13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jeb Chiles
Jeb Chiles's picture
Traditional Karate and MMA routine

 I do martial arts because I love it and I believe many other martial artists in the past were the same. I use Kata to help remember  (“Kata’s are a Kinesthetic filing system” Brad Wells) techniques, timing, mind set or attitude etc.. I learn from other Martial arts systems. The founder of Wudang Kung Fu did many martial arts and monks that train on the mountain today regularly train in Bagua, Taiji, Xing Yi and many other Martial arts at the same time. There are many of the older forms from Sang fang sect like Xuan Wu Quan that combine elements of Taiji, Xing Yi and Bagua. Shoshin Nagamine the founder of Matsubayashi had black belts in Judo, Kendo and trained with many different Karate and Kobudo experts. In Karate many kata like Kusanku/Kanku and Chinto/Gankaku were/are considered complete fighting systems that are commonly combined in most systems today. I think it was very traditional to mix martial arts. Okinawan Karate was/is influenced by many other existing martial arts that had been evolving for many years in China, Japan, Thailand and other countries by palace guards, envoys, wealthy people with money to travel and  had time to practice (I doubt they were all just interested in just “beating a Ruffian”) so it makes since to learn common fighting philosophy and methods available now/at the time.

I have students and teachers that are LEO, Military, fighters of many kinds so my training is purposely outside (all legal of course) civil unarmed self defense. Karate is great for fighting other martial arts despite Itosu’s claim “~Karate was not designed to fight a trained opponent” Itosu didn’t design it and wasn’t around when the techniques were designed so how would he know? 

 These are the main styles I am practicing together consistently while trying to progress in each.

With a partner or instructor:

Eagle claw 5 hours per week,

Karate 3.5 hours class per week,

Jujitsu 3 hours per week,

Arnis 2 hours per week,

Kobudo 4 hours per week, 

Mixed martial arts 6.5 hours per week,

Aiki-Jujutsu 1.5 hours per week,

Everyday solo: Wudang Kung fu,Taiji, Xing Yi, Bagua, Matsubayashi katas

These are the main Kata or forms I use to find similar concepts and training methods that can be combined productively:

Matsubayashi - 18 +1 Kata, 13 Yakosoku,  

Myb/Shotokan - 26 + 2 Kata, 

Okinawan Kenpo Karate - 18 Kata,

Ryukyu Kempo Karate - 12 Kata, 

Myb/Okinawan Kenpo Kobudo - 35 Kata  and two person sets,

Southern EC 4 forms, applications, push hands, two person sets, northern EC 4 forms

Wudang Taiji 28, Xing Yi 5 element form, Bagua 8 palms, 

The stories about Ankichi Arakaki encouraging Shoshin Nagamine to study broadley in martial arts and arts in general to find common principles has been useful for me as well.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Jeb Chiles wrote:
I think it was very traditional to mix martial arts.

Definitely. Karate itself is a fusion of all kinds of things and cross training was actively encouraged:

“Both Azato and his good friend Itosu shared at least one quality of greatness: they suffered from no petty jealousy of other masters. They would present me to the teachers of their acquaintance, urging me to learn from each the technique at which he excelled. Ordinary karate instructors, in my experience, are reluctant to permit their pupils to study under instructors of other schools, but this was far from true of either Azato or Itosu.” – Gichin Funakoshi

Jeb Chiles wrote:
Karate is great for fighting other martial arts despite Itosu’s claim “~Karate was not designed to fight a trained opponent” Itosu didn’t design it and wasn’t around when the techniques were designed so how would he know?

Itosu was only one or two steps removed from the creation of many kata (i.e. Kushanku, Chinto, etc) and created a fair few kata himself (i.e. the Pinan Series, Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan, Kushanku-Sho, Bassai-Sho, etc). I think we can be confident that the purpose of the kata passed onto him was made clear, and he will certainly have been clear on the purpose of the kata he himself created.  The assertion Itosu makes is very strong and, for it to be wrong, we’d have to assume he was either mistaken, misinformed or deliberately lying. The likelihood off all those seems minimal to me; especially when balanced against the alterative view that he was simply stating a known fact.

“[Karate] is not intended to be used against a single opponent but instead as a way of avoiding injury by using the hands and feet should one by any chance be confronted by a villain or ruffian.” – Anko Itosu

Itosu is also not alone in making this assertion. Motobu made the same observation to Shoshin Nagamine (founder of Matsubayashi-ryu), who in turn included it in his writing:

“The techniques of kata have their limits and were never intended to be used against an opponent in an arena or a warrior on a battlefield.” – Choki Motobu

In addition to the historical evidence, I think the kata themselves paint a very clear picture. They contain no guards, no back and forth footwork, no methods for safely closing gaps, etc. We see a plethora of methods that are relevant to close-range non-consensual combat, but very little that is applicable to longer range consensual combat.

Some see this as a “shortfall” of the kata, but I’m not one of them. We can never divorce method from objective. Specificity of goal and the resulting appropriateness of method are strengths. Unclear goals can never be reached.

When it comes to physical self-protection, I look to the kata. When it comes to fighting other martial artists in consensual duels, I look elsewhere. My karate includes both and we like to practise both. We will also cross train to improve both. However, the kata part of my karate is solely self-protection focussed … which I feel is in line with their nature and historically defined purpose.

The past masters definitely cross trained, so in that sense karate is a “mixed martial art”, but they cross trained with a view to combative function within the context of non-consensual violence. The modern form of consensual combat called MMA did not exist at the time the kata were created, and neither did any of the other forms of consensual combat associated with karateka vs karateka combat today. Modern full contact and points make use of a very different methodology to what we see in the kata. Of course, a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick, but the way these methods are applied and the wider section of methods is always goal dependant. What is appropriate in one context can be inappropriate in another.

Rory Miller has done some writing on this topic:

“The duelling paradigm.  Other than for fun or sport or balancing things within a social group, people don't square off.  Because it's dumb.  If you had to take out the biggest, scariest martial athlete you can imagine, how would you do it?  Exactly.  From behind with a weapon.  And maybe friends.

“This has a lot of implications for MA/SD.  The paradigm sets you up to expect distance, time and warning, none of which will exist unless you are monkey dancing.  People who are successful at duelling or sparring believe (sometimes, I hope rarely) that the skills will transfer to ambush survival...and they don't.”

With regards to karate and kata, Rory writes:

“When people don't have a reality check they have this really stupid tendency to make up a reality check.  'Make up' and 'reality' rarely belong in the same thought.  I almost always pick on karate for this.  When I look at their kata and kihon, they have possibly the best body mechanics for infighting that I've seen... then they choose to test it at sparring range, where it sucks.  Or, worse, point contact range where it sucks AND it screws up everybody's sense of distance and time.”

I’m in agreeance. When the methods of kata are applied for in-fighting – the distance associated with non-consensual violence – I think they work very well. However, they are not a good fit for “duelling distance”. That is an area I want my training to address too, but I look away from kata for that.

My karate therefore contains the self-protection methods of the past, and modern duelling methods. The karate of the past (the karate of the kata) was more directly focused on self-protection because the duelling aspect (training to outfight each other as the defined goal), that we take as a fundamental part of the martial arts today, was not really in place until after the “budo revolution”.

As regards karate for battlefield use, I think we can discount that one due to the inappropriateness of empty hand methods in that environment, the fact that karate developed during the time period where modern warfare was in place, and the fact there zero in the way of fighting as a group within the karate pedagogy.

If we chose to be very strict with our terminology, karate is not a “martial art”. The word “martial” has its origins in “Mars” (Roman god of war) and refers to things associated with, or related to, war. Karate was never meant to be used on battlefield. We may have some individual soldiers who were karateka, and there was once an idea that karate training would help develop healthy young men for the Japanese military (an idea that was abandoned), but the system itself was never intended to aid military efficiency.

With modification, karate can be applied in many different environments; as is evidenced by the fact we see it used in various forms of competition today (points, full contact, MMA, Kudo, etc). I’m sure basic elements of it could also be applied to empty-hand military combatives too. However, from an historical perspective I think it is pretty clear that neither consensual violence nor military combatives were of any concern, and that non-consensual violence was the primary focus. I think we need to be aware of that when we seek to understand the kata because they were created in line with that goal.

All the best,

Iain

Dennis Krawec
Dennis Krawec's picture

Hi Iain

To add some confusion I have also seen this as being quoted by by Anko Itosu as point eight of his ten precepts;

“During practice you should imagine you are on the battle field. When blocking and striking make the eyes glare, drop the shoulders and harden the body. Now block the enemy’s punch and strike! Always practice with this spirit so that, when on the real battlefield, you will naturally be prepared.”  (here is a recent link I found https://seitokarate.wordpress.com)

Now could this be a translation error (the imprecision of language) using the term ‘battlefield’ as opposed to another such as to say ‘in a fight’; but if not, why would master Itosu use this imagery to describe how one should practice?

Another possibility is that he used a term perhaps in error that relates to how Tode (Karate) was perhaps used in the past (royal guards and civil servants would not only be concerned with village ruffians), but not reflective of how he saw Karate being taught and practiced in the future as he references in the first of his precepts. Or, that he was of two minds regarding the future of karate, which would also seem to fit your idea from your page on the translation of Itosu’s 10 precepts “It is my view that Itosu intend to foster two types of karate: the original combative karate and the new children's version” https://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/10-precepts-anko-itosu

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Dennis,

Dennis Krawec wrote:
... using the term ‘battlefield’ as opposed to another such as to say ‘in a fight’; but if not, why would master Itosu use this imagery to describe how one should practice?

Salesmanship and poetic imagery would be the short answer. Now for the long one :-)

Itosu was writing in a time where Japan’s military was undergoing huge expansion. When the Tokugawa shogunate ended in 1867, Japan’s military underwent drastic and rapid changes in order to become more like the modern militaries found in other parts of the world. There was an acknowledgment that the battlefield methods of the samurai were no longer relevant to modern warfare. They needed a military more like the ones already in place in Europe.

Military services was made universal and mandatory in the 1870s (ended after WW2), so anything that could contribute to healthier conscripts would be valued. Itosu knew this and was clearly pushing this as one of karate’s benefits in his 10 Precepts:

“If the students at teacher training college learn karate in accordance with the above precepts and then, after graduation, disseminate this to elementary schools in all regions, within 10 years karate will spread all over Okinawa and to mainland Japan. Karate will therefore make a great contribution to our military.”

The Japanese authorities has been pursuing a modern military for over forty years at the time Itosu wrote his letter. Karate was never a system designed for battlefield use, but even if it was that would make it irrelevant from the perspective of the Japanese authorities. You can’t block gunfire. Itosu knew this and the authorities knew this. It would therefore make no sense for Itosu to push karate as something with direct ballfield applicability; and I don’t think he did.

Aside from the lack of applicability to modern warfare, there is also no evidence to suggest karate was intended to be used by the samurai classes on a feudal battlefield. There is, however, evidence to tells us it was civilian system. As discussed, Itosu himself tells us that. Itosu’s use of the word “battlefield” should not be taken as overturning all over evidence for a civilian system; nor should it be taken as providing conclusive evidence for battlefield use.

Karate was not used on feudal battlefields; nor does it have any relevance to modern warfare. Therefore, I think it is clear – especially when balanced against the rest of the letter, and what we know of the politics of the time – that Itosu is using poetic language to evoke a powerful image and to sell karate to the authorities.

Itosu does not argue for karate to be introduced into the military for use by soldiers, but for karate to be taught in schools to children in order to aid the military by producing healthy conscripts. That’s an important distinction that should not be lost.

Children trained in karate could become healthy and disciplined men (hence the introduction of the quasi-military dojo procedures still with us today) who would made good conscripts for the military. That was a valid selling point (arguably the main one); along with the ability to protect yourself and loved ones from criminal activity; increased health; increased longevity, etc. which are also outlined in the letter.

Dennis Krawec wrote:
royal guards and civil servants would not only be concerned with village ruffians

When it comes to their personal training, I think they would only be concerned with criminal activity. They would not be concerned with either feudal or modern warfare. As you say, they were bodyguards and civil servants; not soldiers. Military action and training would be the job of the Japanese military authorities; not bodyguards, scribes, etc in the service of the largely powerless Okinawan court.

In conclusion, karate was always a civilian system (never a military one). In the early 1900s, anything that could help produce healthy and disciplined conscripts for the rapidly increasing Japanese military would be looked on favourably. Itosu argued karate could do that in his 1908 letter to the education authorities. Crucially, Itosu was clear that karate’s combative value was civilian in nature. He does not assert or argue for karate’s direct use in warfare; past or present. Itosu argues for karate to be taught to children in schools; not soldiers in the military. Karate’s value to the military is the healthy conscripts the schools can provide for the mandatory military service that was in place at the time. The fact they may also have some unarmed skills could be seen as a minor bonus, but it’s a long way from saying karate was created to have a military application. Itosu correctly judged the zeitgeist and Itosu got his wish; which ultimately enabled karate to spread as widely as it did.

All the best,

Iain

Tau
Tau's picture

An interesting perspective. I attended an MMA event this past weekend and talked at length to UFC referee Marc Goddard and other giants of the UK MMA world. I assert that I don't teach MMA although I do teach multiple martial arts, I accept every art that I teach has some eclecticim to it, even the "traditional" ones. It is the overwhelming view of those present at the event that I do actually teach "MMA." The issue here are far as I see it is that those of us with a truly pragmatic slant to their training train in a manner akin in MMA but with a different objective.

Dennis Krawec
Dennis Krawec's picture

Thanks Iain, informative as always.

The cause of the greatest confusion in language litteral vs figurative, and then throw in a sales pitch to boot.

“We must never take these words too seriously. Words are very important but then if we take them too seriously. We destroy every thing.” never have been able to confirm the author.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dennis Krawec wrote:
Thanks Iain, informative as always.

I’m pleased that was of some use.

Dennis Krawec wrote:
The cause of the greatest confusion in language literal vs figurative, and then throw in a sales pitch to boot.

To be fair, we do it today ourselves. Lots of boxing and MMA events have words like “war” and “battle” used in their promotion; both in the literature and the words of those involved. The number one story on the BBC news website today is about the forth coming election and the headline is “Parties gear up for 12 December election battle”. In all such cases, it is pretty clear the “battle” / “war” is not a literal one, but the use of the use of figurative language can potentially cause some confusion when discussing traditional martial arts.

I’m reminded of this great line from Guardians of the Galaxy.

All the best,

Iain

Jeb Chiles
Jeb Chiles's picture

Thank you Iain I was definitely messing up the quote by Itosu!

“Both Azato and his good friend Itosu shared at least one quality of greatness: they suffered from no petty jealousy of other masters. They would present me to the teachers of their acquaintance, urging me to learn from each the technique at which he excelled. Ordinary karate instructors, in my experience, are reluctant to permit their pupils to study under instructors of other schools, but this was far from true of either Azato or Itosu.” – Gichin Funakoshi

This quote by Funakoshi reminds me of my first instructor Larry Williams that introduced me to Ken Baker, Ron Rogers my current instructors. They all worked together and shared ideas to help each other and their students. They all did diferent styles (Shotokan, Matsubayashi, Okinawan Kenpo, Jujitsu, eagle claw etc) but would work together to accomplish the task of making their students better than they could individually.

Jeb Chiles wrote:
Karate is great for fighting other martial arts despite Itosu’s claim “~Karate was not designed to fight a trained opponent” Itosu didn’t design it and wasn’t around when the techniques were designed so how would he know?

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Itosu was only one or two steps removed from the creation of many kata (i.e. Kushanku, Chinto, etc) and created a fair few kata himself (i.e. the Pinan Series, Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan, Kushanku-Sho, Bassai-Sho, etc). I think we can be confident that the purpose of the kata passed onto him was made clear, and he will certainly have been clear on the purpose of the kata he himself created.  The assertion Itosu makes is very strong and, for it to be wrong, we’d have to assume he was either mistaken, misinformed or deliberately lying. The likelihood off all those seems minimal to me; especially when balanced against the alterative view that he was simply stating a known fact.

I gave him credit for the pinan/heians but didnt know about the rest. I am sure he was telling the truth especially about the Kata he disigned  and Karate was not designed for sport (intentionally attacking eyes, joints, throat etc) or battlefield (no weapons or armor). It seems like Karate was for fighting back against anyone that wanted to attack you or a loved one even if they're a trained fighter. 

“[Karate] is not intended to be used against a single opponent but instead as a way of avoiding injury by using the hands and feet should one by any chance be confronted by a villain or ruffian.” – Anko Itosu

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Itosu is also not alone in making this assertion. Motobu made the same observation to Shoshin Nagamine (founder of Matsubayashi-ryu), who in turn included it in his writing:

“The techniques of kata have their limits and were never intended to be used against an opponent in an arena or a warrior on a battlefield.” – Choki Motobu

Iain Abernethy wrote:
In addition to the historical evidence, I think the kata themselves paint a very clear picture. They contain no guards, no back and forth footwork, no methods for safely closing gaps, etc. We see a plethora of methods that are relevant to close-range non-consensual combat, but very little that is applicable to longer range consensual combat.

It seems like we have guards anytime we need them, all the body shifting and distance footwork to win against any other art that would attack us or our loved ones but absolutely non consensual.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Some see this as a “shortfall” of the kata, but I’m not one of them. We can never divorce method from objective. Specificity of goal and the resulting appropriateness of method are strengths. Unclear goals can never be reached.

The goal is to defend myself or other whether my attacker is trained or not!

Iain Abernethy wrote:
When it comes to physical self-protection, I look to the kata. When it comes to fighting other martial artists in consensual duels, I look elsewhere. My karate includes both and we like to practise both. We will also cross train to improve both. However, the kata part of my karate is solely self-protection focussed … which I feel is in line with their nature and historically defined purpose.

The past masters definitely cross trained, so in that sense karate is a “mixed martial art”, but they cross trained with a view to combative function within the context of non-consensual violence. The modern form of consensual combat called MMA did not exist at the time the kata were created, and neither did any of the other forms of consensual combat associated with karateka vs karateka combat today. Modern full contact and points make use of a very different methodology to what we see in the kata. Of course, a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick, but the way these methods are applied and the wider section of methods is always goal dependant. What is appropriate in one context can be inappropriate in another.

Rory Miller has done some writing on this topic:

“The duelling paradigm.  Other than for fun or sport or balancing things within a social group, people don't square off.  Because it's dumb.  If you had to take out the biggest, scariest martial athlete you can imagine, how would you do it?  Exactly.  From behind with a weapon.  And maybe friends.

“This has a lot of implications for MA/SD.  The paradigm sets you up to expect distance, time and warning, none of which will exist unless you are monkey dancing.  People who are successful at duelling or sparring believe (sometimes, I hope rarely) that the skills will transfer to ambush survival...and they don't.”

With regards to karate and kata, Rory writes:

“When people don't have a reality check they have this really stupid tendency to make up a reality check.  'Make up' and 'reality' rarely belong in the same thought.  I almost always pick on karate for this.  When I look at their kata and kihon, they have possibly the best body mechanics for infighting that I've seen... then they choose to test it at sparring range, where it sucks.  Or, worse, point contact range where it sucks AND it screws up everybody's sense of distance and time.”

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I’m in agreeance. When the methods of kata are applied for in-fighting – the distance associated with non-consensual violence – I think they work very well. However, they are not a good fit for “duelling distance”. That is an area I want my training to address too, but I look away from kata for that.

My karate therefore contains the self-protection methods of the past, and modern duelling methods. The karate of the past (the karate of the kata) was more directly focused on self-protection because the duelling aspect (training to outfight each other as the defined goal), that we take as a fundamental part of the martial arts today, was not really in place until after the “budo revolution”.

I totally agree with you and Rory thats why I don't do those things (like squaring off) in my Karate (I would totally attack somebody from behind with my friends and weapons rather than let them attack me or people I care about).   It seems like the past masters wanted to know what there art would do against a trained martial artist otherwise Kakemadeshi wouldn't exist would they? Karateka like Kyan, Yabu, Motobu and others fought many times and were sought as instructors for there actual fighting experience I believe?

Iain Abernethy wrote:
As regards karate for battlefield use, I think we can discount that one due to the inappropriateness of empty hand methods in that environment, the fact that karate developed during the time period where modern warfare was in place, and the fact there zero in the way of fighting as a group within the karate pedagogy.

If we chose to be very strict with our terminology, karate is not a “martial art”. The word “martial” has its origins in “Mars” (Roman god of war) and refers to things associated with, or related to, war. Karate was never meant to be used on battlefield. We may have some individual soldiers who were karateka, and there was once an idea that karate training would help develop healthy young men for the Japanese military (an idea that was abandoned), but the system itself was never intended to aid military efficiency.

With modification, karate can be applied in many different environments; as is evidenced by the fact we see it used in various forms of competition today (points, full contact, MMA, Kudo, etc). I’m sure basic elements of it could also be applied to empty-hand military combatives too. However, from an historical perspective I think it is pretty clear that neither consensual violence nor military combatives were of any concern, and that non-consensual violence was the primary focus. I think we need to be aware of that when we seek to understand the kata because they were created in line with that goal.s

Very much agree!

“We must be careful not to overlook the fact that kata, and the body positions that comprises them, are just templates of sort; it is their application in combat which needs to be mastered.” – Choki Motobu

I just like to find the best people to attack in their preferred method and practice my techniques on them. If the villain or ruffian is trained i still want my Karate to work!

"Study and practice Kumite(both formalized and free fighting) not for tournament pouroses, but to Aquire Ma-ai, to develope the martial arts sense of reading the opponents movements,and to develope Kiai and stamina that cannot be fully attained through the practice of Kata alone"    Shoshin Nagamine

I use sport competition such as MMA, Jiujitsu, Judo, Kickboxing etc as just another form of training (Kumite with durable trained partners) that helps with technique, timing, distance, and conditioning. I always learn a lot talking with you thank you Iain!

all the best 

jeb

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Jeb,

Thanks for kicking off what is turning out to be a very interesting thread! Lots of interesting and important topics being discussed.

Jeb Chiles wrote:
This quote by Funakoshi reminds me of my first instructor Larry Williams that introduced me to Ken Baker, Ron Rogers my current instructors. They all worked together and shared ideas to help each other and their students.

Having had the joy of spending time with both Ken and Ron I know how lucky you are to have them as instructors. As you know, Ken did a session at my dojo here in the UK earlier in the year. I introduced him as “the most knowledgeable martial artist I know”, and my students quickly found out why :-) Slightly off topic, but one of our 4th kyus is moving to Kansas for work and I told him to talk to Ken about any instructors he may know in his specific locality … turns out he’s going to be based very close to you guys and intends to start training with you all! I know he’ll be in the best of hands.

Jeb Chiles wrote:
It seems like Karate was for fighting back against anyone that wanted to attack you or a loved one even if they're a trained fighter.

Jeb Chiles wrote:
The goal is to defend myself or other whether my attacker is trained or not!

Totally agree, but I think we need to differentiate between “player” and “game”. The “player” is who we are dealing with. The “game” determines what a win is and hence the methodology that is most likely to be successful. We also need to be careful not to apply “trained” as a universal attribute, because what they are trained for (and experienced at) is also a vital consideration.

If I were to play a game of one-on-one basketball against a skilled tennis player, we would agree that the majority of the skills the tennis player has are rendered irrelevant. Fitness, being quick on their feet, being able to quickly change direction, etc would remain transferable attributes; but the vast majority of the skills associated with tennis are not relevant to basketball.

1) Basketball and Tennis are different games.

2) Being a highly trained tennis player will provide some transferable skills, but not enough to make you a competent basketball player.

3) If your goal is to win the basketball game, then you should specifically train for basketball.

4) The game of basketball will be decided by who is the better basketball player. It’s irrelevant who would win if we were playing tennis instead.

5) The basketball player does not need to train in tennis in order to beat the tennis player in a basketball game.

A very similar thing happens with regards to self-defence and fighting. The criminal is playing their game; not ours. As Rory said:

"The duelling paradigm.  Other than for fun or sport or balancing things within a social group, people don't square off.  Because it's dumb.  If you had to take out the biggest, scariest martial athlete you can imagine, how would you do it?  Exactly.  From behind with a weapon.  And maybe friends.

“This has a lot of implications for MA/SD.  The paradigm sets you up to expect distance, time and warning, none of which will exist unless you are monkey dancing.  People who are successful at duelling or sparring believe (sometimes, I hope rarely) that the skills will transfer to ambush survival...and they don't.”

This majority of the skills associated with the many forms of consensual violence don’t cross over to non-consensual violence. The “game” has changed. If either you or the criminal were to try to employ consensual duelling skills in that “game” then you’re trying to “play tennis in a basketball game”. It makes no since for either of you to do that.

The point is that “trained” is a meaningless statement unless we define “trained for what?”. Are they trained / experienced in the game being played? To swap out my tennis / basketball analogy for fighting / self-protection:

1) Self-protection and consensual fighting are different.

2) Being a highly trained in a given form of consensual fighting will provide some transferable skills, but that alone is not enough to make you competent at self-protection (and vice-versa).

3) If your goal is to keep yourself safe from criminal activity, you should train specifically for self-protection.

4) The outcome of a self-protection situation will be decided by your skills at self-protection vs the criminal’s skill at criminal violence. Neither of you are seeking to prove who is the better fighter within the framework of a mutually agreed fight. It’s therefore irrelevant who would win in such a fight.

5) The person training in self-protection does not need to train for all the various forms of consensual violence in order to keep themselves safe from criminal activity.

I therefore don’t see “old-school” karate as lacking when it professes to be focused on “villains and ruffians” (i.e. non-consensual criminal violence) and not concerned with “a single opponent” or “an opponent in an arena”. It’s simply being very clear on the training objective.

Boxers train to win in boxing matches. No one would criticise them if they said they were unconcerned about how those skills would apply in a judo bout. The karateka of the past are doing a similar thing i.e. “Non-consensual criminal violence is the concern. We are unconcerned about the many forms of consensual duelling”.

As I said in the original post:

Some see this as a “shortfall” of the kata, but I’m not one of them. We can never divorce method from objective. Specificity of goal and the resulting appropriateness of method are strengths. Unclear goals can never be reached.

Jeb Chiles wrote:
The goal is to defend myself or other whether my attacker is trained or not!

The best way to do that is to employ the skills associated with non-consensual criminal violence because that is the “game” being played. The fact that you and the criminal may have various forms of consensual duelling skills is not directly relevant because you’re not consenting to a duel (if you did, it is no longer self-defence). The criminal wishes to commit a crime and you wish to avoid that crime taking place. Neither of you are seeking to prove who is the better fighter within a given framework.

Jeb Chiles wrote:
It seems like the past masters wanted to know what there art would do against a trained martial artist otherwise Kakemadeshi wouldn't exist would they? Karateka like Kyan, Yabu, Motobu and others fought many times and were sought as instructors for there actual fighting experience I believe?

Even when training to address non-construal criminal violence, we do so by practicing with fellow martial artists. They are the ones we practise with and test our skills against. However, the goal remains addressing non-construal criminal violence. Kakemadeshi demands the fight starts close and stays close. It’s therefore a fitting training method for defined objective; but it will not encompass the gap-closing and creating elements associated with consensual duelling, etc.  

Jeb Chiles wrote:
I use sport competition such as MMA, Jiujitsu, Judo, Kickboxing etc as just another form of training (Kumite with durable trained partners) that helps with technique, timing, distance, and conditioning.

I too like to train for various forms of consensual violence. I agree there are wider martial benefits to doing so and I personally don’t want to be a one-dimensional martial artist. I did that for a time, and the sole focus on self-protection made my training less interesting, less enjoyable and, overall, less productive. That’s said, I remain objective driven. We have live drills for consensual striking, consensual grappling, consensual fighting, etc where the aim is to outfight our partner. We also have live drills to replicate various aspects of non-consensual violence were the objective is to avoid harm to ourselves and loved ones from criminal activity. There is some cross over and some common skills, but the differences in nature and objective are stark and make the forms of training very different.

Back to the core elements of this thread, I see “old-school” karate as being a good fit for non-consensual violence; but it lacks the feints, footwork, guards, etc associated with modern duelling. Conversely, the feints, footwork, guards, etc associated with modern duelling have little relevance to non-consensual violence so their omission is by design and not a failing.

To conclude, footwork is probably a good illustration of the points under discussion. The light on out feet, back and forth, highly responsive footwork we use when we fight each other today is entirely absent from kata. The reason being is that is was not needed for the defined objective. It’s absent by design; not by oversight or ignorance. When karateka decided they did want to fight each other at a distance, the new goal meant they had to get the required footwork from elsewhere. Their first port of call was Kendo; hence the steady shuffling preceding explosive movement that we see in early competitive bouts. Later on, boxing’s footwork was deemed to be better and hence it was widely adopted. Modern karate therefore has that kind of footwork, but it was not part of karate originally. I don’t think that points to a shortcoming; any more than the lack of strikes is a shortcoming in modern sport judo training, or the lack of submissions a problem in the training of competitive boxers. The common tread is being goal focused and using the methodology most suited to the goal.

If we are lacking a given skill for a given goal, then we can cross train and bring it in to what we do; just as has been done in the past. I think this expanded “tool kit” is a good thing, providing we continue to use the right tool for the right task.

Always fun chatting about this stuff :-)

All the best,

Iain

PASmith
PASmith's picture

It's funny when you see a real fight break out at a combat sports event.

People get sucker punched, high level BJJ guys start rushing in and swinging wild punches, TKD and Karate guys start grabbing each other and using headlocks, Boxers turn into bad grapplers, people are pushed over and into the environment, other people jump in to help or hinder (or both), chairs and other incidental weapons get thrown, reluctant bystanders get drawn in whether they are involved in the initial violent spark or not , etc etc.

Just like real fights the world over. :)

Training has an effect of course (and will vary from person to person). Getting attacked by an angry sedentary office worker is preferrable to getting attacked by an angry boxer. The boxer's punches are likely to be harder, more accurate, flow together better, last longer before gassing, etc.

But when people get angry, emotional, worked up, then the primal instincts start to come out and that affects how fights/violent incidents play out.

Anf
Anf's picture

I think if we train martial art for self protection then focus on the combat skills, then we've all completely failed at self protection training.

Despite what we here in training halls or online, for most of us, the likelihood of having to defend against violence is thankfully very low.

What is much, much more likely to harm us is poor health. Therefore in my opinion, the first goal of 'self protection' should be to try to develop a good healthy body. Martial arts can help us with that, and the combat skills we acquire in the process are a nice bonus.

Martial art also helps us protect our loved ones. How? Well we can't be there for them everywhere they go, and even if we could be, that's a guarantee of precisely nothing. But if we train martial arts and generally try to cultivate a healthy body and lifestyle, then there's a good chance at least some of the example we set will rub off.

My kids train in martial arts. I used to get quite wound up if they weren't training quite seriously enough, fearing that tit would let them down if they get bullied. But then it started to occur to me that even if they were black belt and star of the class it would count for nothing if confronted by a large group. They still train, but now the focus is on having fun, and outside of class we do lots of fun larking about, with the primary goal being fun, secondary fitness and good health, and somewhere down the list, the increased capacity to run away.

If we take martial art as self protection, in the context of combat, then we're in a minefield. I realised a long time ago that nobody ever wins a fight. In the simplest terms, one person gets beat up, the other faces the law. Less simply, if you 'win', you may then have to consider repercussions from the law, from the assailant's friends or family, or your boss may get to know about it and start asking himself what sort of person he's employed. Of course if it comes to a violent encounter then you have to do something, but by then you've already lost. The goal then is to merely minimise how bad it gets.

With regard to trained vs untrained, I agree with Iain's tennis vs basketball analogy. It works very well. One thing I keep finding as I try different styles is that karate folks can be a little bit annoying, in a good way, to practicioners of other styles. It's the fact that karate develops impeccable composure that does it. It makes us quite difficult to get off balance. I think for this reason alone, if no other, karate is very valuable in the context of self protection at the stage of actual violent encounter. There are many other reasons of course but for me to list them on a forum such as this would be like teaching the proverbial grandma how to suck eggs (I still don't know why grandma would do that, but we all know the point of that proverb).

One area where I believe karate, and indeed most martial arts, are actually counter productive in a self protection context is the issue of 'awareness'. I don't think it's really developed in most places. To me, second to protecting one's self from I'll health by trying to stay fit and strong, comes protecting ourselves by not walking into a situation. I.e the ability to spot trouble before we end up in it. This comes naturally for some people just through life experience. I personally have never seen anything in training that addresses this. Sure there's the lectures, but I've never seen anything that could pass as an effective drill to develop awareness. But worse, we often train one against one or at most, one against two or three. We know who our opponents are and if we keep our observations going, we know where they are and what they're doing. We can become excellent at such drills, and convince ourselves that we are therefore excellent at handling multiple attackers in the infamous street. Such a belief is, I believe, counterproductive, because if we do get set upon in The Street by multiple thugs, they're not going to follow our rules, and are unlikely to let us know up front which of them are going to attack and which of them want no part in it, and they're certainly not going to stand in front of us and bow, touch fists, then yell and drop into a fighting stance before they try to sucker punch us from behind.

Heath White
Heath White's picture

This is a little off topic the OP but ....

There  is a passage in Sun Tzu's Art of War which goes something like:

He who governs well does not arm;

He who arms well does not draw up battle lines;

He who draws up battle lines well does not fight;

He who fights well does not lose;

He who loses well does not perish.

Roughly translating for the purposes of self-protection, this would be something like

He who makes good life choices does not need to be aware and cautious of his surroundings;

He who has good awareness and caution does not need to de-escalate;

He who can de-escalate does not need to fight;

He who fights well does not lose;

He who loses well does not die, get seriously injured, or suffer lasting emotional damage.

Sun Tzu was a military general and perfectly well aware that no matter how well a state governs, it is sometimes going to need to arm, draw up battle lines, and fight.  His point, of course, is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and it is better to handle problems before they get to the stage of war.  

Martial artists, I think,  should have the same attitude.  They specialize in the "fighting well so you don't lose" part of the sequence.  But they should realize (and most do) that you can handle 99.99% of interpersonal problems without fighting, and it is better to deal with them at earlier stages. 

Furthermore--and I guess this is my primary point--if you are going to say you teach "self-protection," then a really comprehensive approach to this would involve all five stages.

PS, and back on topic: Man, Jeb, that is a lot of training!  I wish I had that kind of time for martial arts.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi All,

PASmith wrote:
It's funny when you see a real fight break out at a combat sports event … People get sucker punched, high level BJJ guys start rushing in and swinging wild punches, TKD and Karate guys start grabbing each other and using headlocks, Boxers turn into bad grapplers, people are pushed over and into the environment, other people jump in to help or hinder (or both), chairs and other incidental weapons get thrown, reluctant bystanders get drawn in whether they are involved in the initial violent spark or not , etc etc. Just like real fights the world over. :)

Absolutely. The one that sticks in my mind, despite the fact it was over 10 years ago, was the Tyson / Lewis press conference clash. Two of the most competent and skilled boxers the planet, but when they kick off outside of the ring it was utter chaos. They still have the same skills, but the fact the conflict is taking place in a differing context results in a very different type of violence.

What results in the change in the nature of the violence is the change in objectives. No one physically involved in that exchange is trying to win a boxing bout … so it is nothing like a boxing bout; despite the fact that boxers are participating. To tie it back to the post above, the “players” are the same, but the “game” has changed.

Some people are trying to harm others, some people are trying not to get harmed, some people are trying to stop things escalating, some people are coming to the aid of friends, etc. but no one is trying to win a boxing bout. Because no one is trying to win a boxing bout, the unadopted methodology of boxing is not a good fit … so no one uses that methodology … even the highly skilled boxers.

Relating it back to self-protection, we need to understand the dynamics of criminal behaviour in order to ensure we utilise the most appropriate methodology. The methods we use for the many different types of consensual violence are not a good fit. Like everything else, they are perfect for what they were designed for:

The methodology of boxing is perfect for winning boxing bouts.

The methodology of MMA is perfect for winning MMA bouts.

The methodology of points karate is perfect for winning points karate bouts.

The methodology of Thai-boxing is perfect for winning Thai-boxing bouts.

And on and on.

BUT none of the above is perfect for self-protection. As with everything else, only self-protection is prefect for self-protection.

Of course, there are transferable skills and attributes, but the differences are of vital importance and should never be overlooked.  

As has been said before, I want my martial arts to be broad based. There are many things I do that have no relevance to self-protection … and that is 100% OK because I KNOW they have no relevance and I see their value elsewhere.

Martial arts would be so much healthier and enjoyable if we could get away from using self-protection or the fabled “street” as some kind of “gold standard” by which all other things must be judged.

Whatever we area training for, we always need a clearly defined goal, to have identified the optimum method for achieving that goal, and then to specifically train in the identified method. Martial artists are forever failing to do this when it comes to self-protection.

Often, they fail because they think “effective” is a universal characteristic i.e. “this works well in one context, so it will work well in all other contexts”. Other times they fail because they don’t appreciate – in some cases even deliberately obscure – the vital differences between true self-protection (legal act of avoiding harm from criminal action) and “street fighting” (illegal consensual fight). And often as not, they fail because they get it all ass backward. They have a method (style they train in) and they seek to superimpose the goals and training methods of that style onto a situation it was never designed for. In short, they seek to reinvent criminal valance in their own image: https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/reinventing-violence-podcast

Anf wrote:
One area where I believe karate, and indeed most martial arts, are actually counter productive in a self protection context is the issue of 'awareness'. I don't think it's really developed in most places.

I think that is true of all martial arts. If we are truly wishing to address self-protection – within the context of ongoing martial arts training – then the soft skills need to be included (along with the correct identification and practise of the relevant hard skills). Discussions on personal security, nature of crime, verbal de-escalation, etc need covered, and in most martial arts training they are given lip service at best. Only self-protection is prefect for self-protection.

Anf wrote:
… they're certainly not going to stand in front of us and bow, touch fists, then yell and drop into a fighting stance before they try to sucker punch us from behind.

Absolutely. Rory hits the nail on the head when he states:

“The duelling paradigm.  Other than for fun or sport or balancing things within a social group, people don't square off.  Because it's dumb.  If you had to take out the biggest, scariest martial athlete you can imagine, how would you do it?  Exactly.  From behind with a weapon.  And maybe friends.”

All the best,

Iain