Karate Myths and Misconceptions

[BudoNoah]

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

Absolutely!

 

[JohnPJones]

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.

what you described is more or less what the karate combat league is going for, but I think they need to allow knees and elbows before they really get there

 

[JohnPJones]

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...

reading this post shows that you don't really understand how to apply kata to training other than simple kata repetition.

rather than text book or library, think of kata like a dictionary. 1. simply reading a dictionary is unlikely to teach you a language or improve your vocabulary.
you may have to go out of your way to use specific new words from the dictionary, and as most kata movements have multiple interpretations many words have multiple definitions listed in the dictionary, you simply have to look for the most viable one for your situation. 2. light contact sparring can give you the opportunity to practice particular kata movements in different ways. for example i have actually used a mawasha uke against a BJJ fighter in full contact fight as take down defense. i doubt you'd expect a mawasha uke to ever be used in real self defense or full contact sparring/fight, but i at least have.

i am new to these forums do you have ANY karate background if so any outside of a mcdojo?

 

[panamaican]

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.

It's actually worse than that because it was Okinawan culture that gave birth to karate, bastardized in Japan and then further altered in the West.

 

[panamaican]

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.



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.

Funakoshi documented 9 specific throws for karate.

You're right that they didn't focus on teaching them in Japan because he didn't want to set up karate as a competition to the Japanese and their grappling arts.

 

[ARIZE]

i am new to these forums do you have ANY karate background if so any outside of a mcdojo?

I train and compete in Muay Thai. The last 8 years, I started cross training in Taekwon-do ITF. Took part in some tournaments and in the nationals with no real expectations, but the real objective was always to level up my MT. Not gonna lie to you, Katas was never my primary concern, but after 8 training years them I believe I can talk about it.

I don't have much more to say than what I said before. I still believe that techniques you learn in Katas and that are not used in sparring are mostly useless. Not because they are not effective, but because you have not trained them under fire, against a fighting opponent. And that goes for all types of combat sports and TMA's. You can shadow box all you want, if you don't spar you wont be able to stand against an experienced boxer. Doesn't mean the hooks and uppers you trained are useless strikes.

Again, there are 2 types of techniques in Katas. The one you use in sparring, and the others. For the ones you don't use in sparring, I can think of 2 reasons. Either they are not allowed by the rules sets, or just that they are not effective.
-The ones not allowed by the rules sets may be effective, but again, if you don't train them in fighting condition, you wont persuade me that you will be able to use them out of the blue in a self defense situation, just by doing them in Katas.
-The rest that are not effective. For me it's simple, there is no other explanation why something that is allowed to be used, is not. Those techniques just don't work.

That's kind of my point--people should be sparring using the techniques in the kata, so that they actually CAN use them instinctively.

If you mean by changing the rule set to allow some of those techniques, I' m all for it. If you mean you are "forced" to use a specific technique during competition, I' am completely against it. But if you open your rules set as wide as possible, wont it be something like MT for standup and MMA for global fighting? Do you really think MT would be different if they had some of the karate Katas in their training? Judging by KB, I don't think so.

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:

Pretty interesting. I don't know if in TKD it has the same purpose, since the opposite hand is there to help with the rotation of the body and pulling back the opposite shoulder making the punch more powerful. I say that because thats the way they use to break boards...

 

[panamaican]

I train and compete in Muay Thai. The last 8 years, I started cross training in Taekwon-do ITF. Took part in some tournaments and in the nationals with no real expectations, but the real objective was always to level up my MT. Not gonna lie to you, Katas was never my primary concern, but after 8 training years them I believe I can talk about it.

I don't have much more to say than what I said before. I still believe that techniques you learn in Katas and that are not used in sparring are mostly useless. Not because they are not effective, but because you have not trained them under fire, against a fighting opponent. And that goes for all types of combat sports and TMA's. You can shadow box all you want, if you don't spar you wont be able to stand against an experienced boxer. Doesn't mean the hooks and uppers you trained are useless strikes.

Again, there are 2 types of techniques in Katas. The one you use in sparring, and the others. For the ones you don't use in sparring, I can think of 2 reasons. Either they are not allowed by the rules sets, or just that they are not effective.
-The ones not allowed by the rules sets may be effective, but again, if you don't train them in fighting condition, you wont persuade me that you will be able to use them out of the blue in a self defense situation, just by doing them in Katas.
-The rest that are not effective. For me it's simple, there is no other explanation why something that is allowed to be used, is not. Those techniques just don't work.

I have to agree and I'm a big supporter of kata. I remember the first time I tried a double leg takedown as taught in the kata outside of a karate class. I ended up on the wrong end of a guillotine headlock. And I didn't know how to get out of it.

Kata taught me the basic movements, the basic principles. Based on the kata, I could effectively demonstrate the technique, effectively teach the technique.

But I utterly failed to apply it effectively myself. But that's not because double leg takedowns are ineffective martial arts techniques. It's because only training them in kata isn't effective martial arts training.

 

[Tayski]

I still believe that techniques you learn in Katas and that are not used in sparring are mostly useless. Not because they are not effective, but because you have not trained them under fire, against a fighting opponent. And that goes for all types of combat sports and TMA's.

Not because they are not effective, but because you have not trained them under fire, against a fighting opponent. And that goes for all types of combat sports and TMA's. You can shadow box all you want, if you don't spar you wont be able to stand against an experienced boxer. Doesn't mean the hooks and uppers you trained are useless strikes.

Again, there are 2 types of techniques in Katas. The one you use in sparring, and the others. For the ones you don't use in sparring, I can think of 2 reasons. Either they are not allowed by the rules sets, or just that they are not effective.
-The ones not allowed by the rules sets may be effective, but again, if you don't train them in fighting condition, you wont persuade me that you will be able to use them out of the blue in a self defense situation, just by doing them in Katas.
-The rest that are not effective. For me it's simple, there is no other explanation why something that is allowed to be used, is not. Those techniques just don't work.

I partly agree but would add a slight twist to that. The techniques that you learn in katas and don't drill are mostly useless. What I mean is that I don't think you have to use certain techniques necessarily in sparring in order to be able to use them. However I do agree that if the only time you practice a certain technique is in a kata without actually drilling it several times with a partner (drilling or sparring), you're never going to use it.

I'll take an example to illustrate what I mean. At my old Kyokushin dojo we did some Bunkai / Goshin Jutsu and used some of the techniques from Kata in application. We drilled several joint locks techniques including a standing Kimura. I never used Kimura in sparring because of the lack of grappling in the Knockdown ruleset of Kyokushin, but I still used a standing Kimura on a drunk guy that was trying to pick a fight and grabbed me by the front of my jacket. Very effective technique against an untrained guy that you don't want to hurt too badly but want to control and hurt enough for them to stop. I actually surprised myself that I naturally pulled that move while I had only drilled it a few times.

So I don't think you necessarily need to use certain techniques in sparring in order to be able to use them, but at least some drilling with a partner indeed. Of course sparring is even better.

Do you really think MT would be different if they had some of the karate Katas in their training? Judging by KB, I don't think so.

I don't know how different it would be but there are definitely certain techniques from Karate Kata that you do not see in MT and are effective, especially when it comes to kicks and open hand strikes for instance. Also you need to take into consideration that a lot of the techniques in Karate Kata's are actually grappling techniques and not strikes as opposed to popular belief, so most of them would be pretty tricky to execute in a ruleset which has boxing gloves and doesn't really allow joint locks and submission grappling.

 

[ARIZE]

Without actual

Without actual what? With out actual WHAT, MAN? How am I suppose to prove that MT is superior to your Karate if you don't finish your sentences? You understand that by the rules of the internetz, incomplete phrases give me the win by default? So until you correct/edit it, I AM RIGHT, AND KATAS ARE FOR LOOSERS.

 

[Tayski]

Without actual what? With out actual WHAT, MAN? How am I suppose to prove that MT is superior to your Karate if you don't finish your sentences? You understand that by the rules of the internetz, incomplete phrases give me the win by default? So until you correct/edit it, I AM RIGHT, AND KATAS ARE FOR LOOSERS.

I was gonna edit and add another sentence to that paragraph, but then changed my mind and forgot to remove those 2 words. As it was disturbing you that much I removed those 2 words so you can transfer your focus to the actual post.

 

[BudoNoah]

I don't have much more to say than what I said before. I still believe that techniques you learn in Katas and that are not used in sparring are mostly useless. Not because they are not effective, but because you have not trained them under fire, against a fighting opponent. And that goes for all types of combat sports and TMA's. You can shadow box all you want, if you don't spar you wont be able to stand against an experienced boxer. Doesn't mean the hooks and uppers you trained are useless strikes.

I agree with you, although the definition of "sparring" can vary widely. I know plenty of karate practitioners who have spent DECADES practicing kata, who have no idea how to use them, and even if they have a general idea, they can't actually apply the techniques because they've never trained them with resistance or spontaneity.

Again, there are 2 types of techniques in Katas. The one you use in sparring, and the others. For the ones you don't use in sparring, I can think of 2 reasons. Either they are not allowed by the rules sets, or just that they are not effective.
-The ones not allowed by the rules sets may be effective, but again, if you don't train them in fighting condition, you wont persuade me that you will be able to use them out of the blue in a self defense situation, just by doing them in Katas.
-The rest that are not effective. For me it's simple, there is no other explanation why something that is allowed to be used, is not. Those techniques just don't work.

While I agree with your first category, I would argue that the second should be "movements people don't understand." Admittedly, not understanding it means you have no idea how to apply it, which means it will not be effective. That doesn't mean that the movement is ACTUALLY ineffective, just that the techniques derived from it, with a lack of understanding, are ineffective. To be fair to your point, though, there are some things in kata that are considered "shorthand" or "placeholders," which are meant to tell you things like "you could throw them here," or "you could use either arm for this," which don't tend to work very well if applied exactly as they look.

If you mean by changing the rule set to allow some of those techniques, I' m all for it. If you mean you are "forced" to use a specific technique during competition, I' am completely against it. But if you open your rules set as wide as possible, wont it be something like MT for standup and MMA for global fighting? Do you really think MT would be different if they had some of the karate Katas in their training? Judging by KB, I don't think so.

In training, I'm an advocate of MMA-style sparring for, although I find that varying your sparring methods to focus on different areas of fighting is a good thing to do, rather than ALWAYS sparring MMA-style. This means sometimes sparring with just hands, or just grappling methods, or against someone specifically emulating an untrained attacker, etc. For competition-sake, I'm not talking so much about "forcing" people to use specific techniques as "encouraging" them. The reason I say that is because the goal is to get karateka to start actually competing with the methods of the kata, which are intended for close range fighting that incorporates BOTH striking and grappling. Yes, that is already part of MMA, but if karateka wanted to do MMA, they already would be. I think if we could get a good competition circuit going that encourages the development of the skills and methods shown in the kata, we would actually have a better pool of karateka to transition to MMA. As it stands, most of the karateka who transition to MMA are doing it from the long-range sport karate approach, so they have had to learn all the close range stuff through cross-training, anyway, rather than exploring their own art.

Pretty interesting. I don't know if in TKD it has the same purpose, since the opposite hand is there to help with the rotation of the body and pulling back the opposite shoulder making the punch more powerful. I say that because thats the way they use to break boards...

That's a very common explanation for the use of hikite, but it's not a very good one. It is not necessary to pull the hand back in that manner to get the rotation necessary for a powerful punch, as we can see in basically every striking art. I suppose for some people, it could be a helpful illustration of how to rotate, but I don't find it necessary. The other common explanation is that it is used to elbow someone who is behind you, which it could certainly be used for, but that isn't exactly the most common thing. Hikite is primarily used to pull some part of the opponent (arm, leg, head, clothing, etc.) toward you as you execute a technique, although it also serves the purpose of extricating your arm from situations where it has become entangled with your opponent's, so that you can use it for something else. There are instances of hikite in kata being used as shorthand, as I mentioned before, to tell you that you simply don't need that hand to execute the technique you are using, so you are free to employ it as necessary, but I admit that can be confusing.

I have to agree and I'm a big supporter of kata. I remember the first time I tried a double leg takedown as taught in the kata outside of a karate class. I ended up on the wrong end of a guillotine headlock. And I didn't know how to get out of it.

Kata taught me the basic movements, the basic principles. Based on the kata, I could effectively demonstrate the technique, effectively teach the technique.

But I utterly failed to apply it effectively myself. But that's not because double leg takedowns are ineffective martial arts techniques. It's because only training them in kata isn't effective martial arts training.

It all boils down to how you train--the kata gives you a series of examples, and a framework for how they can fit together, and you are then supposed to train those with with partners, and with resistance and spontaneity, to develop the ability to actually use them.

I partly agree but would add a slight twist to that. The techniques that you learn in katas and don't drill are mostly useless. What I mean is that I don't think you have to use certain techniques necessarily in sparring in order to be able to use them. However I do agree that if the only time you practice a certain technique is in a kata without actually drilling it several times with a partner (drilling or sparring), you're never going to use it.

I'll take an example to illustrate what I mean. At my old Kyokushin dojo we did some Bunkai / Goshin Jutsu and used some of the techniques from Kata in application. We drilled several joint locks techniques including a standing Kimura. I never used Kimura in sparring because of the lack of grappling in the Knockdown ruleset of Kyokushin, but I still used a standing Kimura on a drunk guy that was trying to pick a fight and grabbed me by the front of my jacket. Very effective technique against an untrained guy that you don't want to hurt too badly but want to control and hurt enough for them to stop. I actually surprised myself that I naturally pulled that move while I had only drilled it a few times.

So I don't think you necessarily need to use certain techniques in sparring in order to be able to use them, but at least some drilling with a partner indeed. Of course sparring is even better. Without actual

I don't know how different it would be but there are definitely certain techniques from Karate Kata that you do not see in MT and are effective, especially when it comes to kicks and open hand strikes for instance. Also you need to take into consideration that a lot of the techniques in Karate Kata's are actually grappling techniques and not strikes as opposed to popular belief, so most of them would be pretty tricky to execute in a ruleset which has boxing gloves and doesn't really allow joint locks and submission grappling.

There are types of "drilling" which are resistant in nature, but most would not consider to be "sparring," and I think those drills do develop skill, particularly when we are looking at applicability in medium-intensity encounters, such as the one you described. I generally see these drills as one component in the process--you learn how to use the movements on a static, compliant person, then you slowly add resistance to the drill over time, and you also start incorporating supplementary training methods to execute the techniques at full force without injuring anyone, and then you start incorporating it into more free-form sparring.

 

[ARIZE]

I was gonna edit and add another sentence to that paragraph, but then changed my mind and forgot to remove those 2 words. As it was disturbing you that much I removed those 2 words so you can transfer your focus to the actual post.

Dint know if what was missing was important or not, so just wanted to make sure you made all your points before I destr..., I mean i answer them.

I partly agree but would add a slight twist to that. The techniques that you learn in katas and don't drill are mostly useless. What I mean is that I don't think you have to use certain techniques necessarily in sparring in order to be able to use them. However I do agree that if the only time you practice a certain technique is in a kata without actually drilling it several times with a partner (drilling or sparring), you're never going to use it.

I probably agree, depending on the way and intensity the drills are made. Otherwise it sounds to me a lot like what we denounce on arts like Aikido etc... But again, what we have is Kata + Drills = Effective. What that tells me is more like: Drills = Effective. Katas don't add nothing to it. Take them away from the equation, I'm sure you would still be able to pull of that kimura.

To be clear, I said it before, I think Katas have some benefits, but they add nothing to learning effectively a technique, to what drills and sparring offer in that regard. And personally, I prefer to use my time drilling and sparring, than doing Katas.

While I agree with your first category...

Sorry, still not convinced. Just a lot more open minded about some use of techniques that are not explained properly, but still believe some of them to be useless, or simply wrong (the way they throw elbows, the way they hold the head to knee etc...)

So I don't think you necessarily need to use certain techniques in sparring in order to be able to use them, but at least some drilling with a partner indeed. Of course sparring is even better.

I agree with that.

I don't know how different it would be but there are definitely certain techniques from Karate Kata that you do not see in MT and are effective, especially when it comes to kicks and open hand strikes for instance. Also you need to take into consideration that a lot of the techniques in Karate Kata's are actually grappling techniques and not strikes as opposed to popular belief, so most of them would be pretty tricky to execute in a ruleset which has boxing gloves and doesn't really allow joint locks and submission grappling.

Is there any type of Karate tournament that allows grappling, submission etc and is done without gloves? (or MMA type of gloves)? Do you see all types of techniques from Katas in there? All the blocks and attacks and throws and subs?

I don't want to defend that particular point very hard, cause I don't know all about Karate Katas, and BudoNoah made me understand some stuff that I dint know, but still... I feel like there are lots of techniques in them, that are just kept for the "historical" aspect only and not for been truly effective if trained.

@panamaican

That's exactly what I mean (can you ban those who disagree?)

I agree with you, although the definition of "sparring" can vary widely. I know plenty of karate practitioners who have spent DECADES practicing kata, who have no idea how to use them, and even if they have a general idea, they can't actually apply the techniques because they've never trained them with resistance or spontaneity.

Agree that sparring can vary widely, but usually, if there is also organized competition, sparring tend to be more realistic.

In training, I'm an advocate...

I don't know, it's very hypothetical all that... "If they were allowed, they would do the stuff in Katas, if they wanted to fight in MMA and use them, they would have, they don't take techniques from their own art etc..." Maybe, maybe not. I am still on the "not" side

It all boils down to how you train--the kata gives you a series of examples, and a framework for how they can fit together, and you are then supposed to train those with with partners, and with resistance and spontaneity, to develop the ability to actually use them.

Just an idea: Why not skip Katas, and spend all this time just drilling proved effective methods? And don't tell me that you need a "library" to remember them.



Come at me Karate Guys... None of you seems to understand... I'm not locked here with you... YOU ARE LOCKED HERE WITH ME.

 

[panamaican]

That's a very common explanation for the use of hikite, but it's not a very good one. It is not necessary to pull the hand back in that manner to get the rotation necessary for a powerful punch, as we can see in basically every striking art. I suppose for some people, it could be a helpful illustration of how to rotate, but I don't find it necessary. The other common explanation is that it is used to elbow someone who is behind you, which it could certainly be used for, but that isn't exactly the most common thing. Hikite is primarily used to pull some part of the opponent (arm, leg, head, clothing, etc.) toward you as you execute a technique, although it also serves the purpose of extricating your arm from situations where it has become entangled with your opponent's, so that you can use it for something else. There are instances of hikite in kata being used as shorthand, as I mentioned before, to tell you that you simply don't need that hand to execute the technique you are using, so you are free to employ it as necessary, but I admit that can be confusing.

That all goes back to that problem of poor instruction starting early. If people are always taught that the hikite arm is for pulling then so many kata sequences will make more sense to them. 3 of the 5 Heian opening sequences alone are based on the controlling arm and yet people aren't being taught that until years into their practice. It makes no sense to me.

Currently, I'm teaching my 4.5 y.o. son karate. I'm using the kata as the curriculum. But I teach him out of a boxing stance. Both hands up, chin tucked, bladed stance. Everything in the kata can be applied from that stance (I still teach him the kata though). We do a kata sequence for the general movements, then he runs the same sequences from a boxing stance and then we spar a little. And the hikite? Perfectly applicable. Slip and parry a punch, use the opposite arm to control it in some way, counter strike.

The other day, my kid's on the playground roughhousing with some other kid -superheroes or something. He gets a hold of the kid's arm, pulls it back and traps it against his body, then he starts launching backfists and hammerfists against the trapped side. The other kid can't defend himself and is just eating them. <Lmaoo>

I have to rush in and tell him "No real karate against your friends."

I never had to teach my kid to do that. I taught the principles of the hikite from the kata, we do some drills combining blocks and the hikite and play fight almost every day. He applied it on his own because he's always been taught to control the arm.

It all boils down to how you train--the kata gives you a series of examples, and a framework for how they can fit together, and you are then supposed to train those with with partners, and with resistance and spontaneity, to develop the ability to actually use them.

Exactly, which is how I ended up in the headlock - forcing myself to go train with non-compliant partners in other martial arts. It took a couple of times before I could actually set up and land a double leg. And for that I credit the kata and the sparring.

I'm glad that the online karate community, in general, has become so much more honest about the shortcomings and the strengths of what we train. And I really credit Machida for giving us back some semblance of respectability in the MMA world (since karate guys already have a long solid history in kickboxing).

 

[panamaican]

Random story - I was trying to teach my son the importance of balance and keeping himself under control while attacking. He wasn't listening, so I swept his foot out from under him.

The look of surprise on his face was priceless. Yes, Little Panamaican, you need to pay attention to your feet and your position or you're going back on your butt.

I tried it again a little later - he moved out of the way. Lesson learned!

 

[Hotora86]

Random story - I was trying to teach my son the importance of balance and keeping himself under control while attacking. He wasn't listening, so I swept his foot out from under him.

The look of surprise on his face was priceless. Yes, Little Panamaican, you need to pay attention to your feet and your position or you're going back on your butt.

I tried it again a little later - he moved out of the way. Lesson learned!

Child abuse. Reported.

 

[JohnPJones]

Dint know if what was missing was important or not, so just wanted to make sure you made all your points before I destr..., I mean i answer them.



I probably agree, depending on the way and intensity the drills are made. Otherwise it sounds to me a lot like what we denounce on arts like Aikido etc... But again, what we have is Kata + Drills = Effective. What that tells me is more like: Drills = Effective. Katas don't add nothing to it. Take them away from the equation, I'm sure you would still be able to pull of that kimura.

To be clear, I said it before, I think Katas have some benefits, but they add nothing to learning effectively a technique, to what drills and sparring offer in that regard. And personally, I prefer to use my time drilling and sparring, than doing Katas.



Sorry, still not convinced. Just a lot more open minded about some use of techniques that are not explained properly, but still believe some of them to be useless, or simply wrong (the way they throw elbows, the way they hold the head to knee etc...)



I agree with that.



Is there any type of Karate tournament that allows grappling, submission etc and is done without gloves? (or MMA type of gloves)? Do you see all types of techniques from Katas in there? All the blocks and attacks and throws and subs?

I don't want to defend that particular point very hard, cause I don't know all about Karate Katas, and BudoNoah made me understand some stuff that I dint know, but still... I feel like there are lots of techniques in them, that are just kept for the "historical" aspect only and not for been truly effective if trained.

@panamaican

That's exactly what I mean (can you ban those who disagree?)



Agree that sparring can vary widely, but usually, if there is also organized competition, sparring tend to be more realistic.



I don't know, it's very hypothetical all that... "If they were allowed, they would do the stuff in Katas, if they wanted to fight in MMA and use them, they would have, they don't take techniques from their own art etc..." Maybe, maybe not. I am still on the "not" side



Just an idea: Why not skip Katas, and spend all this time just drilling proved effective methods? And don't tell me that you need a "library" to remember them.



Come at me Karate Guys... None of you seems to understand... I'm not locked here with you... YOU ARE LOCKED HERE WITH ME.

as to why continue the katas? well i do think it is very helpful for passing on the multitude of techniques in karate, it seems to me like many of the arts like boxing, kick boxing, MT, wrestling, have significantly fewer techniques to be remembered i mean boxing is what? 5 or 6 techniques? KB, 10-12?

Okinawan karate has pretty much every strike that can be found in other arts (except some of the fancier kicks) so i think it is helpful to have a method of remembering all those techniques. in the modern age there are other ways to record those techniques and you could train the techniques with out kata, but that's what differentiates a TMA from others, is continuing the traditions of the past.

the traditions of the past may not appeal to some, but some like it. to each their own.

 

[Tayski]

I probably agree, depending on the way and intensity the drills are made. Otherwise it sounds to me a lot like what we denounce on arts like Aikido etc... But again, what we have is Kata + Drills = Effective. What that tells me is more like: Drills = Effective. Katas don't add nothing to it. Take them away from the equation, I'm sure you would still be able to pull of that kimura.

Katas were never meant to be a training method which by itself would teach you to use techniques against opponents. They are a mean to carry those techniques over from generation to generation and be studied, while also having many other benefits. So I don't disagree with you as it's not what it's meant to be for.

Is there any type of Karate tournament that allows grappling, submission etc and is done without gloves? (or MMA type of gloves)? Do you see all types of techniques from Katas in there? All the blocks and attacks and throws and subs?

I don't want to defend that particular point very hard, cause I don't know all about Karate Katas, and BudoNoah made me understand some stuff that I dint know, but still... I feel like there are lots of techniques in them, that are just kept for the "historical" aspect only and not for been truly effective if trained.

There are some Karate tournaments which allow grappling and submissions and have MMA gloves, for example Daido Juku / Kudo is a perfect example, or even Shidokan to an extent.

There are definitely a lot of techniques from Kata being used, maybe not all of them but quite a few of them indeed. A lot of the techniques from Katas are actually techniques from Japanese Jujutsu and Judo, so a lot is actually applicable even in a sports environment, of course there are also some which are less effective or maybe more difficult to pull off, so those might not be used as much or at all, but that's the same for any martial art.

Just an idea: Why not skip Katas, and spend all this time just drilling proved effective methods? And don't tell me that you need a "library" to remember them.

Come at me Karate Guys... None of you seems to understand... I'm not locked here with you... YOU ARE LOCKED HERE WITH ME.

Just an idea: Why not skip Wai Khru Ram Muay, and spend all this time just drilling fighting techniques?

(this is pretty much the same question)

Kata is traditional, and while it has many benefits you're definitely not the first person to question them as even within Karate circles themselves and especially in more advanced / more combat focused styles of Karate there is always this question of why do we still do kata and do we really need to?

There are plenty of discussions online, as well as internal discussions at the top of the organisations by the most senior practitioners about it.

http://the-martial-way.com/is-kyokushin-karate-still-kyokushin-without-kata/

Kudo, one of the most modern forms of Karate for example has gotten rid of Kata.

The way I see it, it's a way to keep some of the traditions intact, while also getting some benefits out of it such as going through techniques properly, developing coordination and timing, learning breathing properly, and so on. I definitely don't think it should be a big part of the training though, but if you do Karate I believe it should not completely disappear. There are many different opinions on that.

 

[FighterTwister]

I like that article this one - http://the-martial-way.com/is-kyokushin-karate-still-kyokushin-without-kata/

Oh boy, I can't be bothered to discuss this online anymore, I mean since when, have the martial art gurus ever agreed on anything LoL

My opinion that KATA's, DRILL's, FORMS are very much key to good conditioning and understanding the fighting systems applications to offensive and defensive movements or attacks.

But where it falls short is the maturity and the willingness of the pupil.

Its something you can't teach as a student has to be committed and willing to dive into all that he is going to undertake and accept as his responsibility to perfect and comprehend why these methods are true and tested and work.

One clue is how the body builds muscle tolerance, resistance strengthening many areas of the body and muscle memory.

Also the use of correct deep belly breathing techniques, I hardly see that anymore.

Its a good topic but like I have said in other posts so many arts are being watered down and the knowledge and training syllabus that has been tried and tested just tossed into the wind.

 

[BudoNoah]

I probably agree, depending on the way and intensity the drills are made. Otherwise it sounds to me a lot like what we denounce on arts like Aikido etc... But again, what we have is Kata + Drills = Effective. What that tells me is more like: Drills = Effective. Katas don't add nothing to it. Take them away from the equation, I'm sure you would still be able to pull of that kimura.

Yes, you certainly could pull off the technique with drilling, alone, and no kata. No argument, there.

To be clear, I said it before, I think Katas have some benefits, but they add nothing to learning effectively a technique, to what drills and sparring offer in that regard. And personally, I prefer to use my time drilling and sparring, than doing Katas.

Sorry, still not convinced. Just a lot more open minded about some use of techniques that are not explained properly, but still believe some of them to be useless, or simply wrong (the way they throw elbows, the way they hold the head to knee etc...)

Could you give some video/photo examples of the kinds of techniques you're seeing that are wrong? It would be interesting to evaluate them

Is there any type of Karate tournament that allows grappling, submission etc and is done without gloves? (or MMA type of gloves)? Do you see all types of techniques from Katas in there? All the blocks and attacks and throws and subs?

To the best of my knowledge, no. There have been a few that are essentially MMA in a gi, but they typically use gloves, and sometimes various degrees of "armor." And to answer your question, yes, you do see a variety of kata techniques show up, but people's focus in those competitions is still almost exclusively long range striking, because that's what they are used to. As I said, the point of my suggestion of developing a competition format for the older methods is to promote learning and training the close range material more.

I don't want to defend that particular point very hard, cause I don't know all about Karate Katas, and BudoNoah made me understand some stuff that I dint know, but still... I feel like there are lots of techniques in them, that are just kept for the "historical" aspect only and not for been truly effective if trained.

I see the "kata are outdated" argument a lot, but my counterpoint to that is the fact that the habitual acts of violence you see from untrained people have not really changed over the course of human history--weapons may have changed, and scenarios may have varied a bit, but in general the types of attacks you tend to see are the same. We also see that the goals of police and security forces haven't changed much over the course of history, and the same types of methods tend to show up all across the world for those purposes. Given that those two things (self defense and peacekeeping) are the primary contexts for which karate was intended, and that the violence within those contexts has not really changed much, it is hard for me to believe that the techniques are outdated. There are some exceptions to this, but I find they can still have a place, such as techniques that grab or counter someone grabbing the hair (the Okinawans, like the Chinese and Japanese, tended to wear their hair long, tied up in topknots), or techniques that include pulling a hairpin (worn by all Okinawan nobles, and many common folk) to use during the fight. Are you likely to find those techniques useful frequently, these days, because of our manner of dress? No, not so much. Could you still end up fighting someone with long hair? Yes. Could you still find yourself teaching someone who wears their hair up with pins? Yes.

Agree that sparring can vary widely, but usually, if there is also organized competition, sparring tend to be more realistic.

Agreed, which is why I would like to set up such an organized competition.

I don't know, it's very hypothetical all that... "If they were allowed, they would do the stuff in Katas, if they wanted to fight in MMA and use them, they would have, they don't take techniques from their own art etc..." Maybe, maybe not. I am still on the "not" side

I may not have worded that very well, because it doesn't look like you quite understood what I was trying to say. The techniques of kata DO get used in MMA, all the time, by fighters with and without karate backgrounds, because those are the methods that are useful when fighting someone who is close to you while (primarily) standing up. My point was that because the vast majority of karateka only compete in long-range, kickboxing-esque formats, those are the only techniques they are used to fighting with, and so if they are interested in MMA, they typically just cross-train in the same things that every other MMA fighter cross-trains in. That isn't a bad thing, but the fact that it is the go-to for those people just highlights the ignorance most karateka have of what is actually part of the arts they are practicing.

Unfortunately, I find that most karateka who practice practical applications to their kata simply don't have much interest in MMA competitions. That largely comes from the "traditional martial arts" culture, in my opinion--the idea that it is supposed to develop a peaceful mind, and an avoidance of unnecessary violence. To top that off, most of the people who train that way but might have an interest in competing ALSO don't compete in the karate competitions that ARE available, because in the vast majority of them, you can't use the types of methods shown in kata. What I'm proposing is sort of an intermediary competition format, which could act as a feeder into MMA competition.

Just an idea: Why not skip Katas, and spend all this time just drilling proved effective methods? And don't tell me that you need a "library" to remember them.

You could, if you wanted to. Some people have. As for being a "library to remember them," I would say that it is more a curriculum for how the instructor can structure drills--this one feeds into this one, and this one is for delaing with this counter, and so on.

Personally, I believe that the kata are supplementary to the drilling and use of applications in sparring, although most schools still do this the other way around--that's largely thanks to the Budo-fication it went through during the early-to-mid-20th Century. What they provide is a structured "flow drill," of sorts, that you can practice when you DON'T have access to a partner, and that also allows you to incorporate visualization into your training. Sometimes, when I bring up visualization, people get some "woo woo" ideas going on, but visualization has been shown to improve performance in athletes, as well as improving task-specific memory. One small study even suggested that visualization of an exercise can help retain muscle strength in injured people, although it was admittedly a very small group of people that were studied--I would love to see more thorough study of that. Going through movements by yourself, while visualizing the applications for the movements--which you should have already drilled with a partner--is a good way to help keep those skills fresh between training sessions, or when traveling, or when injured. Additionally, it lets you mentally and physically go through the full ranges of motion for the techniques which, for some of them, would severely injure your partner, so in training with a partner you have to slow the techniques down, cut them short, or do them more softly.

All that said, if you don't find value in the practice of kata, no one is saying you HAVE to do it.

That all goes back to that problem of poor instruction starting early. If people are always taught that the hikite arm is for pulling then so many kata sequences will make more sense to them. 3 of the 5 Heian opening sequences alone are based on the controlling arm and yet people aren't being taught that until years into their practice. It makes no sense to me.

Which is exactly why I would like to put together a competition circuit that actually focuses on practical kata application in a sparring format, because that would promote better instruction in order to build better competitors, which will result in better-trained karateka, overall.

 

[ARIZE]

Oh man... You guys write a lot, and that makes me write a lot...

Forgot to address this part previously:

That's a very common explanation for the use of hikite, but it's not a very good one. It is not necessary to pull the hand back in that manner to get the rotation necessary for a powerful punch, as we can see in basically every striking art. I suppose for some people, it could be a helpful illustration of how to rotate, but I don't find it necessary. The other common explanation is that it is used to elbow someone who is behind you, which it could certainly be used for, but that isn't exactly the most common thing. Hikite is primarily used to pull some part of the opponent (arm, leg, head, clothing, etc.) toward you as you execute a technique, although it also serves the purpose of extricating your arm from situations where it has become entangled with your opponent's, so that you can use it for something else. There are instances of hikite in kata being used as shorthand, as I mentioned before, to tell you that you simply don't need that hand to execute the technique you are using, so you are free to employ it as necessary, but I admit that can be confusing.

I am not sure if it's the same in Karate as TKD, but almost every time the second hand is not used for something, it goes down to the hip. Strikes, blocks etc... It's explained the way a told before, as a help to add rotation, power etc... And the proof to that, is that when they break boards, they use that method. It does add power, you can really feel it, but it's completely wrong for sparring/matches/self defense...

And It's no way an elbow to someone behind you. Actually in the TKD katas, there is a strike like that (elbow from the hip height) but its a completely different technique/set up.

I can see it the way you explain it, for a strike, while holding/pulling the opponent. But not for every move in the katas like blocks.

Could you give some video/photo examples of the kinds of techniques you're seeing that are wrong? It would be interesting to evaluate them

Oh man, you really gonna make me work? Most of the blocks with the "proper stance", the elbow strikes, the way they show you how to put your hands over the imaginary head to pull him down while you knee...

I was lucky, first video i found has lots of stuff from the ITF katas + the elbow i told you that look like the pull back hand to the hip we discuss (around 1,20) Take anything you want from there and tell me if and how you would use them in a self defense situation...

I see the "kata are outdated..."

I dint meant it that way, that they were useful back then and not now. The ones I am talking about were probably always useless, but no one "dared" to take them out of the Katas for whatever reason: Misplaced respect, misinterpretation, keeping the tradition...

I may not have worded that very well...

Maybe it was me who dint explain my self better, cause what you say now doesn't really change my answer. Your explanation why some techniques of the Katas are not used may be valid, but I am not sure about it. So until we are able to watch how it goes in the format you propose, I will still be doubtful about it.

You could, if you wanted to. Some people have. As for being a "library to remember them," I would say that it is more a curriculum for how the instructor can structure drills--this one feeds into this one, and this one is for delaing with this counter, and so on.

Well there is one of my big problems. At least in TKD ITF, you can't skip them. Its a big deal, and a big part of your evaluation for belts. You can't advance without learning new Katas for every stripe/belt. Now personally, I don't give a fuck about belts, but if you want to compete you have to. And it's a huge amount of time spent on them during classes...

All that said, if you don't find value in the practice of kata, no one is saying you HAVE to do it.

I find some values in them, just not the ones that sparring and partner drilling offers... That's my main problem. And I also find them to take to much space in a martial artist schedule for the benefits they give...

----

i mean boxing is what? 5 or 6 techniques? KB, 10-12?

No man, just no... That's something I would say to make fun of boxing, but its no way true... It's like you took just the main names of the punches and said that's it... Blocks? Stances? Foot work? And when you combine them you have completely different techniques... The front uppercut from Tyson is a completely different technique from Mayweathers etc...
Not gonna talk about KB, cause its a pervasion and abomination to anything good in combat sports, but for MT, you have dozens of technique for the clinch, dozens of variation for elbows etc...
And then you have other more "open" arts like sanda, sambo... Then you have bjj with new techniques every 2 days... They don't need Katas to remember them. They may not be as many as in some karate styles... But still, it's not just a couple of techniques.

Goddamnit, you made me defend boxing, in a Karate thread, in a MMA website, on a Friday night...

the traditions of the past may not appeal to some, but some like it. to each their own.

I don't mind if you do them for tradition purposes, and even if I don't really believe it, I can understand the "library" explanation. I mind when people try to convince me they are a "necessity" for a fighter.

---
Your turn @Tayski , you're going down like the rest...

There are some Karate tournaments which allow grappling and submissions and have MMA gloves, for example Daido Juku / Kudo is a perfect example, or even Shidokan to an extent.

Sounds interesting, but I am too tired and not really that committed to watch their fight, watch their Katas and see the actual application. I am kinda starting to burn out my involvement in the Kata discussion...

Just an idea: Why not skip Wai Khru Ram Muay, and spend all this time just drilling fighting techniques?

(this is pretty much the same question)

But with that remark, you just fueled my hate towards you kind... HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ANYTHING FROM MT?

More seriously now, you know it's not the same. And to be clear, i don't care about the Wai Khru personally. I've learned a couple of them for respect for some people/gyms, but I don't care to do them before my fights. It's not my culture, it's not my beliefs. So yes, I would gladly trade my time spending on them for other drills.

Now for the differences.
-You don't learn them from the start, only later when you are ready to fight. Katas are tough from your first day.
-Usually you only learn a couple for all your life, depending if you change gyms. Taekwondo ITF has 24 katas...
-You don't spend an insane amount of time during classes to learn it.
-You can add or take things out of it, modified it a bit to your liking. Katas are strictly done the way they are tough.
-Beside been a cultural thing, Wai Khru Ram Muay is a stretching/warm up method before your fight.
-My "level" is not decided on them. Your belts are decided on your ability to perform those katas.
-Not all gym (outside Thailand) are teaching them. So you can still learn MT in another gym if you don't want to spend time on it. Katas are an obligation for most styles of Karate/TKD that have them.
-It's not suppose to teach you proper fighting techniques...

The way I see it, it's a way to keep some of the traditions intact, while also getting some benefits out of it such as going through techniques properly, developing coordination and timing, learning breathing properly, and so on. I definitely don't think it should be a big part of the training though, but if you do Karate I believe it should not completely disappear. There are many different opinions on that.

We agree on that...


---
Holy shit that was a long post...
tl;dr: I am right, you are all wrong, even those who agreed with me.