Style Cannot be Separated from Training

[u/luke_fowl]

Disclaimer: Another long and controversial post from me, so hold on to your handrails. Please don't just dump a knee-jerk comment on me.

The most common excuse I hear whenever a "traditional martial artist" loses a fight against a "modern sports fighter" is that it's not the style that matters but the individual person. What's interesting to me is that it always comes from the "traditional" side when they lose, almost reflexively, and especially with karate (and wing chun frankly).

Here's a hypothetical: we take 30 untrained Average Joes of the same size and have 10 of them train aikido, 10 of them train karate, and 10 of them train kickboxing for an equal amount of time. Then we have them go on a free fight against each other on the proverbial streets, or even UFC 1 rules, which set would you bet will remain standing? Let's be honest, as much as we want the karate guys to win, most of us would place our money on the kickboxers, and barely anyone will place it on the aikido guys.

Or in a ruder awakening, who would you rather not have trying to beat you up: a karateka with 5 years of training or a boxer with 1 year of training?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a karate hater. I have a deep love for kata and I have written quite a bit around them here. But if it really is just about the individual person and not the style, the above hypothetical wouldn't be the case. A great example of this is the kyokushin vs muay thai fight in the 60s. Karateka love to talk about how the karate won 2/3 of the fights, despite the fact that Oyama brought 3 of his best students to go against literal nobodies in muay thai (despite muay thai being in their Silver Age). Even worse, or better (depending how you see it), Oyama and his students changed Kyokushin after that match, whereas muay thai stayed the same. If karate was indeed better than, or even equal to, muay thai, why would they even adapt, and why wouldn't muay thai adapt too? Even before this fight, Kyokushin was already famous for being the toughest style of karate, if we were to send fighters from literally any other style (including Shito-ryu, so that no one can accuse me of being biased), do we really think we would get even one win?

What really differentiated muay thai from kyokushin? Or an even better question, what differentiated kyokushin from other karate styles? With very minor exceptions, like rolling thunder, almost all our techniques are the same. Or as someone pointed out to me, Shotokan and Goju-ryu are more similar than Ali and Frazier. We have 2 arms and 2 legs, can't really be that big of a difference.

So that brings me to another historic occasion in martial arts: koryu jujutsu's extinction in the hands of Kano jujutsu. Kano made it very clear that judo was based on Tenjin Shinyo-ryu and Kito-ryu which, like all other jacket grappling styles, have similar technique sets. But what allowed the Four Guardians and his other students wipe the floor with other jujutsuka to the point where almost every jujutsuka jumped ship into the Kodokan? The main change he made was removing dangerous techniques and focusing on randori.

With all that said, we see that even with a relatively same technique set, you can still have a more dominant style. But to use judo as an example, if we remove randori from it, would it still be judo or would it "devolve" into koryu jujutsu? If we removed the judogi from judo, would it still be judo?

The same question then applies to any other style, especially karate. Is the reason that tradition martial arts consistently lose against modern combat sports just because of the individuals? Why can't we produce better fighters statistically speaking? And why do professional karate fighters like Lyoto Machida and Wonderboy Thompson fight nothing like how karate is "traditionally" trained, whereas boxers fight exactly like how boxing is trained?

Could it be that perhaps other than the techniques we do, another similarity within karate is how we train? Like no matter where you go in the world, 90% of karate dojo spend half their time going up and down the hall hitting air? Or how karate's sparring, i.e. kumite (crossing hands), is basically only the equivalent of judo's uchikomi (striking repetition) or muay thai's drills rather than judo's randori (free practice) or muay thai's technical sparring, and much less stuff like judo's shiai (trial/contest) and muay thai's real fight?

Why do we not fight the way we train? Why is it despite the talks of rooting and stable stances in Sanchin and Naihanchi, the two most important kata in karate, do karateka bounce around instead? Why is it that we still practice hikite, despite making it easy to get knocked out? Why are we training in a way that's contrary to how we fight? Or perhaps the better question, or the one I believe myself, is why do we fight in a way that's contrary to how we train?

Before anyone can say, "But that's not how karate was originally trained!" We have photos and videos from the pre-war era that looks very similar to what we do now. We also have photos and videos of other martial arts from the same era. But on the other hand, we know that training in a karategi was only introduced after Kano gifted Funakoshi with a judogi, so it is in fact a created tradition. And yet if we suggested that karateka ditch the karategi, that would basically be heresy.

Another example is the hojo-undo. Why do people still train using things like chi-ishi and ishi-sashi in a world where we now have kettlebells and clubs? Why do karateka not use mitts more to practice their strikes? I suppose the simple answer, and something I personally understand as well, is that because that would lose the identity of karate as a unique art.

Like it or not, the KKK (unfortunate abbreviation, I know) of karate is the foundation of our art. All 3 of them, especially kata, have been emphasized by the masters a lot, even if not in a clear defined KKK package. It could be reasonably argued that if we get rid of even one of them, we would have ceased to practice karate.

So where does that leave us? Stuck with a crappy pedagogy? I'm honestly not sure myself. What I am sure, however, is that the training is part of the style itself. A good style is more statistically likely to produce good fighters, be it by actually good pedagogy, good culture, and/or good quality control. Is karate a good style? You tell me.

Bonus: Andy Hug vs. Changpuek in kickboxing rules (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol7uAQ22Wn8). See how Andy Hug, considered one of the heavyweight GOATs, looks nothing like how we train, whereas Changpuek, considered an average lightweight muay thai fighter, fights exactly like how nak muay train.

[u/AutoModerator]

We encourage everyone to check out and post on r/kata. You’re also welcome to crosspost your Kata related content from r/kata to r/karate

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/musclemommyfan]

The missing link is continuous sparring with a reasonable degree of contact. That's literally it. Look at what the Machida brothers have done with Shotokan by simply modernizing the approach to training a bit and integrating more sparring. It's still karate. Black belts in Japanese karate can go directly to their instructorncert course. It's not that big of a leap. It's a few minor tweaks and that's all it takes for karate to be viable at the highest levels of MMA.

Also, Andy Hug is a kyokushin guy to the core. Modern Japanese kickboxing comes directly from a Kyokushin offshoots (Seido). Most japanese kickboxers train kyokushin when they are growing up and then transition to kickboxing as a teenagers.

[u/Durithill → u/musclemommyfan]

Yeah I would agree with this. Like I know if I personally had to face an MMA fighter of equivalent rank in the ring or something, I would almost surely lose. Because I just don't really train for point sparring.

[u/musclemommyfan → u/Durithill]

I'm a bit frustrated by the global karate community (outside of Kyokushin derivatives) broad rejection of proper sparring. Ippon kumite is not proper sparring. It's a drill. I want to train karate, but I also want to be able to apply my karate. Sadly Kyokushin is much less common than Shotokan, so depending on where I end up in the future I may just go back to Muay Thai.

[u/Middle-Carpet-2325 → u/musclemommyfan]

Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say modern Japanese kickboxing comes from a Kyokushin offshoots (Seido)?

[u/musclemommyfan → u/Middle-Carpet-2325]

Sure. Kazuyoshi Ishii was originally a student of the Ashihara dojo, but later went off to found is how branch (Seidokaikan) that integrated punches to the head in knockdown matches that didn't have a clear winner after the initial rounds. He then went on to found K1. Yes. That K1.

[u/musclemommyfan → u/Middle-Carpet-2325]

Sure. Kazuyoshi Ishii was originally a student of the Ashihara dojo, but later went off to found is how branch (Seidokaikan) that integrated punches to the head in knockdown matches that didn't have a clear winner after the initial rounds. He then went on to found K1. Yes. That K1.

[u/Middle-Carpet-2325 → u/musclemommyfan]

Wow!

[u/Shadeylark]

I am convinced it's a matter of pedagogy not technique.

A one year boxer has developed different "soft" skills than your typical five year karateka.

And it's not just sparring, or lack thereof.

Initial pedagogy in karate tends to be technique focused. Not that it is entirely technique focused, but technique takes center stage in early training.

Learn how to perform the technique correctly during your kyu ranks and then when you reach the dan ranks learn when to use them.

Other martial arts certainly teach how to do a technique correctly from the star, no doubt, but there's a greater emphasis on also teaching how to select a technique during a fight.

Or, to borrow a term from outside of martial arts, failure mode analysis.

Karate tends to teach what to do when something fails much later than other martial arts do.

The result is that the amateur boxer is usually going to perform better in a continuous confrontation than the amateur karateka... But when you get to the "professional" level, things even out.

Of course, you don't see evidence of this because combat sports like mma tend to be a young man's game. The karateka with thirty years of experience and skill doesn't tend to compete with people twenty years his younger, so combat sports tend to reward competitors who train in systems that front load the soft skills that karate tends to train on the back end.

[u/musclemommyfan → u/Shadeylark]

I'd say another issue is a lot of styles of karate (outside of the Kyokushin family) do not do nearly as much conditioning work as boxers/kickboxers/thai fighters. The average Shotokan blackbelt is nowhere near as fit as the average Kyokushin black belt or amateur Muay Thai fighter. 

[u/kakumeimaru → u/musclemommyfan]

I think this is a problem of the last 30-40 years. Matsuda Tatsunori started training in Okinawa Kenpo at a young age (he originally learned from his older brothers, who were already practicing it, and joined the dojo himself around 10 or 12). In that time and place (mid 1960's to early 1980's), most of the guys at the dojo were far more interested in kumite than kata. They would occasionally go on training trips to what was then a very remote island off the coast of Okinawa. They'd camp out there for ten days to two weeks, and just train like absolute maniacs, doing power training to get better at kumite. They'd do hundreds and hundreds of push-ups, training until total exhaustion, and then do loads of punching drills. They did loads of sit-ups and pull-ups too. Since barbells weren't very easy to get on Okinawa at the time, they lifted stones instead for bench pressing, because that's all they had. Photographs of Matsuda from those days (his late teens and early twenties) show a very impressive physique.

I don't know when or why this sort of thing became a problem, I only know that it is a problem and that I wish things were different.

[u/Shadeylark → u/musclemommyfan]

Heh not to nitpick, but I'd argue uechi does as much, if not more, conditioning work as kyokushin.

But that's just me feeling the need to defend my primary martial art.

And actually, on that note, seeing that I do box as well I'd argue that boxing (I don't know about kickboxing or muay thai, so I won't comment on them), doesn't do "conditioning" so much as it emphasizes cardio and stamina.

Sooo... Conditioning, kotikitai, is not something boxing does, but boxing does do more jump rope exercise than karate does.

[u/musclemommyfan → u/Shadeylark]

By conditioning I meant "strength and conditioning" not body conditioning like you see in Kyokushin/Okinawan karate. I'll also freely admit that I haven't been exposed to much Okinawan karate outside of what I saw when my old Kyokushin dojo cross trained with a Goju-Ryu dojo. I did try out a few JKA places though and I was less than impressed by the average level of fitness. And what they considered to be "sparring".

[u/OGWayOfThePanda]

Fundamentally you are incorrect because training is goal focused, even within traditional arts.

Combat sports make people good at fighting because they train to win fights.

Traditional martial arts don't do that. Their traditional training programs are based in passing on the art, teaching form and technique more than fighting.

When tournaments come around the focus of the traditional school changes and people train to fight in the tournament.

When the instructor learns a new thing or gets a bee in his bones about a particular principle, the focus of the training changes to that.

There is nothing stopping traditional martial arts teachers from focusing on fighting, except that they don't want to.

People confuse the art and the training, because they go to a club to "do" x martial art. But martial arts are for fighting. You don't "do" the art until you fight. No other discipline holds this confusion.

If a running coach sends the runner swimming to condition their muscles, nobody watches the 100m dash and says "that's not really sprinting, its just swimming."

Similarly if a Wing chun guy spars regularly under mma rules, uses pad drills, heavy bag work, and partner drills for all ranges, that doesn't mean he isn't fighting with Wing chun when he gets in the ring.

Part of this confusion is a failure to understand that fighting styles determine mechanics (movement), strategy (overall path to victory), and tactics (specific techniques and ways to land them), but separate to the fighting art, the Game being played determines the ruleset and the ruleset transcends the art.

By ruleset I refer to a sport, ie no kicking in a boxing match, but I am also refering to what you need to know to survive that Game, ie boxers use a guard for a reason and they only discard it if they have trained to compensate for its lack.

If a karateka tries to box without understanding the ins and outs of the boxing guard, they will get beat up. But if they do understand it and make use of the boxing guard, that is a function of the Game of boxing that limits combat such that the standard guard is one of the most optimal ways to defend yourself.

Doing what works for the Game is not betraying/abandoning your martial art style. It is working with the environment you are in.

That understanding of the rules of the Game obviously changes with the Game. MMA is a game with its own set of rules. Real self defence is a different game with a different set of rules. A bjj match is a different game again.

I labour this point to say that a karate student who confuses the traditional, art proliferation training, (3K karate) with the training for street self defence or MMA fighting is the student who gets beaten up on a bullshido reel by a Thai boxer.

You train for your goal. You do not train one thing that is called karate or wing chun or Aikido and expect it to fit every environment.

[u/there_isno_cake → u/OGWayOfThePanda]

I wish we could pin this somewhere.

[u/karatetherapist]

Some key points to consider about traditional training.

You mention the pullback hand. Everybody harps on the pull-back hand. If you train traditional weapons, it makes a lot more sense. Even with machete practice, you quickly learn to keep that other hand pulled against you. If you use a staff, that pulling hand is active. Pure empty-hand training is kind of stupid since it's better to use a weapon to defend yourself. Now, in today's world, that will land you in jail, so empty-hand is more practical. I like to do a lot of stick and machete work where using the other hand to pull or keep it out of the way is vital. Even with a knife, you use the free hand to defend or grab and pull or for leverage. When I put down the weapon, that habit is still there. The concept is both hands are ALWAYS doing something the opponent doesn't like.

I completely agree that traditional hojo-undo tools are dumb given modern tools. I love my clubs, maces, kettlebells, and barbells. I use sandbags, yokes, and strongman logs as well. But there is something sexy about old tools. I think that's why the Rocky movie where he trains in a barn is popular, or when he punches slabs of beef instead of a heavy bag gets people nostalgic. Seems primal.

Kata were a perfect solution to packaging a style back when people had to train alone most of the time. Now we have schools and partners so it has less emphasis. When you lack a partner, you need some way to work those combinations and remember all the potential moves. If you have a partner, spar. No partner? Kata. Of course, if you do judo or BJJ with no partner, it's a challenge.

Fortunately, we live in a pretty safe world (well, most do). Good manners, paying attention, and the police negate the need for a lot of fighting. Even if you lose, in most cases it's just minor injuries that heal faster than your ego.

[u/OGWayOfThePanda]

Why do we not fight the way we train? Why is it despite the talks of rooting and stable stances in Sanchin and Naihanchi, the two most important kata in karate, do karateka bounce around instead? Why is it that we still practice hikite, despite making it easy to get knocked out? Why are we training in a way that's contrary to how we fight? Or perhaps the better question, or the one I believe myself, is why do we fight in a way that's contrary to how we train?

Fundamentally because nobody knows what the fighting style of karate is supposed to look like or do.

The sport karate Game was created based on kendo with the core weapons of karate superimposed upon that sport.

Tactically speaking most karateka started out doing kendo, not the modified southern kungfu that was taught on Okinawa.

[u/karainflex]

The pseudo-traditional 3K isn't equal to sports karate (e.g. WKF) which isn't equal to self defense (which only to a certain degree can simulate violence) and that all isn't equal to any other sports. Every scenario has different rules, principles, strategies, distances, it's all apples and oranges in a big bowl of fruit salad and everyone eats the fruit they prefer.

The only beef I have with that fact is that people from the inside often enough don't get what they do / don't do / think they are doing and that people from the outside especially don't get it (it kind of hurts to see all these comparisons but they don't know better and it's kind of pointless to discuss it because they don't get it or already have an opinion). There are these nice common misconceptions: Karate is the same worldwide, Shotokan (or any style of your choice) is the same worldwide, kumite/sparring means kumite/sparring, a black belt is a master, a master is invincible and able to beat everyone else, a style is very special and different from another style and has creates impact on the result, just learn kata a lot and you know how to fight, consensual violence isn't different to nonconsensual violence (just throw martial art A against B and if both were really great they'd win against the other - wait, what?), and the result of a match allows to generalize, etc etc etc etc.

Split the art of teaching from the content you want to deliver, pick what works, drop what doesn't, set goals and train for these goals, know the strengths and weaknesses of the art and specialize on the strengths (come on, seriously, nobody is good in everything, the simple fact of limited time and a finite lifespan forbids it), accept/ignore others and have fun in what you do.

[u/KARAT0]

It’s not the style but how you train it. We do a lot of heavy pad work, resisting partner work for kata applications and full contact, continuous sparring (including grappling and takedowns). We don’t do endless lines of air punching. You don’t have to follow the way karate has been taught in the last for it to still be karate. Methods evolve but the core of the art remains.

[u/Unusual_Kick7]

Nothing you write is new, and others have already said the same things. A lot of karateka love their “traditional” training, which consists solely of punching the air. At the same time, they want to be the cool, super fighter, but they don’t like sparring. That just doesn’t work.

[u/Yegofry]

Kata, an emphasis on training without gloves, and Kobudo are all stylistically things that make Karate what it is.

All of these things take time away from developing the skill to compete in a ring.

Are the skills they develop instead worth it? Depends on what the student wants to learn.

[u/CS_70]

I dont think there's much controversial here. The traditional guys invariably lose because they come play basket at a game of football. The few who dont lose, they are not really doing anything traditional.

The "traditional" karate that is taught in most dojos is not really karate. Karate was designed (insofar the word can be applied) for self defense and is essentially grappling with striking attached; but the "traditional" budo transformed it - for all the reasons I wont repeat here - into a boxing variant at kendo distance and adding long distance kicks.

When (the last one least Tuesday) a very respected 7th dan JKA sensei tells my son that your shuto hand shouldn't vibrate because "it is a block" (when my son, mind me 11 years old and 145cm for 35Kg) can happily put me in a cross lock with the same move (and I am a trifle older, 174cm and lean 80Kg) if he gets the timing right because he's using his body movement when doing so (which, when done in air, must cause your arm to vibrate to the energy wave dissipation)... you understand why the traditional stuff is not really "real" outside the narrow definition of a traditional karate competition.

So: real karate works wonders for what it is supposed to work. The fun stuff we call "traditional" karate is fun, but doesn't.

Neither really matter as all martial arts are just for fun though, so it's cool.

[u/kakumeimaru → u/CS_70]

It's disappointing to me that what you call "real karate" (and I personally agree with that naming) seems so uncommon now. Your son using a shuto-uke to put you in a cross lock when you're almost 30 cm taller and more than double his weight is karate at its best, in my opinion. I'm glad he's learning that from someone.

[u/CS_70 → u/kakumeimaru]

Yes, it's a bit sad. On the other hand, it is really dangerous and very hard to do for recreation (the same son a couple days ago jokingly used the Heian Sandan/Nahianchi head lock, without any particular arm strength but just body torque, and my throat really felt it - and I had to tell him to be more careful, the poor thing was so sorry!).

The Jap guys in the 50s were (rightly so, imho) bored of just doing kata and pointless drills in the air, and invented the sport to have something more concrete to do.. and you cant have a sport where the participants get routinely permanent joint damage.

A middle way would be much better, focusing on drilling the grappling more slowly and with safety measures.. but it requires more one to one tuition and it doesnt suit a "classroom" approach.

What I find really interesting is that karate mirrors the irrationality of our society, something which exists and gets reflected in loads of other fields: an enormous amount of people strongly believing something, preferring pre-packaged dogma and violently refusing something which is patently obvious if one just looks (the nature of karate as grappling), because their identity is threatened or they want to keep feeling good about themselves.

And a myriad of people who live a life on such nonsense, quite happily, and get lots of respect and position for that.

No wonder religions worked for millennia.

It's a mad world, but then it's part of the fun.

[u/kakumeimaru → u/CS_70]

Who's teaching your son the really interesting stuff from the kata, you or one of the rare instructors who know about such things and are interested in teaching them? Either way, I'm glad that someone young is learning this stuff, although yeah, he needs to know to use it responsibly.

Judo and Brazilian jiu-jitsu manage to teach grappling in more of a group setting, and we could do worse than look to them to figure out how to properly integrate that into our karate practice slowly and with suitable safety measures... and even if it's possible to teach it in a group setting, it does benefit from one-on-one tuition, which we kind of get in judo when the person teaching the lock or choke goes around to see how we're doing and if we have any questions. And in any case, it does get introduced slowly even in judo, especially nowadays. The kids at my dojo don't even start to learn locks and chokes until they're about 12 or 13 at least.

But yeah, it's fine that the Japanese guys in the 50's invented modern kumite to have something more concrete to do. That does them credit. But now it's gotten to the point where guys like Tadashi Higa had to study aikido, Gracie jiu-jitsu, and Daito-ryu jujutsu just to figure out the joint-locking torite stuff that is contained in kata, since apparently there were few people if any left on Okinawa who knew how to do it and could teach it well. He had to learn grappling and joint locking in other arts, and apply that knowledge to the movements of the kata. What he does might not be considered "pure" karate anymore by some people, but to me it certainly seems more interesting the way he has done it.

And yeah, it's really stunning that this sort of irrationality is still going on. In any case, we go on as best we can.

[u/Eegore1]

This seems to ignore that the end goals are different and so the training will be as well.

Until there is an established control and measurable definition of "good fighter" then comparing styles is like comparing offroad trucks to Formula-1 claiming they are all just different "styles" of cars and trying to establish what one is "good".

[u/Flaky_Performer7960 → u/Eegore1]

Except that you pretend like we don’t have a clear definition of what a good fighter is.

If you put people in front of your fighter, how good is he at fighting them off?

[u/Durithill → u/Flaky_Performer7960]

If you put people in front of your fighter, how good is he at fighting them off?

This isn't a good test/definition though because it depends entirely on how they're fighting. Are they fighting a boxing match? A boxer probably beats karate. Are they fighting point sparring? Karate probably beats MMA. Are they street fighting? A random guy with a steel pipe probably beats martial arts. To go back to OP's example, is an offroad truck or F1 a better car? Depends on what you're trying to do.

[u/Flaky_Performer7960 → u/Durithill]

If I tell you: “Go fight him” what do you understand?

Just go fight him bare handed, anything goes until only one is left standing.

[u/Eegore1 → u/Flaky_Performer7960]

So basically unarmed combat decided by one human being unable to stand.

By your logic a "good fighter" is defined by any human that completes an unarmed no rules combat challenge against another unarmed human and must be able to stand while the opponent can not.

By that logic no boxer is a good fighter in a boxing match because they have rules, weight classes, and protective gear.

[u/Flaky_Performer7960 → u/Eegore1]

What do you mean by my logic?

And I don’t think using a boxer is fair comparison in a discussion about karate — I mean, sure, if you want to compare with boxing you can, but boxing is just punches. Comparing with kickboxing or Muay Thai is more fair.

Anyways, can you detail how rules changes things for the fighter? If I’ma boxer and rules are removed what changes for me? Does my punches suddenly no longer work? Do my reflexes suddenly disappear? You bring up weight classes so what? A light weight MMA fighter is not going to beat Eddie hall, nor is a boxer so that factor doesn’t determine anything. If both wear protective gear, they are both equally protected. Remove protective gear, both people are still equally protected, so protective gear is not a relevant factor.

Please think before spitting out these “arguments”. You’re just making abstractions and lazy statements without much of an explanation as to why and how it matters.

[u/Eegore1 → u/Flaky_Performer7960]

I mean your logic being the parameters you posed for how to define a "good fighter": "Just go fight him bare handed, anything goes until only one is left standing."

Rules change things for any "fighter" the minute they have to follow them, and the OP clearly presents fighting scenarios in sport combat training, all of them regulated. Kicking is not allowed in boxing, eye gouging is not allowed in karate, ankle stomps on a downed opponent is not allowed in MMA. However in your standard of "good fighter" all of those "rules" are to be ignored.

So no combatant that utilizes any rules, or protective gear, can meet the standard of "bare-handed", "anything goes" victory. Those humans can not be "good fighters" under your parameters because they train specifically in regulated sport arenas.

[u/Flaky_Performer7960 → u/Eegore1]

Why are you so dense.

You’re not actually gaining anything by trying to make me clarify myself — the more I clarify myself, the more it’s just going to break down your reasoning.

For one, there is no logic. I haven’t set down any logic. I only set down parameters and set down questions that you haven’t answered.

All that you’re doing is avoiding the question.

Ok, rule changes things the moment they follow them. But you’re off topic, did my parameters say that they follow the rules? I’m pretty sure I asked you wether or not a fighter can ignore the rules.

I don’t care about what OP set, I clearly set down my own parameters.

What do you mean by “however”? Logic link but not a single logical statement to link together. What if I define a fighter as the best that can engage in empty hand physical violence with no limits until they are left standing? It’s a definition. You can’t just change my definition and my premise in a strawman attempt then pretend like I am not clear enough.

Yeah, no combatant that follows rules will fit my criteria — hence why my premises included fighters that ignores rules.

I don’t know what you’re trying to do — maybe a Socrates style argument, but in a very bad way because unlike Socrates, you’re not breaking down any logic and you’re just off topic.

So are you going to stay on topic and engage my questions and points correctly? Because pointing out that I’m wrong for saying “salt” and not “table salt” does not make you look smarter in any sort of way — just makes people see you the same way they see Sheldon Cooper in a social interaction.

[u/Eegore1 → u/Flaky_Performer7960]

You’re not actually gaining anything by trying to make me clarify myself 

I haven't asked you to clarify yourself. I haven't asked any questions at all.

But you’re off topic, did my parameters say that they follow the rules? 

Your parameters said "anything goes" which I understand means no rules.

I don’t care about what OP set, I clearly set down my own parameters.

Great. My statement is the OP's criteria can never meet yours. No sport combat fighter using gear, rules, or unable to stand can be a "good fighter" unless they fight in unregulated unarmed combat.

Yeah, no combatant that follows rules will fit my criteria — hence why my premises included fighters that ignores rules.

I agree. That's why I said by that logic no boxer is a good fighter in a boxing match because they have rules, weight classes, and protective gear.

So are you going to stay on topic and engage my questions and points correctly? Because pointing out that I’m wrong for saying “salt” and not “table salt” does not make you look smarter in any sort of way 

I never said you were wrong. I never said anything close to that.

I said using your logic no boxer is a good fighter in a boxing match because they have rules, weight classes, and protective gear.

[u/Flaky_Performer7960 → u/Eegore1]

And so what was your purpose of talking to me in the first place? You’re just off topic from beginning to end. I guess grass is green and the sky is blue.

[u/CS_70 → u/[deleted]]

You wont find it in kata because there's no slip counter, the katas tell you how to move on the side and break their elbow, or shoulders and the likes. Trying to punch someone is seldom a good idea if you want to be done with them quickly.

[u/chrisjones1960]

I am not usually much interested in discussions of who beats up who in the martial arts, because there are so many reasons that people train in martial arts, and so very many different ages and sizes of people that it seems pretty pointless. However, even if I were interested in such discussions, I would immediately be a put off by any discussion that compares "karate" (with no mention of style) to anything. That kind of basic lack of discernment makes the whole discussion suspect

[u/karatetherapist]

Interesting line of thought, and glad you shared it. I see your 1,000 words and raise you 400!

A lot comes down to selection and personality. In the 70s and 80s there were few options so everyone basically had the choice of karate or judo. But, most of the karate schools were in rough neighborhoods attracting people who wanted to fight. I started karate in 1980 at 14, and was surrounded by madmen. All anyone talked about was fighting. The black belts would come to the dojo drunk at night and fight for fun. By the time I was 17 all I could think about was getting good enough to be invited in. Dojo floors back then were smeared in blood.

Karate was built around a lot of tough guys. Parents were nervous about putting their kids in such places. But if you lived in rough neighborhoods, it was a Catch-22. Either your kid gets beat up and learns to fight back in a dojo, or just gets beat up in a parking lot.

As the number of black belts grew, some took their skills to the burbs where the moms wanted a safe and fun daycare, not kids roughing each other up. Enter the McDojo.

A less successful but similar fall happened in boxing. Rocky made boxing popular. Boxers were tough. Boxing gyms were in rough neighborhoods. Some boxers took their skills to ladies' gyms and invented boxing aerobics. You certainly wouldn't want these people representing boxing in the ring. They did it for fun and fitness. Billy Blanks made this "style" popular.

That's what happened to Shotokan and other traditional groups. Once kids and moms got involved, the whole thing was ruined.

It happened in Judo as well. Once BJJ arrived and said, "We're tough and are willing to break bones," the tough guys left "mom judo" and ran to BJJ. Fewer and fewer "tough" guys in one art leaving it to mostly Dandies.

Even South Park did an episode on "sarcasti-ball" on how school football had become so ruined by soft parents and teachers it became a joke.

It's not just MA, swings and park equipment were redesigned. Playgrounds had sponge grounds installed instead of dirt or sand so kids wouldn't get hurt falling down. Helmets appeared in every sport. The metal tetanus toys of my youth became safe, but cheap, plastic.

The fighting void left by the rise of the McDojo allowed other fighting styles to flourish. Trust me, in another decade or two, you'll have MT, BJJ, and every other "tough" style in storefronts with tiger moms sitting next to their lawyers watching classes designed to ensure their little Billy doesn't get bruised, and those styles will become sarcasti-styles. But someone will do the same karate/kung-fu/judo moves under a new name, and everyone will say, "That's the badass style of the day." And, like clockwork, we'll get a new set of "back in my day" stories to go along with it.

Or maybe we'll get lucky, and the feminization of all things will end soon.

[u/Hour_Pick_1747 → u/karatetherapist]

Perfect description

[u/BuddyHarry]

This assume only sport fight is use of martial art. I do not mean to pretend deadly nonsense. But technique will change on context. Defend wrist grab is necessary for women, for police, not for boxer, kickboxer, or MMA fighter. Social interaction also change distance. Old karate is close range strike and grapple because this is distance not for fight of consent, but for self defence. Old jujitsu include techniques to kill, to use for and against weapon. Not for sport. Military now does same. Cannot use eye poke or throat strike in sport rule, still useful technique in correct time. Old Muay Boran technique not for sport, different context.

Dynamic training, yes. Use new technology like glove, pad, mouthguard, yes. Use better fitness method, yes. But old training method and technique not for sport still benefit for sometimes.

[u/Known_Impression1356]

The Muay Thai guys will quickly point out that Andy Hug was over 50 pounds heavier than Changpuek when they fought that K1 kickboxing match where Changpuek wasn't able to use elbows, clinching, kick catches, sweeps or knees.

Weight classes exist for a reason, and while many MT fighters transition well to kickboxing, they're literally fighting with 2/3rds of their skill set, which feels like fighting with one arm behind your back.

At the end of the day a fighting system is only as efficient and effective as the rules it competes and spars under. The more practical the ruleset, the more practical the training. The more practical the training, the more positive the outcomes.

The reason so many karatekas transition to kickboxing is to learn how to properly guard and strike to the head. While they have an excellent sense of timing and distance control, they often learn how to more efficiently cut angles in kickboxing as well.

[u/BungaTerung]

Yeah I think the old guys had it wrong. Kata is a waste of time if the goal is purely learning how to fight. But a martial art is more than that, although it defies exact determination. What is clear to me is that there is an aspect in Japanese culture of obsession with technical execution and perfection. At least there used to be. You can see it in zen archery, tea ceremonies. Now I am by no means a Japan expert so this take might be a little reductive, accidentally prejudiced even. But the thing where one would obsess over how to drink tea instead of just doing it, I think that's what led the old masters to put the cart before the horse and start with technical perfect execution and Kata instead of more situational training. Personally, I don't like kata. It doesn't convince me so how am I to convince others that this choreography is actually a thing.

[u/ZeroPotato]

When I was younger I thought Karate was stupid and boring. It didn't help in street fights. Learned MMA and yes that helped. But I realized something different in the time I learned martial sports compared to martial arts.

Martial sports like MMA, kickboxing, muay Thai train you to be a fighter. Most people I trained with have the attitude of a fighter. (Most not all) And I hated some trainers with their attitude most.

But in any martial art I train that is different. The older and longer a person trained in traditional martial arts, the more you see how grounded they are. Arrogance is not even part of their dictionary. They have self-respect but nothing overbearing. Martial arts train the mind. The way you go around in live. It's meditation. Kata and 'stupid' walking around the room in lines. Meditation and body control. Nothing else. Martial artist don't train for being the best fighter, but train for themselves and the Tao(Dao/Do). And in best case are able to at least not getting beat up when you get assaulted.

[u/ChilliBreath86]

Isn't a lot of it (or at least a part of it) also down to outright conditioning, regardless of technique? I am relatively recently into Shotokan karate, coming from boxing and later systema, and one thing I notice is that in systema I could be a lot rougher with fellow students than I can be here - same for boxing, where you'd obviously take the occasional uppercut to the stomach even if you only did light sparring. In systema we specifically trained resistance to impacts (mostly mental composure drills) which I rarely see done in my Shotokan dojo. No matter how refined your technique is, you're in for a nasty surprise if you fight someone who's technically at the same level but just better conditioned than you to take a punch.
Not to diminish the value of Karate training in any way, but I also do not want to be blind to the gaps.

[u/seaearls]

I only really disagree on what you said about Machida and Thompson. I think they use all the good things point fighting can bring to MMA. They can't do FULL point fighting due to a matter of ruleset, not any deficiency of the art itself.

[u/musclemommyfan → u/seaearls]

I'd argue that Machida, Thompson, and MVP demonstrated the true potential of what that approach to training can develop because they actually used it under a ruleset where they're allowed to knock people out. I'll also argue that "full point fighting" isn't really fighting at all. It's a drill. It's a useful drill that can develop some very good skills and reflexes, but it's still a drill.

[u/Fancy_Sun_1585]

Kickboxing is literally just full contact karate…

Karate is a martial art not a style. There are different styles of karate.

So what style of karate are we talking about? Kyokushin, or goju? A lot of japenese kickboxers, some of the best are kyokushin karateka. Some of the best UFC fighters are kyokushin and goju karateka. Some of the best have also come from shotokan and point fighting backgrounds.

Shotokan has all the techniques found in Muay Thai, and kickboxing, or at least close alternatives. People can train a style I many different ways, particularly if they compete. Competitive rulesets will determine the training methods.

[u/thrownkitchensink]

The purpose of karate is not the same as that of Kickboxing. But if you want the same goals you need to adjust the training. You'll end up with kickboxing in a gi.

Aikido is a great example. Kano sensei sent his top students to Ueshiba. These were great Fighters and Ueshiba added something to that. The same can not be said for almost all of the following generations. Some karate has similar qualities to what was taught in Daito ryu. Kata like naihanchi and sanchin helps there but only for those that can already fight. 

For those of us with loftier goals we're just having fun.

[u/musclemommyfan → u/thrownkitchensink]

Shidokan, Seido, and Kudo are not "kickboxing in a gi." What Lyoto Machida did in the UFC was recognizably karate. Not kickboxing. I absolutely detest this argument. Karate is technically distinct from kickboxing in plenty of ways that do not change when you add in proper sparring and full contact competition.

[u/thrownkitchensink → u/musclemommyfan]

If you pursue the goals of kickboxing you'll end up with kickboxing. It's that simple. Sports are aimed at winning the sport. That which detracts from winning is usually not practiced. Top sport athletes just don't have time for that.

I did not say anything about specific styles or practitioners. I also did not state that proper sparring of full contact work detracts from karate. It doesn't. It adds to karate. Unless practitioners have another background with of a lot of work with an resisting opponent it's essential!

However. Practicing forms meaning kata or doing similar sets where specific motor skills are trained is essential too.

https://youtu.be/MJPOt0YxxnQ?t=109

The purpose of karate is not to win in the UFC or to win a kickboxing match. The teachers on Okinawa or Japan did not have sports in mind when teaching and training. Aspects can be used for sports and that's great but the greatest athlete with the most wins is not the greatest karateka.

[u/musclemommyfan → u/thrownkitchensink]

When you boil down to it, good bunkai means good fighting ability. I'm not advocating against forms here. I also do not buy the street vs sport argument in the slightest. It's a cop out used by people that want to claim great fighting prowess while still avoiding actually fighting anyone. The greatest karateka may not be the greatest fighter on the planet, but he still needs to be pretty good at fighting to claim that title. And are you really suggesting that Lyoto Machida, Stephen Thompson, Michael Venom Page, and Raymond Daniels all look like they're just kickboxing when they fight? If you genuinely believe that you've created an absurd purity test wherein the moment a karateka steps into full contact competition with a permissive ruleset they are no longer practicing karate. I reject that argument.

[u/thrownkitchensink → u/musclemommyfan]

Nevermind, have a nice day!

[u/Flaky_Performer7960 → u/thrownkitchensink]

Can I push you further on this? What is the goal of Karate that makes it different from Kickboxing?

You’re hiding behind an abstraction to paint kickboxing as people who practice for a sport the same way footballers do. And then making it sound like a kickboxer wouldn’t be any different from a basketballer for real fighting.

So I ask you, what is Karate’s goal?

[u/thrownkitchensink → u/Flaky_Performer7960]

Kick boxers are great fighters. Most stop after competing. Unless they have a gym or work as a trainer... Karate was practiced by Okinawa nobility. A gentleman's pursuit. Also a way to stay fit so they should be able to practice your whole life. And it needed to stay interesting.

The practical application was self protection against thugs (note: not other nobility), body guarding higher nobility or police work. Some karateka of the far past might have more of a need for practical application then others. Anyway there's a small difference there with sports because the tactics of predatory violence are different from mutual consensual violence. There's an asymmetrical strategy involved because the goals are different. In sports or any time when two people know they are going to fight before the fight starts there's a different behaviour. Their goals are symmetrical.

As an example: one starts close with the goal (for one of the two) to get out. For the other to control. Hence asymmetrical. The other starts at outside distance with the goal to close. Both have the goal to win. So that different application/ tactics and the lifetime pursuit are small differences.

Mind you I'm not making a point that karate is better for the streets. I'm just stating a different purpose hence a different way of training.

The bigger difference is that karate was practiced by people that already had some grappling skills. Boys on Okinawa grappled. Funakoshi, Mabuni and Motobu taught people from kodokan and other jujutsu schools. Naihanchi was the first kata practiced or in other lineages sanchin. Pinan kata and their peers in other systems never took away importance from these core kata. Pinan kata teach structure and moving with the whole body to those that perhaps don't have that yet because they haven't grappled like Okinawan youth. Naihanchi and seishan, sanchin etc. teach advanced motor skills. Those skills can make a good fighter better but it takes an enormous amount of time/ effort.

It is here that solo practice has it's purpose. It's where hikite makes sense even if it isn't pulling an arm but it's just in the air. A teacher wants to be able to check connections between legs, hips, thorax, shoulder blades and arms. Specific stances are taught that limit hip mobility so students learn to move the upper body separately from the lower. Then to move shoulder blades separately from the upper body etc. Correct alignment etc. To get more control over your own body and then over the others body.

The purpose of kata is not bunkai. I like bunkai but it is not the puspose of kata. Many arts don't have solo work that's as complicated and they are fine. The arts that do teach solo work teach advanced motor skills. If the arts doesn't teach that it could perhaps consider skipping the forms and just teaching the partner work. Judo does and they have great fighters.

If you look at this connected body from Maul Mornie he's making a few points that can be heard in many a karate dojo. Look at 11:24 that's seishan sanchin naihanchi.

Look at this teacher explaining the sunken elbow. He's not focused on fighting at all but he has amazing body skills. Much of these points are the same when learning a junzuki chudan (also why it's chudan) or shuto uke.

TLDR: Predatory violence not consensual. Body preservation, life long pursuit, stay healthy. Advanced motor skills. A godan should move very differently compared to a shodan and I'm not talking about physical power from large muscles.

[u/Flaky_Performer7960 → u/thrownkitchensink]

And how does Karate practice make it better for asymmetrical encounters and how is kickboxing not good for asymmetrical encounters?

Because claiming a goal does not mean you reached that goal.

You very clearly pointed out that kata takes a long time to develop these skills. But have you considered that regular kickboxing training could achieve the same thing in a faster time? — as in 6 months as opposed to years?

Oh, I should have read your TLDR first.

How is Karate more prepared for predatory and non consensual violence? Are the techniques different, does training yield better result for it? Assume a comparison between Karate and Kickboxing, if idea of Karate includes elbows and knees, compare it with Muay Thai. If takedowns are included, compare it with MMA without the groundwork — just to make the comparisons fair.

I agree that Karate is better for Body preservation, health and long term goals.

I have no doubt that if you train to move a specific way, you’re going to be proficient at it.

[u/thrownkitchensink → u/Flaky_Performer7960]

Read it again. I did not claim that karate is more prepared.

Mind you I'm not making a point that karate is better for the streets. I'm just stating a different purpose hence a different way of training.

I was just explaining a difference.

If you want a student to be prepared for a fight in a short time I'd recommend the following:

Physical: Kickboxing. Grappling. Both focusing on training with resisting opponents and a few high chance techniques/principles. Work with a very personal syllabus adapt to the student. Smaller people need to work differently from bigger people etc.

Work with pressured training against stronger opponents. SO teach them to keep fighting after getting hit in the face. Teach to make multiple impacts when hitting.

Tactical: Situational awareness training in realistic scenarios for the student. Verbal deescalation training.

Social: talk with the student about who they see and know. Most violence is from people you already know. Could be the partner, a parent or the wrong friends. If the goal is to minimize risk and to optimize a positive outcome this intervention has the most effect.

I would skip all solo forms. They are no use for this goal. I would skip the dogi and the belts. No use. Any Japanese terminoly. Nonsense for these goals. Train with shoes on. Etc.

Optimal training for these goals doesn't look much like karate. Sure, in a clinch use a frame. That frame has the exact buildup of a shuto-uke in wado-ryu. But that knowledge is just wasting time. There's no need for the form in this scenario. Just teach the frame. Throw all forms out. They are needless bagage for these goals.

[u/Aware_Step_6132]

If, to you, martial arts are simply about someone shouting, "I challenge you!" and you shouting back, "All right, I accept your challenge!"—followed by both of you taking a stance to test your strength against each other—then perhaps that is the case.

[u/T3RCX]

(Reddit posted my comment before I was done typing, so now I'm rewriting it from scratch.)

I generally agree that karate is not optimized for fighting, but also, martial arts is a much bigger umbrella than just "fighting."

What matters is the purpose of why you train. Most people won't ever be in a fight and have the ability to escape situations where a fight might occur through various means. Is it important to train for fighting? That's a question with no objective answer; therefore, it is nonsense to claim (as some people sometimes do) that the objective purpose of martial arts in the modern era is simply to be able "to fight." In the modern era, training with a weapon or traveling with a friend are 100x better ways to survive "on the streets" than any amount of MMA training.

If you are training because you want to be able "to fight," and that is what you care about, then yes, there are good reasons to look toward optimized fighting systems and combat sports. But if you are training for control, for fitness, for self-defense (yes, self-defense and fighting are not the same), or for spiritual/metaphysical reasons, then your optimal pathway is different. So what matter is that your training matches your intent.

That being said, my biggest criticism of the current martial arts world (and I say this with over 30+ years of martial arts training behind me) is that both students and instructors are not being clear about what their intent is. I firmly, strongly believe that all reasons for training are equally valid. But the problem is instructors claiming or promising that their martial art does something outside of what it can actually do, and students not knowing how to tell whether the style can actually do what the instructor claims. This problem, in my experience, exists everywhere, including in the MMA community and in the TMA community. And it all boils down to the fact that "you are only good at what you train for." Everyone likes to think training is commutative, that you can train one thing and be good at many things, but that's not true. I have seen BJJ black belts fold to beginner boxers because they never trained anything outside of sport BJJ rules, so their body had no idea what to do after getting punched in the face by someone who was hitting hard. I have seen people who train MMA ring fighting utterly fail at self-defense scenarios because they had never trained how to switch on "fight mode" in an unexpected situation - their whole fighting experience was always prepared and consensual, never spontaneous and non-consensual. If these people had just remembered their training and executed it, they would have been fine, but they never trained to use their training in these contexts, so they could not access it when it mattered.

In short, intent matters. Your reason for training can be anything, but not everything can match your reason for training. Be clear on what you want, and be honest about what your style or system gives you.