Why Karate isn't effective for self defense

SAAMAG

Striking Asshole and Mutherfuckin Awesome Guy
@Brown
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
3,723
Reaction score
12
Here's a bit of an article I came across....what are your thoughts on it?

Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective For Self-Defense
By WR Mann


The underlining motivation in studying any type of martial activity is to protect ourselves (or others) in a real fighting situation. At first glance karate seems to provide a solution, until you look more closely at its underpinnings; then you realize it's not equipped to handle violence in the 21st Century. I often refer to karate (and other traditional Asian martial arts) as the Potemkim Village of the martial arts -- a grand facade offering significantly less in the way of substantive tactics and defensive measures than any of the reality-based defense systems.

Recently, while speaking to friends visiting from Australia, the topic of self-defense came up for their daughters (age 9 and 11). They mentioned there was a karate school in their neighborhood and were considering enrolling them there. That sent chills up my spine, and with the same fervor as a surgeon desperately trying to save the life of a stroke victim; I informed them that karate would produce the least beneficial results.

The reason I dissuade people from getting into karate (and other traditional martial arts) is because I don't want them misinformed like I was, studying retrograde theories and techniques that no longer have any relevance to the way we live and need to respond to. Let's be honest, all things being equal, some fighting styles are vastly superior to others. I'm not saying karate is completely ineffective (Bruce Lee did). Karate, like many other fighting styles, has the potential of stopping an attacker, however, the degree of efficiency is far less than muaythai, Brazilian jujitsu, boxing, and especially reality-based systems. Using a metaphor, the flintlock is certainly capable of stopping someone, but the M16 has a far greater degree of efficiency.

"If you're up against someone who doesn't know how to fight -- yes, old-style karate can work, but if you fight an experienced streetfighter or a trained fighter, no way!" - Jon Bluming

To properly put this question into perspective (why karate is not effective as a modern self-defense system) we must first discuss four topics:
1) Conditions of violence in the world today
2) Constituents of effective self-defense in the 21St-Century?
3) What are people looking for [in their self-defense training]?
4) A differentiation and clarification of fighting categories in 2003

Conditions of violence in the world today
Although terrorism has been around for years, its most dramatic impact was felt on September 11, 2001, after the destruction of the World Trade Center. From this point on, the world realized that there were no safe havens left. For the first time in history, Americans were scrambling for gas masks, anthrax remedies, survival and first-aid kits. Suddenly, self-defense was no longer only someone trying to rob or punch you, it now extended to potentially surviving large-scale violence, such as nuclear attacks, bombings, poison gas and snipers. Levels of common violence have also grown and laws against defending yourself have been initiated by several governments in the past few years.

Constituents of effective self-defense in the 21St-Century?
Nowadays, physical violence can happen to anyone, anytime, anywhere and under any conditions. Therefore it's paramount that modern self-defense must encompass the whole gamut of possible situational and environmental scenarios. That includes surviving a bomb attack, gas and chemical attacks, a mob, snipers, muggings, and more. In general, no fighting style will totally prepare us for these scenarios; some reality-based schools at least provide awareness, avoidance and escape options.

Karate (as well as other traditional styles) have been slow to add realistic elements to their training. They just go on about their business, ignoring the way today's criminals conduct themselves, or if they have, they are stuck in a time warp, as if they've never heard of home invasions, car jackings, firearms attacks and terrorists.

Not only is it necessary to practice under a wide variety of conditions and circumstances but you need to be intimately familiar with all three phases of the attack cycle (pre-conflict, the conflict, and post conflict), adrenaline-dump, the use-of-force, self-triage and more. Unless this holistic approach is practiced in simulated environments, expect you or your loved ones to become potential victims.

What are people looking for [in their self-defense training]?
With the exception of individuals interested in martial endeavors, most people are busy with full time careers, school, family or other interests. They are disinclined to spend many years studying martial arts; the only time they seek out a protective-measures course is when something happens close to home.

I can tell you for a fact, most people are not looking for "a way of life," a new religion, or grueling years of pushups and sit-ups interspersed with kata (a pattern of techniques). They "are" however looking for a set of effective and efficient techniques and tactics they can employ to escape a violent attack -- NOW! (not years from now).

Not only do you need to train in the conflict stage of an attack but you need to add pre-and post-conflict training as well. Karate (as well as most traditional martial arts) ignores the pre and post conflict stages, and their methodology of teaching is of the "spoon-fed" variety. They don't even attempt to approach defensive tactics against firearms, hostage taking, store/bank robberies and multiple armed opponents; but these are very real potential situations today.

A clarification and differentiation of fighting categories
When you mention the term "martial arts," today, everyone immediately knows what you mean. The term has become the generic moniker for all fighting styles. What most people don't realize is there are three distinct categories. 1) Traditional-based, 2) Sports-based, and 3) Reality-based defense.

Traditional-Based
Traditional "arts" are historical styles originating in Asia. They include karate, jujitsu, aikido, taekwondo, numerous schools of kung fu, and much more. These styles are what the general public refers to when the term "martial art" is used; this is what we see in the movies. They incorporate the use of traditional-based costumes and employ some form of philosophical or pseudo-religious component. Although many of these systems claim to be a thousand years or older, truth be told, most of them have been around for only a hundred years or so, (with the exception of a few Chinese styles and Okinawan karate, which is about 250 years old). Generally traditional "martial arts" are the least street effective styles and take the longest time to learn.

Sports-Based
The second group, "sports-based fighting," originate from older styles but have been modified and updated to be effective in the ring and conform strictly to specific rules. They can be adapted for the street (in a weaponless environment). Wrestling and boxing are updated versions of their ancient Greek and Roman counterparts, Brazilian jujitsu is a western version of Japanese jujitsu and muaythai is the modernized style of Thailand's fighting systems from the 14th Century. It takes several years to become proficient in "sports-based fighting." In most cases, practitioners easily prevail over their traditional martial art cousins. This is due to "live-training" and realistic techniques.

Reality-Based Defense
Reality-based defense (an offshoot of police and military defensive tactics) are the most street realistic of the three groups, and emphasize simple but effective techniques for both weapons and unarmed attacks. This is also the only group that trains you in all three stages of an attack: the pre-conflict stage (threat assessment, conflict conditioning), the conflict stage (first strike, weapon awareness) and the post-conflict stage (do you run or wait for police, what do you say to the authorities, self medical triage and legal issues).

Much of the reality-based "conflict stage" comes to us from combatives. Combatives originally came to us from 1930's Shanghai, and WWII; British commandos and US Marines developed it over the years to be a simple but effective method of fighting. Reality-based defense concepts such as fighting under stress, situational and environmental awareness and living an avoidance lifestyle, are more recent developments and came about as many individuals realized they couldn't solely depend on traditional arts.

A good reality-defense program today incorporates not only defensive tactics against physical violence by individuals or groups but also incorporates defense for all types of modern attacks from conventional to unconventional weapons conducted in situational scenario form.

Summary
Karate (and similar traditional martial arts) look great in the movies; they take a very long time to learn but don't provide efficient solutions for violent confrontations in any form. They're centered on the conflict phase and ignore (if by fiat) situational and environmental circumstances. Sports-based fighting provides great skills, i.e., development of speed, power, timing etc., it takes several years to develop these skills; and -- they still may not work in real street circumstances, this is due to their sportive nature. Many reality-based systems train you in situational / environmental conditions and address all three stages of the attack stages (with and without weapons). Most important of all, reality systems provide practitioners with the proper aggressive mind-set. Basic defensive skills can be readily implemented after a short period of training (the same way police officers and combat military personnel are trained).
 
Article Continued....

A Brief look at Karate's Origins and Development
Karate as we know it today originated in Okinawa circa 1750 AD, 141 years after Tokugawa Ieyasu ordered the Shimizu clan to invade and occupy it. Contrary to popular myth, karate had no effect whatsoever on Japan's occupation -- Okinawa still belongs to Japan after 394 years. There are two major but disparate approaches to karate, i.e., Okinawan and Japanese styles.

Pre-WWII
Karate was introduced into Japan in the 1920's and has evolved into additional sub-styles. Major contributors to Japanese karate were Gichen Funakoshi (Shotokan), considered to be the father of modern karate, and was the first to systematize karate with the purpose and intent of mass instruction. Gogen Yamaguchi (Goju Ryu) devised modern day free-style sparring in 1936 and recognized a link between ancient Yoga and karate. He was also responsible for the founding the All Japan Karate-do Federation.

Post-WWII
Modern breakthroughs in karate came with Mas Oyama (Kyokushinkai), and Kazuyoshi Ishii (Seidokan). Influenced by observing muaythai, Mas Oyama started incorporating hard contact during sparing sessions. I remember meeting him years ago Japan [as a teen], and he asked me where I was studying, I replied "with Gogen" (Yamaguchi), he laughed and said Goju practitioners were all ballerinas, and invited me to train at his school.

Kazuyoshi Ishii is known as the creator of K-1, it's the extreme style of karate and one of the most popular fighting sports today. The "K" comes from the first letter of the various styles of martial arts that make up K-1. Karate, Kickboxing, kung fu, kakutogi, and taekwondo.

The 12 Immutable Reasons Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective For Self-Defense

1. The One-Strike Kill
The biggest clich
 
And continued....

11. Karate Takes Too Long to Learn, and You Still Can't Fight!
In terms of effort spent, to proportion of effectiveness gained, traditional karate is one of the least efficient systems of any fighting style. Too much time is spent on the inanities of rituals and form. Most karate schools spend countless hours on kata or mindless sparring, as if this will prepare students for a real fight, but it doesn't. Free sparring in karate only teaches you to fight other (barefoot) karateka's in a dojo (school) environment. Kata practice is a primitive form of shadow boxing, nothing more. There usually is no counter-knife, counter-firearms training, if it is taught all, it's usually presented in a rigid step-by-step process, having no relation to what a real attack looks like.

12. The Apotheosis of the Master
I've always felt uncomfortable with the semi-deification of the so-called martial arts master. It just goes against the grain of my western upbringing. My goal in learning fighting was not to become a supplicant of an old man with a tough reputation. I believe that's another reason why mixed martial arts (i.e., BJJ, muaythai, boxing, and Filipino martial arts) have become so popular. There's no groveling involved just mutual respect. In the west, a coach doesn't demand a special status, over and beyond his normal duties. A coach guides athletes in their respective sports. His goal is to encourage, goad and train his charges to success. He is the father, the friend and the teacher; athletes trust him and his judgment.

Bringing karate into the 21st-Century
To modernize karate I suggest the following: 1) Take away the uniform, belts and add shoes (use the same clothes you normally wear to work or play) 2) remove the useless stances, 3) remove katas 4) instead of rigid air punching/kicking do drills with mitts 5) add some realistic gross motor based techniques, and take away more complicated moves 6) allow attacks on fallen opponents, and include some groundwork 7) Employ realistic tactics against knives and guns and most importantly start training in all three phases of the attack.

Why study karate at all?
I have no problem with people practicing traditional karate for the sake of art or culture. If that's the case, supplement it with a realistic modern fighting method. The problem I have with karate is that all too often it's represented to the public as an effective and efficient fighting system for the street -- which it is definitely NOT.
 
All content analysis aside, it reads like an infomercial.
 
IMO, it's true that most traditional arts are ineffective as a means of practical self defense. The kicker though, is that some people can actually utilize traditional techniques and make them work. But, these people are not average people, they're people who dedicate themselves fully for years on end. For example, your average TKD student is a perfect mark for an aggressive street fighting thug. By virtue of their training, they're bound to make foolish mistakes which will work against them. On the other hand though, a TKD guy who's trained and competed for years and years, can make light work of your garden variety asshole thug.

It's the same story for all traditional arts, whether they come from China, Korea, Japan, or wherever. All these arts seek to strip an individual of their natural inclinations, and substitute it with something which seems great, but only works in theory for the most part.

If a person really needs to learn effective self defense, they need to study Muay Thai, Boxing, Judo, and JuiJitsu... or some combination of those arts. The reason why these arts work is simple, they're reality based. No frills, only what actually works.
 
I agree that it sounds like Mr. Mann is simply trying to sell his brand of RBSD by degrading another style of martial arts. He makes very valid points, however to say that a Karate trained individual wouldn't be able to defend him or her self isn't true when there are those that are doing it in competitions against people who are far more capable than the average "street fighter". Granted, that's not to say that competitions are real fights by any means--but the SKILL level that's presented during the conflict stage is much higher in competition albeit not as chaotic since someone isn't trying to outright kill you as fast as possible with a knife or gun.

I do have to say that the seminars that I've attended at the local Krav Maga studio do a great job at preparing people for what an actual encounter may look like in modern day terms. Even the trained martial artists have a hard time pulling things off in a clean manner once they implement all the external stress mechanisms.

I do find it odd however, that he speaks so well of "sport systems" when Karate itself has done very well in the realm of full contact kickboxing.
 
.Well first off the guys has a problem many other former TMA guys have. They fell for some mcdojos scam and instead of acknowledging how gullible they were they would rather convince themselves this is a standard for whatever style they were doing and practitioners of said style are falling into the same trap they did.


.Karate does not take along time to learn. In fact you should be able to apply ANY style to a degree within a few months of hard training. The notion that karate or other Asian styles are somehow more difficult to master is merely the form fairy thought process that harder/more complex = superior. They want to believe something like boxing is the easy route while you must sit on the mountains tops meditating and punching stones for decades until voila youre a master!:icon_lol:

. His breakdown on why karate doesn't work relies on large generalizations which is absurd when karate has a diverse array of approaches to combat. Take Goju ryu for example. Instead of the one punch kill method it focuses on in the pocket blitzing attacks, it is also not a waiting style it is an aggressive one nor does it have long stances it is compact.

Though in regard to this

" Deep, low karate stances make you completely immobile; they plant you in one spot, making quick movements extremely difficult. You may as well hang a sign around your neck saying "strike me at will,"

images



. I do however agree with his stance on Kata.



. The no rules on the street is a terrible argument, a trained martial artists will always have an advantage on top of that he can simply fight unfair or dirty on top of that.

. countless karateka arent remotely stiff and move with ease. This is obviously the easiest to dismiss with a quick youtube search Further returning to arts like goju or Uechi ryu, they have lifted weights since the early days.
 
Let me guess, this guy has developed some unbeatable self defense system that be can yours for only $99.99?
 
He's just rehashing points Matt Thornton has been making for 20 years and pointing out weaknesses in TMAs that Jigoro Kano discovered over a century ago. That is, he's correct, but he's not exactly saying anything that hasn't been said before. He loses me a bit with his obvious hard-on for RBSD styles, though.
 
Haha if anything karate guys are good at moving around. Back stance being immobile is a jok
e. All mt guys make fun of us for jumping around like rabbits.haha don't blame them either.
 
This guy's clearly been scammed at some point. While I can understand some of his points, the majority are either broad generalizations based off of McDojo's or just flat out overreaching. Seriously, name one art that can defend against a bomb or sniper attack, because I sure as hell haven't heard of it. And wtf with the "immobilized stances"? Karateka are generally considered to have some of the best footwork in the world. And the "one-strike kill" is purely a shotokan thing. It was a philosophy used by funokoshi when he first brought karate to japan to appeal to the multitude of kendo/kenjutsu enthusiasts. Most styles of karate prefer short blitzing combinations, or combining striking with Toide (a simplistic joint-locking system mainly utilizing the wrist, elbow, and shoulder) to trap and damage the enemy. This guy's clearly just attempting to disparage one martial art in order to promote another.
 
I stopped reading when I saw the September 11th stuff. Poor thread.
 
It seems like hes trying to sell reality based styles like krav maga. He didn't mention a single drawback to reality based. I think reality based is a cool idea but the problem of not having full contact live training is still there
 
I can't read more than half of that. The guy sounds dumb. Just dumb.

Either that, or he simply hasn't had the idea that not ALL karate organizations train the same way come to him. He seems to have a clear idea of what all karate is like.

And what the hell was his point in referring to the level of violence in the world today? What relevance do large scale terrorist attacks have to an article about martial arts? What was he getting at, there?
 
For the most part im not impressed with alot of reality based styles ive seen.I recall Black belt mag got a hard on for them a few years back and thats almost all they ever featured and its always some fat guy in sweatpants teaching palm strikes to the jaw.
 
Karate and TKD aren't effective by themselves for Pro fighting. When you have a good boxing and kicking base, when its combined it really is effective. Cro Cop is a TKD Blackbelt, Pettis is a TKD blackbelt, Bendo is a TKD blackbelt. They are all good kickboxers who started with TKD. Lyotos karate makes his striking very unique and technical. Obviously the guys who just do leaping side kicks with punching techniques is going to probably lose, but the guy who can throw a 2,3,4,2 ,spinning back kick, is going to have a more technical game then someone who just throws a 1,2, roundhouse.
 
Haha if anything karate guys are good at moving around. Back stance being immobile is a jok
e. All mt guys make fun of us for jumping around like rabbits.haha don't blame them either.

MT is one of the least mobile stand up arts for sure.
 
I didn't mean that. I'd say karateKa work best with some room to move around. Checkout rick Rufus vs jlb

Although, it is true that a lot of Thais have the mentality to stand their ground and counter rather than evade.
 
Back
Top