3 ms·

> In karate, this has caused the dilution of most forms of karate (with the exception of Kyokushin) into little more than ritualized movements, where the vast m

> In karate, this has caused the dilution of most forms of karate (with the exception of Kyokushin) into little more than ritualized movements, where the vast majority of even high-level teachers don't know how it relates to a real fight. Sorry, as a black belt in karate, I am not going to let this stand. Would I be able to handle myself in a fight? Maybe not. I really liked the stylistic, artistic side. But my teachers, who mastered both the stylistic and the practical, sure as hell knew what they were doing. In the first place, they had honed their punching and kicking skills to the point where they would be able to execute them perfectly in a fight. But we practiced all sorts of moves, many of them grappling on the mat, that derived from the kata. For example, the Naihanchi ("iron horse") kata is done standing up, but really relates to ground fighting. Most of my teachers were extremely competent either standing up or on the floor, and we did lots of partner drills which got as close to a fight as could be done without injury, and which were heavily informed by the kata. A lot of times the connection was subtle. I'm sorry that you got brown belts and were disappointed in your training. There are teachers that suck and teach total BS. Also, karate may not be the best thing to learn if you simply want to handle yourself in a streetfight. But "little more than ritualized movements"? Have some respect.

roel_v 15y ago
Note that I said 'relates to a real fight', and in that place did not say 'handle in a real fight'. I agree that a trained karateka will have a significant advantage against an untrained opponent in any sort of fight. That said, I disagree with the rest of your point. Naihanchi does not in any shape or form prepare one for any sort of fighting, be it on the ground or standing up. Of course when one does kumite 3 times a week, that does train one as a fighter, even if not maximally efficient; but it's far-fetched to say that because the movements of limbs in kumite sort of resemble the movements of limbs in a kata, that the kata adds significantly to the training for kumite-style competition (or 'actual' fighting, for that matter). I also did not say that I was disappointed in my training. I got a lot out of it actually, and if I had more time I would still be training; but I no longer pretend that I learned effective fighting from it. I see it more as a fast paced yoga, and fun mix of medium-intensity cardio training and flexibility exercises. Which is fine. Also without actually doing it, I wouldn't have been able to draw the conclusions about its place in martial arts that I do now. Finally, I'm not saying that the theoretical parts can't be fun, just like in the software cases that we started with. I have spend numerous hours toying with non-practical examples or test programs, for aesthetics or a minute performance enhancement or whatever. Similar in karate - I spend many hours in front of a mirror getting my side kicks perfectly level, for merely aesthetic reasons. Many people do - which is why I said the things I said, that the original goal has largely been forgotten. I mean seriously, kata competitions are seen as the 'noble' form of competitive karate, and kumite is just for youngsters with too much testosterone and roughnecks; does that make sense?
- impendia 15y ago
  I guess my point is this: > Naihanchi does not in any shape or form prepare one for any sort of fighting What makes you so sure? I don't think karate is like the Karate Kid movies, where you spend all morning painting the fence and all afternoon doing some ridiculous-looking kata, and then end up applying those moves exactly in a fight. But I do submit that these kata are designed to teach precisely the kind of movements one would apply in a fight. I have not ever actually been in a streetfight, and I confess my argument smells a little bit like "I've been doing this ten years, I refuse to believe that I've been wasting my time". Still -- are you prepared to argue that kata training definitely does not teach one fighting skills? Seems like that's an extremely difficult point to argue.

roel_v 15y ago

Note that I said 'relates to a real fight', and in that place did not say 'handle in a real fight'. I agree that a trained karateka will have a significant advantage against an untrained opponent in any sort of fight. That said, I disagree with the rest of your point. Naihanchi does not in any shape or form prepare one for any sort of fighting, be it on the ground or standing up. Of course when one does kumite 3 times a week, that does train one as a fighter, even if not maximally efficient; but it's far-fetched to say that because the movements of limbs in kumite sort of resemble the movements of limbs in a kata, that the kata adds significantly to the training for kumite-style competition (or 'actual' fighting, for that matter). I also did not say that I was disappointed in my training. I got a lot out of it actually, and if I had more time I would still be training; but I no longer pretend that I learned effective fighting from it. I see it more as a fast paced yoga, and fun mix of medium-intensity cardio training and flexibility exercises. Which is fine. Also without actually doing it, I wouldn't have been able to draw the conclusions about its place in martial arts that I do now. Finally, I'm not saying that the theoretical parts can't be fun, just like in the software cases that we started with. I have spend numerous hours toying with non-practical examples or test programs, for aesthetics or a minute performance enhancement or whatever. Similar in karate - I spend many hours in front of a mirror getting my side kicks perfectly level, for merely aesthetic reasons. Many people do - which is why I said the things I said, that the original goal has largely been forgotten. I mean seriously, kata competitions are seen as the 'noble' form of competitive karate, and kumite is just for youngsters with too much testosterone and roughnecks; does that make sense?

impendia 15y ago
I guess my point is this: > Naihanchi does not in any shape or form prepare one for any sort of fighting What makes you so sure? I don't think karate is like the Karate Kid movies, where you spend all morning painting the fence and all afternoon doing some ridiculous-looking kata, and then end up applying those moves exactly in a fight. But I do submit that these kata are designed to teach precisely the kind of movements one would apply in a fight. I have not ever actually been in a streetfight, and I confess my argument smells a little bit like "I've been doing this ten years, I refuse to believe that I've been wasting my time". Still -- are you prepared to argue that kata training definitely does not teach one fighting skills? Seems like that's an extremely difficult point to argue.