weapon to his takeaway - again from a superior position.

Be careful that the weapon you introduce isn't the one he uses against you.

Be wary of thinking of such things as equalizers. As well with the gouges, rips, tears, whatever that too many people place far too much stock in vis-a-vis "ctual combat." You shouldn't place your faith in blades or bullets, because it is common that even multiple cuts or stabs or gunshot wounds don't stop an aggressor.

They are force multipliers for an existing skill set. Certainly, you don't need to know enough grappling to tap a BJJ black belt on the mat, or go toe to toe with a Golden Gloves boxer, but you do need to know enough to allow you to protect yourself from being placed in a bad position or getting knocked out, and to access those tools or effectively use your foul tactics in order to escape from a skilled fighter.

Andrew S
20th May 2009, 21:13
A big thank-you to Kit and Michael, who have consolidated the major points clearly and concisely, and stopped the birth of yet another "Karate vs. BJJ" discussion.

TonyU
20th May 2009, 21:23
A big thank-you to Kit and Michael, who have consolidated the major points clearly and concisely, and stopped the birth of yet another "Karate vs. BJJ" discussion.

Actually, I don't think that's where this was going. It was more along the lines of karate has grappling. It all depends on how you define grappling. Karate also has throws but it's not judo. It has joint locks but it's not jujutsu. It has their version of Chin-na (tuite) but it's not kung-fu. It just doesn't have grappling the way most people define it.
.

e-budoka
21st May 2009, 09:38
This is a great forum- well moderated and with civilised patronage. to me the evidence is that we can disagree, or partially agree, without descending into the chaos and misguided fervour of the hypothetical death match using our keyboards- in place of tongues- in place of swords!

For my little possum brain, it is comforting to leave it at:

a good [x, with specialty (X)] beats a less than good [y, with specialty (Y)],
a good [x, with specialty (X), but using (Y)] may still beat a less than good [y, with specialty (Y)] {ref: "it's not the spear- but the spearholder"}

unless something we haven't predicted happens.

OK- that's really it for me now- apologies to those who are in pain reading that right now- also apologies to those who are going mad picking holes in it.

I will be quiet now.
;)
what fun!

Hissho
21st May 2009, 14:08
A good discussion is a good discussion, I guess I don't know why you think it would be painful, or why it would be "it."

Andrew-

I think that is one of the best things about guys like Machida - he's taken it out of the realm of "karate" (insert ANY traditional art, actually) vs. "Bjj" and is bringing training method to the fore.

Tim Cartmell has been doing something similar with his Shen Wu MMA - his stand up is based in his CMA practice, integrated with his own black belt BJJ and trained under progressive real pressure. His guys are starting to post wins in regional MMA, and I would not be surprised to see a student of his at some point break out at the professional level.

Its how you train what you do, not just what you do. Practice BJJ without a strong component rolling, or wrestling without grappling, and they would have nothing close to the effectiveness they have on the mat, or in the ring.

Same with combatives, traditional or modern, just as it is now the same with gunfighting.

Andrew S
21st May 2009, 21:13
Kit,

A good discussion is a good discussion. And that's what you are contributing to here by keeping it balanced and sticking with the facts.
I've seen too many threads get hijacked with sweeping statements about how well grappling (specifically groundwork) works in the ring and then how this effectiveness carries over to street, despite the completely different environmental factors.
My other bug is the "great fighter by association" factor - "Roy Gracie is an amazing fighter, I do BJJ, so I must be an amazing fighter too" type logic.

What you said about training methods is so true. In shotokan karate, our kata contain a number of locks, throws and disengagement techniques, but we very rarely train with these techniques, rendering them, as you pointed out, nearly useless against a determined grappler.
Were we to put more emphasis on training in these techniques, it would surely be a different story.
As you said, training method and knowing how to fight rather than thinking you know how to fight.

Again, I enjoy reading your posts.

Hissho
24th May 2009, 15:34
The new LH champion:

http://www.iklipz.com/MovieDetail.aspx?MovieID=a29b8f85-6be4-44dd-bf38-caf610144278

Significantly, Machida is not just 15-0 - he's never lost a round in the UFC.

Its not karate, per se, but how he trains his karate, and combines it with BJJ that makes the difference.

And it is clearly making a big difference...

bu-kusa
24th May 2009, 15:50
I've seen too many threads get hijacked with sweeping statements about how well grappling (specifically groundwork) works in the ring and then how this effectiveness carries over to street, despite the completely different environmental factors.


My other bug is the "great fighter by association" factor - "Roy Gracie is an amazing fighter, I do BJJ, so I must be an amazing fighter too" type logic.


The environment dictates tactics, however the techniques remain the same, the same techniques that throw someone off of you in sport, are (relatively) the same that will throw someone off of you in the street, however the price of failure will be much much higher, especially if you choose the wrong tactics.


In terms of great by association, its more a case of people thinking:

''machida / renzo / sakuraba are amazing fighters, I train in the same maner, so I too may be someday.''

Hissho
24th May 2009, 23:09
The environment dictates tactics, however the techniques remain the same, the same techniques that throw someone off of you in sport, are (relatively) the same that will throw someone off of you in the street, however the price of failure will be much much higher, especially if you choose the wrong tactics.



Well said, the implication being you have adapted your "art" to the environment (street, armed, MMA, etc.)

The Machida/Evans fight is here:

http://www.myvideofight.com/UFC/Evans-vs-Machida-Video

Richard Scardina
26th May 2009, 05:28
Yes. I have been sitting back to await responses. This was not to be a BJJ verses ____________(fill in the blank)

To be fight or defense worthy, clearly a martial art, or a martial artist has to be versitile.

One may prefer a particular art. However, this preference should not let one to be complacent.

Any martial art should have a pro and con, but develop the practitioner to whatever expectations they seek.

The limitations should not be viewed upon the art, but the artist.

Bill Sampson
26th May 2009, 06:13
The limitations should not be viewed upon the art, but the artist.

The system does not make the man, the man makes the system. You are the weapon, everything else is just a tool. To a great degree, it's a whole lot mental.

Lots of talk here about Machida, but I would wager he is 15-0 in UFC not because of karate or BJJ or a combination of of the two (I am not saying that he doesn't have any skills, he most certainly does, but...) He is 15-0 because he is "Machida" and he has the attitude that he is not going to be beaten. Nothing stops him mentally. To borrow a term- He is a 5%er!

"Campions aren't made in the gym. Champions are made from something they have deep inside them- a desire, a dream, a vison. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill." Muhammed Ali

Hissho
26th May 2009, 14:15
But how the man trains reveals a great deal about who he is, no?

And training is a factor in making the man. Machida would not be the Machida we are talking about but for how he has trained.

There are many people with the attitude they will not be beaten, who get summarily trounced and embarrassed. Mental attitude must be forged in a crucible of legitimate tests versus those which build false confidence.

Mental attitude is extremely important. But you need more than mindset when facing those who also have training, skill, and attitude.

Kevin73
26th May 2009, 14:50
Whom added ground game to their training. Machida is also a BJJ black belt.
Karate has and had ground defense. I beg to differ it had grappling ala BJJ/GJJ or Judo newaza.
Karate having grappling came out post UFC and by Americans/Europeans.
Funny how I never been told, taught, shown by the Okinawan's who I've been training with since the early 80's.

What karate forgot (I'm generalizing here) was to take a grappler seriously or wok the defenses. What the UFC and MMA did was open people's eyes to their holes in their training/defenses.


I disagree with the point that grappling in karate came out post UFC by the Americans/Europeans. Look at the Bubishi and you will see single and double leg takedowns and other grappling applications.

Okinawans have also always had tuite although it was saved for higher ranking students and not taught at lower levels.

What karate does NOT have though is ground grappling where the point is to take down the opponent, grapple/wrestle into a dominant position and look for a submission. Karate is designed to disable your opponent when he is taken to the ground, and not go to the ground them. If you go to the ground, you get up as quickly as possible.

bu-kusa
26th May 2009, 15:10
What karate does NOT have though is ground grappling where the point is to take down the opponent, grapple/wrestle into a dominant position and look for a submission. Karate is designed to disable your opponent when he is taken to the ground, and not go to the ground them. If you go to the ground, you get up as quickly as possible.

Of course if you cannot avoid being controlled by someone in a dominant position, you cannot 'get up as quickly as possible.'

Does anyone know if Tegumi (the non karate, standard wrestling form) includes ne-waza, wikipeadia says yes?

''There is little evidence of how tegumi evolved but the result was a rough and tumble bout where the winner was decided by submission, through joint locks, strangles or pinning. Today, tegumi has a strict set of rules and is still practiced widely.

Okinawan folklore is full of references to tegumi and it is believed that the island's version of sumo can find its roots in the rural wrestling of the past.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegumi

Bill Sampson
26th May 2009, 15:17
But how the man trains reveals a great deal about who he is, no?

And training is a factor in making the man. Machida would not be the Machida we are talking about but for how he has trained.

There are many people with the attitude they will not be beaten, who get summarily trounced and embarrassed. Mental attitude must be forged in a crucible of legitimate tests versus those which build false confidence.

Mental attitude is extremely important. But you need more than mindset when facing those who also have training, skill, and attitude.

Right!

I am pretty sure Ali wasn't just talking about the last round of the fight, but in the larger context of life. One has to train, and live, with the right attitude. Look at the man now, never quits!

Sure training is important, I never said it wasn't. In fact, consistent training under excellent instructors is terribly important. "... a crucible of legitimate tests..." Aren’t those tests designed to train the mental side through stress inoculation as well as, if not more the physical through hard work? You never give up as long as you have a breath in you! Even Kelly McCann and the late Bob Kasper would say its 10% technique and 90% attitude. And both of those guys have "been there and done that". And I know so have you Kit, and I respect your opinion... I just recently reread Grossman's "On Combat" chapter on Sucking up Bullets and Continuing to Fight. It is coloring my thinking these last few days... bear with me here.

I have heard of, and known a few competitors who trained hard in the gym and with very competent instructors, and LEOs who trained hard in the “Crucible” type training that their agencies provided… and in that last round and on the street they didn’t do well because they mentally gave up. We know the LEOs that look like they couldn’t do a push up because their gut is too round for them to get both their hands and their feet on the deck at the same time, yet in the fight they survived and killed a violent assailant because they had what it took mentally to stay alive and finish the fight. But having read Grossman, I think the things Ali are quoted as saying, the desire, dream, vision, and will to win are really important. Without both, mental and physical, one is going probably loose.

Look at the majority of world class athletes in any sport and we can see a mental intensity towards life and competition that a lot of competitors just don’t have. Sure they may be gifted with balance, speed, whatever… but they have the winning attitude, and they never step up to compete with even the shadow of failure on their minds. They train more often and train harder, but isn’t that also a mental attitude of sorts?

In terms of the karate having grappling (wasn’t that what started this?) I doubt that just the kata training in traditional karate would suffice against a BJJ guy in the ring. But in terms of self defense, well, I have seen the streets and the bar floors, and the ground in general, and it’s the last place I would want to be in a confrontation. Lots of small rocks, syringes, broken glass, spit, puke, garbage of all sorts, and it’s seldom a flat smooth surface. Not to mention the other guy’s friends who are going to get their kicks in as well. I would do everything in my power to never be on the floor, and if I was, to stand back up. I think Karate might have an equal chance on the street with grapplers if they stay on their feet, especially if one does some full contact or semi contact sparring.

All in all, case by case, and depends on the person. That and the Karate Guy can probably “kata” on down the street faster than the BJJ guy is going to be able to “shrimp” after you. (That was an attempt at humor. Did it work?)

later

Hissho
26th May 2009, 16:34
Bill

Yeah, I pretty much agree, but I do think its more than 10% technique. I think there has to be a balance of mind (mindset), technique (tactics and skills) and body (conditioning), or to wrap it back into a traditional approach: shin - gi - tai.

On another note: who is the adversary? We must train for an attacker who is equal to or greater than ourselves.

bu-kusa
26th May 2009, 16:58
Okinawans have also always had tuite although it was saved for higher ranking students and not taught at lower levels.


Theres an interesting article on the link between karate, tegumi and Okinawan sumo (sport tegumi) here:

http://www.seinenkai.com/art-sumo.html

And a look into history with a photo from a 1920's rural Okinawan sumo match here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2392024118/

Margaret Lo
3rd June 2009, 04:23
..

My stand up game is much better than my ground game. I am going to loose in the “ring” against pretty much anyone who has done any serious study of grappling. But on the street, if I can articulate the lawful reasons why, and I am in a situation where I fear for my safety and or my life, I am going to employee a blade, a stick, a rock, or whatever it takes (including a firearm) to be the one who stands back up in the end.

....
I hope I didn’t get off on a tangent here, but without clarifying the situation that the encounter is taking place in- we are talking about a lot of hypothetical outcomes. The sitation is going to define what you can and can not do! Study the laws in your area on self defense and use of force. Study the rules before you get into the ring.

If we are talking about a 150 pound grappler against a 250 pound karate-ka, I know where I am going to put my money! Generally speaking, what each person brings to the game in terms of “individuals” is going to decide the outcome to greater degree than style vs. style.

Your mind is your greatest weapon!

Be safe

I think you hit on the head and did not go off on a tangent. Rules define the game and the game of classical martial arts was: usually outdoors,unpredictable footing, multiple opponents, weapons of 2 lbs or more plus small arms, shoes, light armour or not but certainly fully clothed. From these factors were derived karate stances, timing and technique.

When the UFC and competition martial arts became popular, the result was a narrowing the popular understanding of martial arts to be indoors, forgiving and predictable footing, weaponless, single opponent, refereed bouts and the wearing of adorable tightee black shorts.

The successful marketing of commercial MA has made people forget that there's a lot more to it than what's on TV. Endless comparisons of bjj vs this or that really compared apples to oranges since technques of bjj/muay thai/boxing reflected the indoor arena while kungfu, karate etc.. reflected the outdoor arena.

I'm glad Machida showed that old school ideas about timing and tai sabaki have universal application.

CEB
4th June 2009, 17:42
I took some Karate lessons and I grapple pretty good for an old fat guy.

Richard Scardina
13th March 2010, 05:52
I think there has to be a balance of mind (mindset), technique (tactics and skills) and body (conditioning), or to wrap it back into a traditional approach: shin - gi - tai.

On another note: who is the adversary? We must train for an attacker who is equal to or greater than ourselves.

I agree. However, in a street situation, unlike a competition, one will not always know first hand, what skill does a adversary have. there cannot be a assumption that such opponent is lacking in skill.

Kraik
12th October 2010, 16:31
Kyokushin Budokai places quite a lot of emphasis on newaza.

bartfast
31st July 2014, 05:14
http://waxingonoff.blogspot.com/2014/07/anopen-letter-to-bunkai-researchers.html