Which is more realistic? Shotokan or Kyokushin?

[surfer dude]

Aaaaaannnndd another thread goes completely off the rails.

 

[shinkyoku]

why was this thread revived after being dead for 3 years?

 

[Tug]

why was this thread revived after being dead for 3 years?

i think its been merged with some other dipshit thread

 

[meskaline]

Neither of them are realistic in the slightest anymore. They have been bastardized and turned "family friendly" for generations so nowadays they are pretty much useless unless you are a young kid, in which case they are kinda cool for getting kids used to certain movements and the idea of competing. If you are an adult all they will do is get you (maybe) better at doing rigid forms and acting like you could beat someone up but not really being able to.

 

[Azam]

Both are just as realistic as each other.

They are both karate - same techniques (thereabouts), similar kata and historical origin - the exact same fundamental blueprints as one another. The only difference between different karate styles including Shotokan and Kyokushin is they mimick the beliefs of their respective founders and as such the application & training regime vary, otherwise they'd be the exact same thing.

Shotokan and Kyokushin come from two different branches of Karate - Naha te/Shuri te. Naha suits people with musculature/strength whereas Shuri suits people with a small/leaner physique - these are the words of Gichin Funakoshi from his book.

Funnily enough they both are compliments to one another. I think they're of equal effectiveness if the quality of training is no object, that's my honest opinion.

 

[Jukai]

Neither of them are realistic in the slightest anymore. They have been bastardized and turned "family friendly" for generations so nowadays they are pretty much useless unless you are a young kid, in which case they are kinda cool for getting kids used to certain movements and the idea of competing. If you are an adult all they will do is get you (maybe) better at doing rigid forms and acting like you could beat someone up but not really being able to.

LOL you don't know what Kyokushin is, do you?

 

[Charlitos1988]

Neither of them are realistic in the slightest anymore. They have been bastardized and turned "family friendly" for generations so nowadays they are pretty much useless unless you are a young kid, in which case they are kinda cool for getting kids used to certain movements and the idea of competing. If you are an adult all they will do is get you (maybe) better at doing rigid forms and acting like you could beat someone up but not really being able to.

you consider so terrible the idea of Kyokushin "no face punches" that they instantly become ineffective?

 

[Tayski]

As a Shotokan karateka who switched to Kyokushin karate, I can tell you that even though Shotokan is good for speed and in/out movements which can be very useful in a street situation, nothing prepares you more than something full contact.

What you are mixing up here is Kyokushin Karate and Knockdown tournaments. In Knockdown tournaments there are no gloves or other protections which means punches can only be allowed below the neck to avoid dramatic injuries to the face.
Now the majority of Kyokushin fighters who compete indeed compete in knockdown tournaments. What needs to be taken into account though is that also quite a lot of Kyokushin fighters will also fight in Clicker type tournaments similar to Shotokan point scoring tournaments with gloves and punches to the face but controlled strikes and with continuous scoring (instead of resetting after every point like in Shotokan), so basically training and competing in both the knockdown and the point scoring rule sets (that's my case for example), while some others fight in Kickboxing and therefore again training and competing with punches to the head.

Still there are of course more Kyokushin fighters in Knockdown tournaments than any other format of competition as this is the traditional kyokushin kumite.

Just to go back on topic, Kyokushin karate is full contact so you learn to throw powerful strikes in order to KO the opponent while also conditioning your body and mind to take hits full contact. That's a big difference to throwing techniques that hit but don't have power. I know that first hand as when I first started in kyokushin and sparred, I tended to have good footwork and speed against my sparring partners but my techniques when they landed did almost nothing to them damage-wise while I got hammered with powerful punches to the body and low kicks.

If a street situation would come up I feel much more confident defending myself thanks to the Kyokushin training that I had rather than with the Shotokan training, that's for sure.

 

[Tayski]

I like shotokan more, specially for self defense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=292RJFjGCKA

The problem is if you have to face a guy like this! hehehe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlN-ruKbK5w

you do realize that this guy is Kyokushin and not Shotokan?
Or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?

 

[spacetime]

How about the tougher traditional karate training such as Gōjū-ryū? There you have the speed of the point fighting and the conditioning of Kyokushin.

Isn't it a better candidate opposite Kyokushin than Shotokan?

 

[AndyMaBobs]

How about the tougher traditional karate training such as Gōjū-ryū? There you have the speed of the point fighting and the conditioning of Kyokushin.

Isn't it a better candidate opposite Kyokushin than Shotokan?

Not that simple. It depends where you go, some schools will teach you a style of goju that is more okinawan and more like kyokushin, or you may get the sort of style that Gunnar Nelson does with a side on stance more like shotokan. So it really depends, but to say that kyokushin doesn't have speed in terms of footwork or actual striking speed is just untrue. Azam did a very good post a while ago about the different styles at work within kyokushin.

 

[Tayski]

to say that kyokushin doesn't have speed in terms of footwork or actual striking speed is just untrue.

some examples come to mind when footwork and speed is mentioned in kyokushin:

 

[AndyMaBobs]

some examples come to mind when footwork and speed is mentioned in kyokushin:

I am very pleased that you saw my post, I was waiting for you to back me up ;-)

 

[Jukai]

But it IS kind of upsetting that the best examples of Shotokan toughness or Kyokushin footwork is all from the 80s and 90s...

 

[Azam]

some examples come to mind when footwork and speed is mentioned in kyokushin:.....

I personally wouldn't consider Gary O'Neill or Darren Stringer to have notably good footwork - great knockdown fighters with a lot of speed, but footwork isn't one of their strengths - they barely make use of angles & attack in a very linear fashion - despite all the lateral footwork both do from the outside - they attack/defend mostly in straight lines more or less.

But it IS kind of upsetting that the best examples of Shotokan toughness or Kyokushin footwork is all from the 80s and 90s...

I think this is because back then both respective sport formats were less specialised than they are now, so you saw fighters that were much more rounded & imho better with the fundamentals/technique (at least from the KK viewpoint) and to some degree with point fighting too.

KK became more specialised as guys started fighting more in tune to knock-down rules to the point where the technical focus of the guys from the 80's & 90's was abandoned for a more standardized approach that gave greater benefits in knockdown competition (i.e. tougher, more physical & more of a focus with spamming) - the result is guys that have less technical/fundamental pedigrees than their 80's-90's predecessors.

 

[Forever Changes]

But it IS kind of upsetting that the best examples of Shotokan toughness or Kyokushin footwork is all from the 80s and 90s...

Well that was a special time. Ma doesnt have the largest talent pool. Personally I see alot of karate in mma, especially in guys tou wouldnt call karate guys like Rory MacDonald.

 

[AndyMaBobs]

I think this is because back then both respective sport formats were less specialised than they are now, so you saw fighters that were much more rounded & imho better with the fundamentals/technique (at least from the KK viewpoint) and to some degree with point fighting too.

KK became more specialised as guys started fighting more in tune to knock-down rules to the point where the technical focus of the guys from the 80's & 90's was abandoned for a more standardized approach that gave greater benefits in knockdown competition (i.e. tougher, more physical & more of a focus with spamming) - the result is guys that have less technical/fundamental pedigrees than their 80's-90's predecessors.

What are the rule differences? I'm largely ignorant on the subject so what was it that changed to cause less well rounded footwork etc. ?

 

[Tayski]

But it IS kind of upsetting that the best examples of Shotokan toughness or Kyokushin footwork is all from the 80s and 90s...

nah you still have plenty these days, I just don't have the videos at hand. But back then you had even more indeed.

 

[Tayski]

What are the rule differences? I'm largely ignorant on the subject so what was it that changed to cause less well rounded footwork etc. ?

a lot started to specialized in the knockdown ruleset. the rules haven't changed apart from a few details like no grabbing but what he means is that a lot of the successful fighters these days focus entirely on that rule set. So because of no head punches but body shot they focus even more on body conditioning and fight like tanks going into each other rather than trying to move around to avoid hits.
It's a different approach and style. The Russians are especially good at that.

 

[Steveston]

Kyokushin because it's full contact aggression where Shotokan is pretty much the opposite, doesn't mean that Shotokan isn't effective by any means but Kyokushin is a very tough style that I definitely would not want to mess with.