has karate lost it's intellegents

[musashis5rings]

Karate and all fighting styles were formed to combat the enemies techniques of that area.
take TKD for instance; the high flying kicks may seem too telegraphed for a man to man fight, but to knock a man off of a horse, they are perfect.

The Okinawan systems were formed to fight against a katana drawn Samurai, but when the fight is taken to the ground, they didn't fair too well.

But here in America, martial arts seems to be getting a bad wrap from the traditional practitioners, saying that if we change the system, then it is useless.
I dont claim to be a grandmaster, but after 23 yrs of training, I know what works on our streets.
I train in Shorin-ryu, but I am changing some to match our fighting scituations here.
In America, we have some of the smartest teachers in the world, and not to put down any of our traditional masters, but they don't live here. I don't think our masters had to worry about surviving too many drive-byes.

[Anthony Clark]

With all due respect, I don't believe I have heard of any art that can combat drive bys, with the exception of the art of Duck.  A close second is the art of Hide.  Or possibly the geographically based art of "Don't Go to L.A."  A little late-day humor.

Seriously though, people have fought similarly for the past few thousand years.  They had wrestling (Greek wrestling, Chinese, wrestling, etc.) that dates back a long time.  When two untrained individuals today mix it up, so to speak, they inevitably go to the ground in a third-grade match of scratching, spitting and biting.  And there have been systemized fighting styles that train going to the ground for centuries.

Martial artists of Okinawa, China, Taiwan and even through Europe learned many things, but some of those things included not getting pulled down into a wrestling match.  It doesn't bode well if you're fighting more than one opponent.  

I would agree that Martial Arts are getting a bad wrap in America.  I believe it's because many students don't practice enough to be good at what they learn.  Many of the traditional arts, when learned completely, have a lot to offer.  In the U.S., students hop-skip-and jump between schools to gain a First Degree in Karate, a First Degree in Kickboxing, a First Degree in Judo, etc.  A first degree does not equate to being good.  It simply implies you are finally a student.  Without learning any of the more advanced applications, these first degrees don't have a complete art.  They don't even have an advanced art.  They have a foundation from which to learn.

I would say that instead of changing an art, learn the entire art (or a good deal of it beyond First, Second or Third Degree) and build your foundation before adding new techniques and methods.  This means finding an art that works for the person, training in it through levels of understanding and ability to use, and then continuing to practice.

I'm willing to bet if you ask a traditional master what he or she would do if someone held a gun to them, the correct answer might be "Hand them my wallet."  

Just my humorous input for the day.  I hope you have a pleasant evening.

Regards,
Anthony Clark

[musashis5rings]

the whole statement about a drive-bye wasn't to imply that i have complicated the art of duck and dive behind a car with some fancy moves, but rather, that we have a different environment here, and scituations that they don't have in it's origin.
i have learned a great deal of shorin-ryu in 23 yrs, but have plenty more to go in my training.
Even the late Grand Master Sokon, said that to train in only one system creates a narrow minded karate. And that came from one of the greatest masters of the 20th century.
when Sakagawa brought kung-fu back from china, it had to be altered for combat with the Samurai, because the moves were too wide and open for combat against a sword.
I don't claim to be able to dodge bullets, and I never learned how to block or punch them.(i must have missed that class)But, handing your wallet over is easy to do when you are alone, but on the streets of america, gun violence is everywhere.
In Okinawa, they didn't have to worry about anything that could shoot more than one shot until ww2.
A few years ago up north, I was head of security at a hospital and escorting a person with a baby in protective custody, and his father decided to surprise us with himself and a 32 cal.
Duck and cover wasn't an option, because now I had 2 other lives as my responcibility, much like my own family. I had to react, had to alter what i had learned to take into consideration for a gun.

It's not just guns, but, the way street fights are here, is totally different than in Okinawa.
Take the classic confrontation between Sakagawa and a Samurai that was trying to rape a young girl on a beach.
a boat oar was used to kill the samurai, but the point i am making is that he first exsposed his position by walking out right in front of him to square off for a fight.
here is the difference.
Even with what was happening, there was still a sence of honer to square off first,.....he must have been subcontiously doing this, because if it happened here, we would have snuck up behind the samurai, which would be easy on a beach with wind and all the sound from the struggle of the girl, and we would have stabbed him, because everyone carries a small knife now.
So, if you have squares of with someone here, watch for his friends, because they will pop out of the wood-works and either shoot, or stab you.
Many can speculate what they would do, but as working in one off the most crime ruled hospitals in the north east, I have had the unfortunate pleasure of experiencing many scituations that the old masters never had to face.




steve

[Anthony Clark]

Tip of my hat to you for your security work.  Any work in security or law enforcement on that level is risky when dealing with unknown individuals.  Fortunately I have never worked in that field.  But I do respect it.  And I understood your comments regarding drive-bys.  I threw in my response as a late day attempt at humor.

I concur with the different scenerios to a degree.  Warfare is ever changing (whether it's battle field or urban settings).  And the tools implemented change the structure.  Take for instance the invention of the crossbow.  It made the use of soft metal armor almost obsolete.  The use of the chariot and cavalry changed the face of warfare.  For several thousand years, armies faced off against one another in a fairly straight forward pattern (check out Braveheart and Gladiator for visuals).  It was only recently (in relative terms - American Revolutionary War and that era) that certain guerilla tactics were employed large scale that did not involve standing upright and crossing a field to go toe-to-toe under a hail of missiles (bullets, arrows, cannon).  Prior to this, the armies would line up and square off, and when the cannon shot was lobbed across the field, soldiers gave written accounts of watching a ball rapidly approaching and then barely missing them, only to take out two or three of their fellow soldiers in a line.

My long-winded point isn't to disagree that elements of fights change over the years, but to say that certain applications stay the same.  To apply those applications effectively, we need to practice them more.  Too many prospective students learn a few techniques and then decide they won't work effectively because they cannot get them to work immediately.  They miss the point.  They need to practice them until they are natural.

With regards to Sakagawa facing the Samurai, I wasn't there and I never read his account of the incident.  I would offer that he didn't step out to square off in a show of fairness and righteousness.  For any Okinawan to kill a Samurai there was a penalty of death.  So even Sakagawa, although he probably outclassed the swordsman, would have been less apt to simply kill him.  His first course of action might have been to try to dissuade the assailant from his deed.  When this failed, he would have resorted to defending his life and the girl, and then facing the repurcussions later.

As for what the Masters of old had to face, I don't doubt that they faced just as bad as we have today.  Human nature does not change.  Not to detract from what you have been through in the hospital, but stories of the honor and chivalry of times gone by paint a far prettier picture than really happened.  Fights weren't always one on one, or even fair.  Muggers existed who would sneak up and stab you in the back for your purse just like today.  Take for instance the Samurai of the Sakagawa tale.  Half the stories you hear today are of the honor of Samurai.  The other half paint them as the antagonist who is trying to deflower some innocent Okinawan, Chinese or Korean girl.  Read "The Rape of Nanking" if you want a shocker - it is not a pretty picture.

There were honest and honorable men, just like today.  But there were a lot of dishonest men.  And just like today, there were a lot of wannabe's who walked around claiming to be more than they were.  They would have been willing to assassinate another to claim fame.

As for training in multiple styles, I believe you need to develop a strong foundation in the basics of one style before advancing to learn other styles.  I have learned various styles, but I will admit that I did not develop a strong foundation in the first two styles that I learned.  I have been with my current system for a few years and hope that I am developing a good foundation from which to grow.  I still believe too many people cross train way before they have developed a foundation in the basics of one style.

Just my two cents.  It's a pleasure reading your posts.

Anthony Clark

[scotth]

In my experiences, when a technique works- it works.  When you have a solid foundation of techniques, you learn how to "adjust" them to the person and situation.  For instance, if you are going to throw a punch to someone's solar plexus and they are 6'5, you would have to target it differently than hitting the same spot on someone who is 5'10".  The technique or application did not change or lose it's effectiveness, it just had to be adjusted for application.  Just as some situations call for different techniques.

Knives have been around for a long, long time.  Carrying weapons was outlawed in most of the martial arts "root" countries (China, Japan, Okinawa etc.) except for elite social classes or government officials.  The development of unarmed fighting against someone or even large groups of people who are armed is not a new concept.

The post above was very well stated.  Human nature does not change.  I have been in schools that practice step matches or waza against knife and gun attackers.  The joint locks, strikes and kicks all still work in that situation, you just have added a different element.  The root fundamental is still solid.  If I grab someone pointing a gun at me, torque the barrel back towards them by doing a Chin Na, or wrist lock, or throat strike then what is "not effective" about the technique?

I understand what you are saying about drive-bys etc.  When someone is at range with a gun, you have to rely on your reactions and sometimes just luck.  But if you are relying on a reaction or how quickly you can make a decision on where to duck and cover at, aren't you employing your years of training as a martial artist?  A trained martial artist will improve: the speed of recognition of a situation and the reaction time to that recognition.  So while studying martial arts for an extended period of time by no means guarantees safety against a gun or other weapon (and I would argue that it never did, even when the weapons were more "primitive"), it should improve your chances by at least allowing you to recognize and react more quickly.

I relate this to the first time someone threw a punch at me.  It seemed so fast.  After years of training, you learn to recognize that someone is throwing a punch very quickly and almost unconciously react to it.

Anyway, I enjoy the discussion- and that's just my 2 cents

-scott

[musashis5rings]

thank you both for your response, as i verymuch enjoyed reading them.



steve