Tradition vs New Age Combat

[HtTKar]

I could see you practicing that much if you are a professional fighter, but what about those of us who only practice so that we can defend ourselves from random street thugs or whatever?

How often have you had to defend yourself against random street thugs? Your more likely to be attacked by a friend, relative, or neighbor. Maybe people do take martial arts to learn how to defend themselves I dont know. But you dont need martial arts to learn how to defend yourself. Most of it's in your attitude. You should be practicing your art because you love it, and for no other reason. If it's worth devoting time to, its worth doing it right. If I was really really worried about getting jumped by thugs, I'd pack, or take self-defense lessons. I'm not knocking you for not being as devoted as others to what we are all here for. I just think you should think twice about calling all the real devoted martial artists pathetic, just because they have a different lifestyle. Besides, whats a man named superdude afraid of really. , just kidding.

[Cobra_nVidia]

It's an interesting question.

If you are asking whether a bare-knuckle boxer/wrestler would be able to defeat an Okinawan Chikudan Pechin official trained in Ryukuan kempo toudi jutsu (karate), no obviously not. The fight could go either way. Both had effective arts, and more importantly had experienced actual combat.

If you are asking if a street fighter will defeat a Karate black belt training in the "way", the answer is probably yes. Most of the old arts have been modified, so obviously the so-called modern styles are more effective, because they concern themselves with doing that.

[bodhisattva]

if they didnt have any practical uses then why are they still around?

Good question, sirmattu.

They are still around because the average person doesn't WANT to get hit, thrown, or to exert while grappling. They want to train so they can NEVER have to do this. It is uncomfortable physically, and worse, it hurts their little egos.

A lot of teachers make money giving people just what they want - a fighting class that does not teach fighting - rather, it makes them feel like fighters bedcause they do dances that they think look like real fighting. Or worse, they "point spar".

People feel very proud of their black belt they received because they remembered their kata and said "sir" to the teacher and so forth. It is very easy to sell this sort of thing to people, and not have to go to work in the morning as a result.

Fighting is an ever changing thing - over seconds as well as over a time span of years.

The only worthwhile tradition in fighting is the method of having no traditions.

Find what works by fighting resisting opponents - keep what works - throw the rest out. (that definition is the opposite of the definition for the word "tradition")

[sirmattu]

ok.... i can take that. but how about this. you use traditional arts, but train in them in a way that reflects modern fighting. you get the best of both worlds there.

[Cobra_nVidia]

Could you be more specific?

[bodhisattva]

ok.... i can take that. but how about this. you use traditional arts, but train in them in a way that reflects modern fighting. you get the best of both worlds there.

Then you aren't training in traditional arts.

If you change the training method you change the art. And "tradition" means "not changed, we still do it like this, and always have"

It implies a dislike and unwillingness to grow.

So to "do a traditional art" but "train in a way tat reflects modern fighting" is an oxymoron - it's a contradiction.

[sirmattu]

noo thats not what im trying to say, better training methods. im sorry i was unclear.

[Cobra_nVidia]

If you change the training method you change the art. And "tradition" means "not changed, we still do it like this, and always have"

Then by your argument, there are no "traditional martial arts", unless you include something like sport boxing and wrestling, which have long standing training methods.

[bodhisattva]

Boxers are ready to use anything that works. If I'm in the ring with a boxer, and I pull something off that he didn't know about..and I do it again..and again.. He will grow curious about it and - due to the pain I've been able to cause him, he'll be open to it. He won't say "Sensei doesn't teach us that, he says that will get us killed on the street. I believe Sensei more than I believe my bloody nose" A traditional martial artist generally WILL say that - and he'll go back to his Kata claiming that if he does them for a few more years he'll REALLY turn the tables on me.

Boxing has changed TONS over the past 100 years. It really isn't very traditional. Watch a boxing match from the 40's and tell me those athletes are the same as the athletes that box now. No.Way.

Wrestlers tend to be equally willing to adapt. Sometimes they are the most willing to take on new things, I think.

[Cobra_nVidia]

Boxing has changed a TON?

ha.

These are the components of Toudi (Street Karate, traditional Karate)
1. Stiking (punches, kicks to the lower body)
2. Blocking (evasion, trapping, parrying)
3. Grappling (throws, trips, chokes, etc)
4. Weapons training (Sai, Kama, etc.)

This was a MARTIAL ART. This was the MARTIAL ART of OKinawa, practiced by the higher classes (in Shuri and Naha mainly)

Modern Karate is a sport, which has, like boxing, adapted to the rules of the competition. Kata have become fancier, and focus more on looking good than being fast, breathing correctly, and understanding applications. It's easy to say Kata is useless, but that's like saying a boxer shouldn't shadow box. At some point, you're going to be working on the technique without a resisting partner.

There's nothing traditional about a Karate McDojo. There are belts (there were no belts in Okinawa) and there are 10th degree black belts (Karate was founded on the idea of the 5th Dan being the highest technical level)

Karate begins with imitation. But if you stop there, you are useless. Was this how it was practiced "traditionally"?

No, of course not.

Karate ends with understanding. You don't just take a punch as it's taught because somebody says it works. If it doesn't work for you, you're doing it wrong. But how are you doing it wrong? You have to find out for yourself. Test it. Test how easy it is on the knuckles using the makiwara, how strong the wrist is using a heavy bag (rounded, not flat) and how accurate it is using focus pads.

That said, you need an effective system. It's easy to talk about "adapting" to changing situations. You know, like the UFC strikers who "adapted" to the BJJ. Oh wait...no they didn't. They didn't know how to grapple. They weren't taught a system. Adapting to BJJ by "cross-training and MMA" is stupid. MMA is a contradiction. If a system doesn't include all the components I listed (striking, blocking, grappling, weapons training) than it isn't a martial art.

[bodhisattva]

"It's easy to talk about "adapting" to changing situations. You know, like the UFC strikers who "adapted" to the BJJ. Oh wait...no they didn't. They didn't know how to grapple. ""

Yes. They did. LOADS of the strikers, after getting their asses handed to them, went and learned grappling skills from grapplers. They adapted. So what are you talking about.

I'm really not sure why you typed the rest of that generalized crap about karate. Not all karate are sport classes. Lots of karate classes use alive training methods. But that isn't traditional karate. Traditional karate is 1 and 2 step sparring, point fighting, and pointless kata. Blocks and reverse punches and the hand chambered at the hip and wide stances and high kicks and EVERY OTHER THING that will get a man's ass beat in a fight. It is pretty much a demonstration of how you had better not fight unless you are picking on someone half your size.

You confuse the word "traditional" with "historical". "Historical" karate is a very different thing, I am certain. I'm certain from what I know of Funakoshi and his life, I'd be happy to train with the guy. But that has NOTHING to do with what traditional karate is in america.

They are totally different arts/ideas. Historical karate, I'm sure, looked a lot more like boxing/thai boxing than anything else.

That's why I box and thai box. Because they look like the warrior arts that have been effective throughout history.

And they have no kata. Why waste time?

[Cobra_nVidia]

Yes. They did. LOADS of the strikers, after getting their asses handed to them, went and learned grappling skills from grapplers. They adapted. So what are you talking about.

Because they got their asses handed to them. They couldn't adapt when they really needed to. They weren't "resisting". They were helpless toys for the more skilled fighters practicing a superior system. If their opponents had intended to kill them, they would have ended up dead. This is why a REAL system of martial arts is better than trying to develop one on your own

I'm really not sure why you typed the rest of that generalized crap about karate. Not all karate are sport classes.

Ouch. Modern Karate is sport Karate. If you practice Karate as a martial art, then you are practicing traitional Karate, as in methods handed down from the most evolved form of self-defense in Okinawa, which was called Ryukuan Ti ("Okinawan Hand"), Toudi ("T'ang Hand"), or Karate ("T'ang Hand")
Karate is a martial art. It uses both specific historical weapons (that are all concealable or were not banned) and unarmed techniques, which use the hands and feet to impact, grasp, press, etc. In their world, they needed to be able to defend themselves in all these methods.

Lots of karate classes use alive training methods. But that isn't traditional karate. Traditional karate is 1 and 2 step sparring, point fighting, and pointless kata. Blocks and reverse punches and the hand chambered at the hip and wide stances and high kicks and EVERY OTHER THING that will get a man's ass beat in a fight.

F***
Goddamn it, why are we having this discussion?
Most of those things are not traditional Karate. Those that are are more sutle techniques that are not always understood.
1 and 2 step point sparring --> Developed by Gigo Funakoshi when he took over from Takeshi Shimoda as his father's Shihan-Dai (successor)
Blocks --> Modified by Ankoh Itosu to be less dangerous and more appropriate for teaching children --> his audience. Because he was teaching children to defend against children, the blocks would be more direct and less skillful.
Reverse punches --> Defensive Strike
Hand chambered at the hip --> Pulling the opponent, elbowing behind. As well, it gives a longer strike if a longer strike is appropriate, but only if you already have your hand there for a reason.
Wide stances --> Developed to bridge the gap between natural and crane style stances. Mainly developed by Matsumura, passed down to Ankoh Azato, to both Gigo and Gichin Funakoshi. Develops balance. Balance is an important and underrated factor to fighting, even if don't kicker higher than the middle of your opponent's shin. And even if you don't kick, balance is what keeps you off the ground. You can still be taken down if you're standing on two feet, but it's more difficult to take you down the more powerful your legs are.

You confuse the word "traditional" with "historical". "Historical" karate is a very different thing, I am certain.

A tradition is an action passed down in an exact way. If "Historical" Karate differs from "Modern" Karate, it is by definition not a traditional method.

I'm certain from what I know of Funakoshi and his life, I'd be happy to train with the guy. But that has NOTHING to do with what traditional karate is in america.

I'm not an american.
May Oyama and Hironi Ohtsuka both left Funakoshi because they didn't think his Karate would be very effective in a fight. And at this point it wasn't. Funakoshi was taught by Itosu primary, so his Karate had a childish simplicity to it. Of course, when I say simplicity, I mean application. Most Karate is developed unnaturally and unrealistly simple in application. A truely effective technique is one that is both natural (uses the body similarily to ways it is accustomed to being used) and has real application for every move you make. No wasted movement.
Of course, Funakoshi was great in other ways.

They are totally different arts/ideas. Historical karate, I'm sure, looked a lot more like boxing/thai boxing than anything else.

No it didn't. Sport Boxing is a sport, which doesn't allow gappling, tripping, throwing, etc. The rounding punches and uppercuts that are so common to boxing are not in older, traditional Karate. That's because they were taught to grapple more at close range, not pound each other with giant mitts on. I mean, sure, they might pound someone if the opportunity was there, but it wasn't the focus of self-defense.

[crazyjoe380]

I think modern would be better...

these are modern times.. back then, not everyone was able to throw a desent punch, or a desent round house kick, ....

I've seen some wild fighers.. fighters with huge hands, iron knuckles. the type of knuckles that hit bone and skull and nothing happends to the hand type fighters..

you have to level up cause society did too..

[Cobra_nVidia]

I think modern would be better...

If you're only goal is to defend yourself, yes.

these are modern times.. back then, not everyone was able to throw a desent punch, or a desent round house kick, ....

Actually it would be the other way around

How many people can throw a decent punch? Not many. How strong are people compared to the past? Who's stronger, a city dude or some farmer would works all day?

I've seen some wild fighers.. fighters with huge hands, iron knuckles. the type of knuckles that hit bone and skull and nothing happends to the hand type fighters..

That isn't restricted to modern fighters. In fact, someone who trains in traditional methods are more likely to practice bare-knuckled (of course, a sport-MA practioner will practice bare-knuckled against air

[martialartist88]

[QUOTE=bodhisattva]He won't say "Sensei doesn't teach us that, he says that will get us killed on the street. I believe Sensei more than I believe my bloody nose" A traditional martial artist generally WILL say that - and he'll go back to his Kata claiming that if he does them for a few more years he'll REALLY turn the tables on me.QUOTE]

Traditional or Modern, it makes no difference in the way people fight. The way you fight is acquired from real fighting experience. You stated that traditional martial artists will bound themselves with what they are taught. Would that mean your saying that boxers will ONLY punch in real life situation since they are never taught to kick? hmm.. that questions me. Fighting is fighting. What you are taught, is what you are taught. You can be taught the best fighting technique in the world, but it all come down to experience. Oh yeah, you also mentioned about Katas. Katas arn't taught as a way of fighting you dimbo, they are forms to guide you, and make you aware of the motions of the action. But if katas were a way of fighting, I guess fighting against your own shadow can also kick some ass.. or even better, showing your opponent your cool footwork, that may impress them and scare them off.

-JON