Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing?

Posted by: Neko456

Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 10/30/08 01:29 PM

Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? I've been asked this question often and my answer is it depends if we are talking tapped and gloved then it's boxing or bare knuckle then I believe it's Karate.

After studying boxing for a little while 2-3 yrs. and Karate for 25-30 years I've come to this conclusion. I might be bias but I'm trying not to be.

Seeing the injuries caused by boxer to themselves in street fights or sparring I concluded that boxing has a good delievry system but not a good foundation its builds upon. Giving boxers there due they have some of the most devastating strikes in combination because they are few, fast, simple and direct.

Karate on the other hand (though injuries occcur it happen less often then in the boxers hook punch) one reason is the foundation development of most Karatekas and the precision and snap in the strikes not all drive through. Another thing is the staggered target is easy to get a good shot on the head when you kick someone in the ba%%s or slap their ears and grab them and then strike them.

There are other factors but this is enough to start this discussion. I know one of the argument is if Karate is better or had the best strike why is it not used in MMA. My answer is because eye gouges, rigdehands to the the groins or ear slaps are illegal.

I like Boxing (especially its footwork as a defense) but it leaves out a lot of options.

Whats your take?
Posted by: duanew

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 10/30/08 07:25 PM

I'll start with a story that Phil Messina of the Modern Warrior in NY tells regarding open and closed hand strikes. He had a boxer come to him and wanted to compare strikes on some kind of measuring device. Phil told him that he had one. They went out into the parking lot and Phil picked up a large rock and sent it across the parking lot with an open palm strike. He retrieved the rock and handed it to the boxer who declined to hit it.
I know that in several studies in LE the primary injury from a use of force situation is an injured dominant hand or risk from striking a suspect in the head.
Now I have never punched anyone in the head in a real fight since taking of the martial arts-my kicks have always worked. Even though I use the makiwara-sparingly-no big ugly knuckles for me. If I did hit someone in the head it would be with an open palm.
In my personal opinion unless you are hitting the makiwara very regularily punching to the head is not a good idea-hence the old Okinawan saying "Hit the hard parts with something soft and the soft parts with something hard".
Also remember that once karate was introduced into the school curriculum the close fist replaced many open hand techniques in the kata for safety.
Look at Mike Tyson who broke his hand outside the ring and had to have a match postponed. If it ain't good for Mike it probably ain't good for you.
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 10/30/08 08:26 PM

Excellent post.

Regardless of conditioning, karate blows are built on focus, not on power. As a result they are efficient but less aimed at "knockout". They are conservative in the sense that they are intended to minimise the (inevitable) opening any punch creates.

If I were to be in a ring fight with gloves I wouldn't try to use karate punches strictly. The glove makes it very difficult to "focus" in the same way (the padding creates deceleration no matter what you do). A straight thrust is therefore not going to be very useful. It certainly won't win the contest by knockout. Given the different aim of a ring match (to win, rather than to "not get hit") a boxer's punches are entirely appropriate for their environment.

A boxer's punches are also useful in self defence. However for the average punter I would recommend karate. Why? One is geared for civilian defence, the other is geared for sport. If you already gravitate towards sport, then boxing or MMA is preferable. But getting Ma and Pa plus kids to be sufficiently conditioned to use boxing skills is a bit of an ask. They are more likely to get mileage out of a good karate or other tma school (I emphasise "good" because there is a lot of McDojo stuff out there, relatively useless for self-defence).
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 10/30/08 10:37 PM

I prefer closed fist strikes. I prefer boxing. Fighters who do the required physical things correctly will not suffer injuries as often. Greater accuracy under dynamic motion (a byproduct of well-conducted practice) can reduce improper-angle-of-contact occurrences.

I have come to believe that the broken hand threat is over-rated and I believe fists transfer energy, in a fight, much more effectively than open-hands.

Aside from this, my opinion is that boxing is the premier science for learning how to hit someone in the face in a fight and defend from same. When I watch karate guys spar effectively, what are they using? Boxing hands. If not, the likelihood of their getting knocked out is quite high. Just my opinion.

I mean damn, I'll deal with my injured hand after my opponent is knocked cold, ya know?


-John
Posted by: JAMJTX

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 10/31/08 10:32 AM

If you happen to be wearing boxing gloves, then stay with the boxing techniques. Or, take them off and use Karate techniques. Whether they be open hand or closed hand, you can not apply Karate techniques while wearing boxing gloves.

Boxing and Karate are 2 completely and totally different things and can not be compared.
Posted by: butterfly

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 10/31/08 11:22 AM

I guess it would depend also on how you label karate and what it is to the individual who trains somewhere. The stuff I learned was heavily influenced by boxing and we have had pro and semi-pro boxers practice and train with us.

The current Japanese karate instructor we have is a licensed boxing instructor in Japan and one of the other instructors had done amatuer boxing in Japan. One of my former senpai was also on the US Boxing team in the 80s.

So, what's boxing or karate if you use it in your training? Some of the best karate guys I know who could hit, were former boxers and I think that comes from their experience of actually hitting and being hit and this expanding their capacity when more tools are provided to help in that hitting.

With that said, our system doesn't incorporate hammer fists, ridge hands or a lot of other more esoteric karate strikes. Lots of straights, crosses, hooks, elbows, uppers and shovel punches punches that's a peculiar hybrid of karate and boxing and often seen in Kyokushin. Nice punch to the kidneys once you turn your opponent.

So, as I was saying, your karate may not be the standard from which I draw my bag of tools. Hard to say.
Posted by: Prizewriter

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 10/31/08 11:31 AM

I agree with JKogas, I think the whole "getting your had broke thing" does get over played sometimes. Bare Knuckled boxers didn't automatically get a broken hand after every bout.

RE Mike Tyson, yes he broke his hand on Mitch Green in a street fight. But witnesses report that he dropped Green with a single shot too.

A clip that has been debated here, but it shows bare-handed boxing vs people in a defensive situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySNWVBDuta

This subject has been debated before on here. I prefer boxings methods of punching and defense over the karate (and TKD) I have seen and briefly studied.

People make the arguement that karate strikes target vunerable areas (e.g. throat, floating rib, solar plexus, kidneys etc...) Why would a trained boxer attacking these areas do less well than a trained Karate-ka or a TKD'er?

Personal choice in the end, but the boxing I learnt is a straight forward no-nonsense system, easy to remember, easier to train in, easier to improve in, easier to perform in a given situation. That's my experience.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 10/31/08 12:04 PM

Jkogas - Certainly you can't worry about being injuried during a conflict and in a real fight you will have injuries even if its just a swollen hand or scraped knuckle.
Taped and gloved Boxing bare knuckled Karate for me.

JamTx - Striking is striking really as Butterfly stated some mix the way they strike. So the strikes are setup differently but eventually contact is made to do damage so they are not that much differences. In my book.

Butterfly - Our base are different and Kyoushin does train different its niether boxing nor Karate strictly, boxing punches without being taped and glove would scare a true boxer and hamper a Karateman gloved. Old style Kyoushin use to do lots of markiwari training and conditioing, I don't know if this true anymore. So we would see this slightly different. I've always wondered about contact Karates self defense so it does little or no open hand strikes. We fight the way we train hopefully if a guy turned his back or you slipped to his back you wouldn't heisatate to strike. Me a back wide open is supper time.

Prizefighter - You and Jkogas are in the majority in the modern strikinhg arts alot has changed because of MMA or gloved training. But Ole timers like me like sweeping and striking or swipingg palms across the chin, throat grabs that slams their head against a wall or door, cupped palms strikes that shatters ear drums, finger strikes to neck or trecha, and the treid an true grabbing and twisting grion claw. I like the slashing and smashing elbows and knees. Sweeps, throws and trips that add to more strikes. Some would say thats too complicated or too serious or bodering on illegal or not necessary.

I can only say I don't like to fight. So use stuff that if i get it in the fight own't last long.

Which has the best strikes pending on what you want or trying to do, I'd say.

Injury wise I've found that the thumb up boxing hook more prone to injury the the thumb held to side. Unless taped and gloved. I like boxing more simplistic delievery but Karates and some boxing thumb inside and flat fist hook punch.

Whats you take?
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 10/31/08 12:28 PM

Doesn't this really depend on the strengths of the individual and not the "art" he practices? Of course it does. As always, its the artist and not the art.

As a person who works from a heavy boxing-based delivery system, I can tell you that an intelligent boxer would not go in swing wildly. Naturally, the word "intelligent" here would immediately rule out Mike Tyson. Would it not?

Any intelligent boxer (if he's so coached) will utilize good "boxing" skills as opposed to mere "slugging". I think that's a huge difference and a critical point to understand.

The notion of "boxing" rather than mere slugging, implies everything besides just the hitting portion of the delivery system. Meaning; posture, footwork, evasiveness and the most important aspect - the jab.

If a boxer was truly interested in self-defense and not just with beating his opponent up, he would play more of the counter-puncher, angler, or runner style and rely upon the jab (especially the retreating jab) to keep his opponent off him. This of course would mean that he had his ego under control to begin with, something very important from a self-defense perspective.

A stinging jab being the most accurate perhaps of all punches, can do enough to cause enough damage (broken nose) without the risk of serious injury. This is due in part to a variety of factors including, greater accuracy, less commitment, more versatility, etc.

Combined with good footwork and an intelligent strategy, the jab is really all you need to stay safe. Many boxing coaches will tell you the very same thing.

People who go wading in swinging wildly, simply aren't disciplined, controlled fighters. A boxer who is however, would be a formidable opponent.

Just my opinion. Truthfully, I believe any stylist can develop the same tendency, technique and strategy. Boxing, karate, etc...doesn't matter. No art owns the truth. It's a matter of how you train, and again, how disciplined you are as a fighter.
Posted by: Prizewriter

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 10/31/08 12:29 PM

Heck, I like a good sweep or reap as much as the next guy!

I know Karate has a lot of hand techniques doesn't related to grabbing/locking that boxing etc... My response addressed the issue of what has better striking (in my experience) Karate or Boxing?

Not that it would change my answer, but are you including other hand techniques in this thread outside of striking (e.g. grabbing)?

Where possible, I hit with my fist, not with my thumb! As a habit I tuck it in if I ever shadow box bare hand i.e. my thumb is outside my fist beneath my fingers.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 10/31/08 12:56 PM

Prizewriter stated - Not that it would change my answer, but are you including other hand techniques in this thread outside of striking (e.g. grabbing)?

Heck, I like a good sweep or reap as much as the next guy!

========================================================
Me too!!!

Yes I'm talking about arsenal and all strikes. In most the grabs that I've been taught there is a strike before the grab or he can twist away. As I mentioned fingers, elbows and knees this would also including kicking, forearm smashes, koken strikes, palm strikes, shutos, haitos, head butts and hammer fist.

Of course this is one boxing strengths, simplisity there few strikes with lots of angles.

Your so called dirty boxing (grabing and hittting) has always been apart of my base system, except we kick and knee while grabbing also. Its even in our Katas but I won't start that again.

The fist or knuckle area is the striking surface that both hooks are design to make contact with, but sh%% happens and the thumb up hook is more prone to injury, bc its more exposed. From what I've seen anybody got info to support the opposite?

The way you hook punch is how I do it also.

But I don't see anything wrong with sticking a thumb or finger in the eyes or treceha or adams apple.
Posted by: duanew

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/01/08 07:03 AM

On two major police departments when they started to teach their officers open hand techniques the injury rate to the hands dropped dramatically. BUT-they are not trained boxers. They just get shown a few techniques and then sent out.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/01/08 10:57 AM

I'd like to add a few more thoughts to this.

The disciplined approach (staying "home" or, "keeping center") as I call it in the gym) is just the start of it. The strategy that one would need to employ for self-defense is obviously going to be different than one would employ for the ring and certainly these things would have to be coached. That strategy when in place, suddenly makes things easier from a self-defense perspective.

I think we all understand that you can get hurt in a fight. That is the crap-shoot that fighting is. You take your chances each and every time you get so involved. Some of us look at it differently. I personally don't go out looking for fights. My thinking is that all violence should be avoided. If you're a bouncer/doorman, or other security personnel, where you knowingly place yourself in harm's way, hitting someone in that environment means (at least in the States) that you'll probably get sued and lose everything you've got. You'll at least lose the job, and possibly others as well from reputable establishments. There are other things that work better when involved in team oriented security than maiming people with strikes anyway. Just my opinion.

From a civilian perspective, do we really need to go in wading behind shots? Perhaps at times maybe? I should never say never, but my thinking is that we need to probably stay away from attackers rather than engage with them under most circumstances. In that sense, I feel that a good retreating jab will do people more good than virtually everything else.

Another point I'd like to make stems from the fact that when most people discuss boxing, 99% of them think in terms of the ring sport variation. They rarely consider the underlying delivery system and it's versatility. They also don't realize that modern boxing gets a lot of it's influence from Panantukan. Possibly without that influence, we'd probably still be fighting like John L. Sullivan. The Filipino martial arts had a tremendous impact on that. Go in with your arms stuck out like that in the Philippines and you get carved up like Thanksgiving turkey.

Speaking of Panantukan, it's core is of course, western boxing. But there is another level we can go to from there. In this case, and its important to understand those differences that exist between street and sport boxing. Aside from the ring sport variation, there is the "dirty" side that I particularly like to emphasize. This however requires a solid grounding in fundamentals. There is thumbing the eyes (or simply sticking your fingers in off the jab), headbutting, low blows, knee strikes to the groin in the clinch, arm wrenching, etc. Sweeps, disruptions, shoulder-butting, elbow strikes...the list goes on. Again I realize that the topic of this thread was about hitting, but I think that has to be mentioned. I mean, we are training for self-defense right? Why would we take a ring mentality into that way of thinking? I know I wouldn't.
Posted by: student_of_life

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/01/08 01:08 PM

good point, strategy is going to change the tools you use, ring fighting as opposed to self protection.

one strategy for personal protection we teach in our style of karate is to play innocent until it's time to dismantel your target and run away to find help or shelter.

JKogas,
i actually have to disagree with you about the retreating jab idea for personal protection, could you explain it a little more? all i can picture is backpeddeling and throwing a jab that won't have your body weight behind it. i'm sure you have more to it then this, lol.

delivery systems are another aspect of self defence i'd like to talk about. i would advise against using any kind of fighting stance that conveys your intentions, so my delivery system is really close to the fence i guess. most likely im misunderstanding what you mean by a boxing delivery system, but i keep picturing some one with their hands up a chin tucked.

concerning the op, i'd point out that karate makes use of more kinds of strikes on lots of angles, but.....and its a huge but, i don't see all of the karate strikes practice nearly enough when compared to how many times your typical boxers trains his fewer punches. but i guess this is a "person and not the art" thing, but i have noticed trends in my time with the traditional arts, and most people don't practice most of their strikes on pads most of the time.

all that said, a reverse punch from a well traind karate ka CAN end any fight. you'd never guess it from the "fight science" show though, that guy was faux boxing, lol.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/01/08 04:08 PM

Quote:

good point, strategy is going to change the tools you use, ring fighting as opposed to self protection.

one strategy for personal protection we teach in our style of karate is to play innocent until it's time to dismantel your target and run away to find help or shelter.

JKogas,
i actually have to disagree with you about the retreating jab idea for personal protection, could you explain it a little more? all i can picture is backpeddeling and throwing a jab that won't have your body weight behind it. i'm sure you have more to it then this, lol.




Well obviously with regard to personal protection, retreating/maintaining distance would be an important strategy. So, we're using the jab in order to do that. In boxing, the jab is half of your defense and is used to keep people off of you. It would be no different here for a self-defense situation.

Obviously just moving backward and punching will have no power on it. I'm not just talking about running when I talk of retreating. When I speak of retreating, I mean keeping/maintaining that distance as you circle or angle off. Thus if or when my opponent steps toward me, I keep him away from me back sticking the jab right on the nose.

Basically as he moves in toward me, I don't allow him to get in close. So he moves in, I move back, and he runs into the jab on his way in, thus doubling the impact. This obviously requires timing to get down, because you have to be able to nail your opponent with the jab while on the move. Of course this "stick & move" is the hallmark of boxing. I don't know if that made it any clearer or not, but that's why we have these discussion forums.


Quote:


delivery systems are another aspect of self defense i'd like to talk about. i would advise against using any kind of fighting stance that conveys your intentions, so my delivery system is really close to the fence i guess. most likely im misunderstanding what you mean by a boxing delivery system, but i keep picturing some one with their hands up a chin tucked.





It's all semantics. I actually use a fence as well. But that isn't something that *I* call a delivery system, but then again, I suppose you could. What I mean by "delivery system" is the entire panoply of offense and defense within a "phase" of fighting (ie, free-movement/unattached range, close-range and ground fighting contain their three unique delivery systems. In this case, any fence would be a "strategy" within the free-movement delivery system).

So while you're correct, the delivery system in the free movement range is based around boxing's upright hands posture, used for "fighting". I rely on a fence type of pre-fight posture when dealing with unknown contacts (strangers, etc).


Quote:


concerning the op, i'd point out that karate makes use of more kinds of strikes on lots of angles, but.....and its a huge but, i don't see all of the karate strikes practice nearly enough when compared to how many times your typical boxers trains his fewer punches. but i guess this is a "person and not the art" thing, but i have noticed trends in my time with the traditional arts, and most people don't practice most of their strikes on pads most of the time.





My opinion is, the argument can be made that fewer is better; less is more. Sure the boxer has fewer shots, but how many do you really need for the frenetic energy and pressure of a real fight? It's my opinion that when the pressure is on for *real* (something boxers are naturally accustomed to that many others aren't), the less the mind has to deal with, the better. The simpler the method, the greater the delivery.

Going back to panantukan boxing, there's quite a bit more there than just the jab/cross/hook/uppercut and overhand. But then again, I was making the distinction between the ring sport and the delivery system, which is why I brought that subject up to begin with. You fall back on the fundamentals of the delivery system (tight, economical defense, evasiveness, footwork, punching straight out and back, etc), but you aren't limited to the tools you use. You can add as much to that as possible, providing the fundamentals are in place. But there again, less is probably more, particularly when it comes to the simple objective of surviving a violent encounter. In that sense, there's probably not a great need to throw out everything including the kitchen sink.


Quote:


all that said, a reverse punch from a well trained karate ka CAN end any fight.





I suppose you're right. Really it's matter of how you train and how much pressure you become accustomed to dealing with in training. The more realistic the energy in the training environment, the better. Its as they always say, "The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in combat". I think that rings very true. If you have the timing and attributes to deliver a solid shot, that's all that ultimately matters doesn't it? Its just personal differences from that point on. I just prefer the boxing delivery method, but as long as it works, who really cares about the differences, right?
Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/01/08 08:59 PM

Hi John,

Interesting your writing "Basically as he moves in toward me, I don't allow him to get in close. So he moves in, I move back, and he runs into the jab on his way in, thus doubling the impact. This obviously requires timing to get down, because you have to be able to nail your opponent with the jab while on the move. Of course this "stick & move" is the hallmark of boxing."

Last weekend I attended an intense clinic a friend held in Western Mass. on Naihanchi kata, and most of the week I've been trying to frame what we worked on.

Have you ever tried your jab on someone who's primary target is the hand and arm coming towards them.

We spent the time watching peoples arms drop when being struck as they were trying to strike, and he was just using kata, at kata practice speed, but the target was the arm itself.

Well I guess you had to be there.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/02/08 01:32 AM

Quote:

Have you ever tried your jab on someone who's primary target is the hand and arm coming towards them.





Yes, absolutely. In Filipino Panantukan, the incoming strike itself is a target for attack. They use a variety of ways to deal with that either with "spikes" or guntings, etc.

That's an active rather than a passive defense. And yes, I've been on the receiving end of some of that stuff and it is certainly uncomfortable, I can say that much.

But in truth, there are problems with that approach as well. In the vast majority of cases when those types of things have occurred, they've occurred during the "training energy". What happens during the "fight energy" is that the timings are changed, along with intensity and other factors.

For example, during "fighting energy" when people are feinting/using false attacks more and setting up their attacks well, these sorts of tactics drop off substantially from what I've observed. I mean, we can do a "lot of things" in training, can't we? But the problems come when the rubber hits the road and we're now moving around, varying the timing, setting up shots the way we're supposed to, etc., etc.

Not that these active defenses can't work then (during fight energy), as I believe that they can. I just think that their window of opportunity is now much narrower. Couple that with a higher pain threshold due to adrenaline and suddenly, things things worked so well in practice, don't work so well anymore. But you knew that already.

Just like all the anti-grappling I used to see....it was all demonstrated (read "trained") against a guy just basically bending over and running in while the "anti-grappler" stood ready. Of course the tackles were never successful, there was never any set-up.

Same thing here really. The dynamics change and things that once worked now don't. Good boxing shots, with feinting, odd timing, faking...all changes things a good bit.

That said, this doesn't mean that I don't train for these things. But whenever I see a karate ka work his traditional blocks, etc. in the usual manner....I cringe because I just realize the timing and other things are so different in reality than in what many people call "training".

Just my views.
Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/02/08 04:51 AM

John,

I totally agree with you, and it is the goal of the training program to take that into account, even though we're discussing one small aspect of traditional training.

Still what you don't practice it's likely you can't do.

The real goal, IMO, should be to work to be totally unpredictable, which deep study of kata and all the attendante drills, hard body contact, makiwara training, etc. offer.

From my studies the goal of unpredictability and deep kata study go hand and hand. But at 99.9999% of what programs of study actually do remains unknown, I have no real idea what others do.
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/02/08 05:17 AM

Quote:

Still what you don't practice it's likely you can't do.

The real goal, IMO, should be to work to be totally unpredictable, which deep study of kata and all the attendante drills, hard body contact, makiwara training, etc. offer.

From my studies the goal of unpredictability and deep kata study go hand and hand. But at 99.9999% of what programs of study actually do remains unknown, I have no real idea what others do.




Excellently put Victor.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/02/08 09:57 AM

Quote:


Still what you don't practice it's likely you can't do.





Agreed. But one of my primary points was (and has been) that often, these things ARE practiced, and still not done! Another point that I attempt to make here is that some martial arts techniques just aren't workable (in my opinion), no matter HOW much time you put into them. In other cases, some "techniques" stray a good distance from sound fundamentals and actually make people vulnerable. Again, I think the less is more school of thought has better returns on time invested. There are high percentage techniques, and lower percentage techniques, across the martial arts landscape as I'm sure you're well aware.

For MY money, I'm not interested in the esoteric and endless days of training with so little resistance that I barely break a sweat. I don't care about what "looks good on paper" and I don't have 15 years to master a move that only works on people with a heart rate slightly above that of a corpse. Tank Abbott with 'roid rage is the opponent I try and gear up for. He's not going to even feel it when I perform an inside horizontal gunting to the bicep (just an example). I'd better do something that makes the "hard drive" crash because otherwise it's going to be a long night. In cases like that, the simpler a person's game, the better. Fighting someone's "arm" is nice, but if I'm not going after the brain, I'm not going to get anywhere vs. a worthy opponent.

Core fundamentals developed through aliveness is going to be a hundred times better than splitting a persons time in half having them perform movements that have zero relationship to a living, moving human being fighting them back. Its just that simple. Sure, that's my opinion. But I also think its common sense. There have been more than a few occasions where I discovered that common sense is outside the realm of art.

Anything one can do with kata, can be done without kata. If not, it isn't worth being done at all, in my opinion. But I digress, because kata vs. aliveness isn't what this thread is about really, and I'm contributing to it being derailed.


Quote:


The real goal, IMO, should be to work to be totally unpredictable, which deep study of kata and all the attendante drills, hard body contact, makiwara training, etc. offer.




You had me at unpredictable and lost me with the words kata and makiwara. But that's no surprise there, right, lol?

In all seriousness, there is just no reason for kata outside of, control of large numbers of people in a class, the intentional wasting of time, or in the testing of an individuals patience/character, etc. I have to disagree that kata is where skill is built. But we've been over this before on the forum here. Kata (given that time is of the essence) would be the very last thing that I could ever, in good faith and with a clean conscience, advise anyone to do with their training time.

And with all due respect, the very fact that kata is not necessary in ANY way, for the creation of functional ability, clearly demonstrates the waste of time that it is, in my opinion.

Respectfully,
-John
Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/02/08 02:57 PM

Hi John,

I respect your opinion but it makes no difference in how I practice my art in my twilight. After 35+ years I have no illusions about what I train for, and the friends I train with are hardly striking non-compliant attacks, but feel free to belive what you wish.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/02/08 06:40 PM

Victor -

It isn't my business how you or anyone else chooses to train. It comes down to personal preference. But as you decided to chime in with your opinion on kata, I decided to do the same with my opinion about kata.

I respect you and your time involved in the arts. My near 30 years involved (many times inconsistent earlier in my life) may not have been spent in the same "style", but I've seen enough over that time to know a thing or two about truth in combat.

One thing I DO know is that a person could spend a HUNDRED years in the arts and it would not change the fact that kata has no relationship to a living, moving and resisting human being. That's just the way I see it.

We're all free to train however we choose. It isn't that I'm all "hardcore" every time I step in to train. My dedication to aliveness isn't about brutality. That's a common misconception.

At any rate, enjoy your training. That's what it is ultimately all about.

-John
Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/02/08 06:58 PM

Hi John,

As you've stated you have an opinion, I have an opinion and that's really as far as it goes convincing anyone.

Truth in combat, that's easy we shouldn't be fighting, and if we do we should always be taking our our opponent from behind. Likewise never fight with your empty hands and always cheat.

I almost always have something in my hands, keys or whatever, and my toolchest comes from my various kata, but I'm not suggesting how I use them.

As far as strikes, empty hand I often choose to use Sanchin kata techniques against boxing, but then again...
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/03/08 06:24 AM

Quote:

Hi John,

As you've stated you have an opinion, I have an opinion and that's really as far as it goes convincing anyone.





Same here Victor. It may sound as if I'm trying to convince you or others, but that's why I always end my posts with the thought that one should always do what one finds most enjoyable.

Speaking only for me, I simply want the training process to be as scientific as possible. That means, researching the experience OF fighting. For me that means going into the gym and training for the purposes of sparring using varying degrees of energy. The sparring *is* the fight, or as close as it will come. Certainly we're not engaging in "street fighting" so I don't want people having the wrong idea. Nor is it about brutality. However, I believe that human beings can engage in hand to hand in ways very similar to a street fight without having to put each other into a hospital.

From this experience, one can derive the "truth in combat". And for my purposes, this has nothing to do with ethics or morality. What this implies is the truth as opposed to "fantasy in combat". In short, it's a foray into the "what is" as opposed to the "what should be", if you catch my meaning.


Quote:


Truth in combat, that's easy we shouldn't be fighting, and if we do we should always be taking our our opponent from behind. Likewise never fight with your empty hands and always cheat.





Of course we shouldn't be fighting -- on the street. In the gyms, dojos and schools however, that's another story entirely. I believe we should be fighting and to borrow a phrase from Burton Richardson; "If you want to learn how to fight, you must practice fighting against someone who is fighting back!"

I could not agree with that sentiment more. It's just common sense. If we're not "fighting" in training, if we're not studying combat in some truthful way, we might as well be practicing ballet because that will be just as effective as anything else we do.


Quote:


I almost always have something in my hands, keys or whatever, and my toolchest comes from my various kata, but I'm not suggesting how I use them.





Of course Victor. I just avoid places where I run the risk of encountering violence. Beyond that, its a crapshoot and all. If I still manage to run into it, that means I've been hit by a predator and that he'll probably be armed and, that there is a good chance he'll have others with him. But I'm not talking about self-preservation, which in my opinion is MUCH easier than martial arts. I'm talking about physical skill developed through a fun and functional process. Something athletic and inherently worthwhile to the human being and his/her psyche.

For self-defense, I just don't engage. If I had to, I'd probably use a knife or a gun or run like hell. I have no ego issues to deal with that would force me into going "hands on" with someone.


Quote:


As far as strikes, empty hand I often choose to use Sanchin kata techniques against boxing, but then again...





Very good Victor. How many rounds do you usually go and how much contact is there typically present? Do you wear gloves or is it bare knuckle? Just curious.

Thanks

-John
Posted by: CVV

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/03/08 07:26 AM

You make good arguments that in order to be able to fight, you must practise fight, but I do not agree entirely with your position Jkogas.

There is much more to combat than just fight. The reason why there is a fight is in my opinion only because :
- either you are sure you are going to win
- you are convinced that by not fighting you can lose more than by fighting, whatever the outcome.
In this plays a lot of psychologie and actual fysical contact in preparation of such an event is an important part but not all of it. In everything related to combat fear plays a very big role. Cohesion in group can give you a sense of security but still fear will creap in at the moment of thruth. In that regard stamina is in my opinion more important than technical ability. I've seen fights end because in the end the opponent could not get defeated. The ultimate warrior is the one who can overcome the fear of death. Not many get to that point. I have never been to that point. I am already afraid to get hurt. But can stamina (mental and physical) only be achieved by partner training ? I still think kata plays a role in that. But you have to train kata with that mentality. But this is not the ultimate answer, there are many methods and many ideas on how to achieve a goal.

Who has the best strike ? It depends on the goal of the strike. I think that boxing has a big advantage in combining offensive and defensive moves on short range. I think karate-techniques have a big advantage on their goal to achieve maximum energy-release on the chosen point of impact. Speed and timing will decide what is best. But I learned that making combinations in fighting is very imported from my Muay Thai training. I only did it for a year but it signifacntly changed my idea of how to fight. But I never stopped karate-training and with that kata training. I believe that the mental aspect in training kata, overcoming tireness and pain to repeat over and over the kata in order to execute with the mental focus to able to inflict damage, creates stamina. Testing this mental part can be done in fighting, and the more you allow to go to full-contact, the more stress on your mental readiness up to the point of fear.

Like you already said, in the end, the goal of training in is to have fun, responsibility and grow into decent human beings. Although our methods are not the same, I am happy that the goal is the same.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/03/08 07:49 PM

Quote:

You make good arguments that in order to be able to fight, you must practise fight, but I do not agree entirely with your position Jkogas.





That's fine. Everyone is welcome to their own opinions. And call me John.


Quote:


There is much more to combat than just fight. The reason why there is a fight is in my opinion only because :
- either you are sure you are going to win
- you are convinced that by not fighting you can lose more than by fighting, whatever the outcome.





But I don't think I've said anything to the contrary. If you mean that, there is much more to combat than just the physical aspects of fighting, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you. But we were mainly just talking about punching on this thread, not the entire panoply of human conflict. And I mentioned a few things about the training process. Otherwise I've not really gotten into the minutiae....yet.


Quote:


In this plays a lot of psychologie and actual fysical contact in preparation of such an event is an important part but not all of it. In everything related to combat fear plays a very big role. Cohesion in group can give you a sense of security but still fear will creap in at the moment of thruth. In that regard stamina is in my opinion more important than technical ability. I've seen fights end because in the end the opponent could not get defeated. The ultimate warrior is the one who can overcome the fear of death. Not many get to that point. I have never been to that point. I am already afraid to get hurt.





There's no doubt that there are a lot of dynamics involved in fighting, beyond the physical. You mention fear and stamina, both of which are very real. But these have simple solutions. You deal with fear by doing the thing you fear. You obtain stamina by doing the thing you need stamina for. Both of which are FIGHTING (sparring in all ranges, with resistance). Training and sparring with athleticism and aliveness will enable people get a much greater handle of both of those aspects you mentioned. Again, a simple solution is all that is needed. The rest comes down to having a healthy dose of common sense and an instinct for self-preservation.



Quote:


But can stamina (mental and physical) only be achieved by partner training?





I would say no. There are other ways of achieving mental and physical stamina. But when we are talking about a process that involves other people (opponents), why choose a method that wouldn't take that into consideration? Again it's just common sense. When I am fighting, I'm going to be facing one (at least) individual. I need specificity in training. In other words, the vast majority of my conditioning is going to come from the activity itself (in this case, fighting). In other words; if I want conditioning to play basketball, I need to play basketball. If I want conditioning for fighting, I need to fight, etc. Sure you can (and perhaps should) supplement your training with other conditioning drills. However I would choose wind sprints and weight training over kata again and again. But that's just me.

But if solo training is all you have, do wind sprints! Doing wind sprints will still be better for your stamina than kata. Wind sprints, strength training will develop the physical attributes better than performing kata.

That said, I'm not sitting here saying, "don't do kata!". I'm just giving my point of view. There should be nothing wrong with the critical voice. No one should feel threatened because I took shots at their sacred cows. I am just not a traditional martial artist.


Quote:


I still think kata plays a role in that...





And that's fine...there's nothing wrong with that. You do whatever provides the most satisfaction. If that happens to be kata, great. I just know that a lot of people in this day and age have limited time for training. If someone came to me and asked my opinion about the best use of their limited time, I'd tell them that supervised/coached, progressive sparring (with direction, goals and a purpose to each session) with a variety of individuals would be the best way to develop functional skill. Then if they were still interested, I'd mention the need for conditioning and a generally healthy lifestyle/positive outlook, etc.

If after all of that, a person still has extra time (and wanted to), they could do kata to their heart's content. The fact is, there is no need for kata. It's something you could choose to do just because you wanted to. Otherwise, you could drop it and never do it again, and not miss it one bit, if you were training functionally and scientifically (with progressive resistance and variable intensity).



Quote:


Who has the best strike? It depends on the goal of the strike.





Who has the best strike has less to do with the goal of the strike or the intended target, and more to do with the individual throwing it, along with the essential attributes that individual has developed (timing, distancing, accuracy, the ability to throw under the pressure of your opponent throwing back at you, etc). That would be my answer.



Quote:


I think that boxing has a big advantage in combining offensive and defensive moves on short range.





I think that people tend to think of boxing as just a ring sport and overlook the fact that at the end of the day, we're just talking about hitting. Long range/short range, doesn't matter. I use both aspects when I train my striking. Included in that are elbows, knees, low Thai style round kicks, savate kicking, etc. But the cornerstone to it all are the hands and the structure taken from a western boxing approach (hands up, orthodox lead, strong side to the rear).


Quote:


I think karate-techniques have a big advantage on their goal to achieve maximum energy-release on the chosen point of impact.





That's great. All that matters is what you can DO.



Quote:


I believe that the mental aspect in training kata, overcoming tireness and pain to repeat over and over the kata in order to execute with the mental focus to able to inflict damage, creates stamina.





It creates stamina for, doing kata. Remember what I said about specificity earlier in this post? That's what I meant.


Quote:


Like you already said, in the end, the goal of training in is to have fun, responsibility and grow into decent human beings. Although our methods are not the same, I am happy that the goal is the same.





Absolutely! I couldn't agree with you more! It doesn't matter what methods we use or the process involved. This internet forum is just a place to air our points of view. We'll never agree on everything and that doens't really matter. All that matters is the enjoyment that we derive from the processes.
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/03/08 09:39 PM

Quote:

The sparring *is* the fight, or as close as it will come.




I'm going to preface my comments with this: I believe sparring is a necessary part of fight training.

However sparring is sparring - it is not a fight. It might well be "as close as you get". But it is still MILES off real combat.

Here is the big point though:

You seem to think that because someone does kata he or she doesn't spar (with contact). Who gave you this idea? Your own reference to "controlled contact" (ie. where you hit "heavy" but not "hard" etc.) is old hat in my and many, many other karate schools. Controlled (as opposed to "light" contact or "pulled" punches) comes with the territory in karate - it is inherent in the concept of "kime".

Quote:

"If you want to learn how to fight, you must practice fighting against someone who is fighting back!"

I could not agree with that sentiment more.




Ditto for me. Why assume otherwise because I do kata? Yes, there are many schools out there that don't practise realistically. However arts like karate are practised by a much larger cross-section of society than, say, MMA and boxing. Many choose to do karate as a hobby without contact. Why pick them for your reference point? Ma and Pa plus kids who do taekwondo once per week are NEVER going into an MMA gym anyway. Most people (including tma) will agree that the Ma and Pa plus kids stuff is not "optimum fight training" by any stretch. Nor is the related (albeit slightly more serious) offshoot "tag competition".

Quote:

But one of my primary points was (and has been) that often, these things ARE practiced, and still not done! Another point that I attempt to make here is that some martial arts techniques just aren't workable (in my opinion), no matter HOW much time you put into them. In other cases, some "techniques" stray a good distance from sound fundamentals and actually make people vulnerable. Again, I think the less is more school of thought has better returns on time invested. There are high percentage techniques, and lower percentage techniques, across the martial arts landscape as I'm sure you're well aware.




Well there is some discrepancy in tma about how things should be done. But one thing that is consistent amongst the practical tma schools is that the basics training (blocks etc.) has a very important purpose in grooving essential angles of movement and wiring certain pathways in the brain. You cannot appreciate it by watching - particularly when you reference Ma and Pa plus kids or tag style competitions. This is a dilution of tma, not tma.

I actually use the essence of our basics movements in sparring (though not the exact form). I have come to realise that without those basics I couldn't use the more fluid derivatives (eg. deflections) in sparring (and I have done so successfully for many years, thank you very much).

In a diluted form basics stray from the essential movement and become worthless. This leads many to adopt what I have called "faux boxing" in the resultant technical vacuum. But there are many schools that understand and implement their basics into sparring.

Quote:

For MY money, I'm not interested in the esoteric and endless days of training with so little resistance that I barely break a sweat.




Whoa! Who are you referencing here? This is an insult to all those tma who have literally poured blood, sweat and tears into each session for decades. I am one of them.

Quote:

I don't care about what "looks good on paper" and I don't have 15 years to master a move that only works on people with a heart rate slightly above that of a corpse.




You clearly haven't trained with good, hard karateka in your life. I suggest you go down to your nearest IOGKF or Jundokan dojo (I can't speak for others - but I can give you my nearest equivalent). Go to Nakamura's dojo or, better yet, go to Morio Higaonna's dojo in Okinawa. Try your luck with some of the black belts. You won't find them "corpses". I dare say that regardless of your own ability you'll have no choice but to respect them as effective contact fighters - in standup and grappling. You'll come out bruised and battered - just as they do AFTER EACH SESSION. Do it or else it's all just a "paper" argument, isn't it?

Quote:

Core fundamentals developed through aliveness is going to be a hundred times better than splitting a persons time in half having them perform movements that have zero relationship to a living, moving human being fighting them back.




Well you can't contact with someone ALL the time John.

I do kata mostly when I'm on my own. As I said above, go to Nakamura's dojo (he's somewhere in your country!) and you'll be glad if they take a break for kata, let me tell you!

As I've said above, kata and basics in karate is about conditioning and inclucating essential angles of movement and fundamental kinaesthetics. It is NOT necessary for fighting per se. It is however useful for karate technical development; of this I'm sure (based on my own almost 30 years of continuous training).

Quote:

Its just that simple. Sure, that's my opinion. But I also think its common sense. There have been more than a few occasions where I discovered that common sense is outside the realm of art.




You're very confident about your discoveries. Yet you don't have any willingness to even consider that tma have something to offer. You dismiss them out of hand. On the other hand, I don't dismiss modern combat sports. I'm no slouch at boxing, for example.

Quote:

In all seriousness, there is just no reason for kata outside of, control of large numbers of people in a class, the intentional wasting of time, or in the testing of an individuals patience/character, etc. I have to disagree that kata is where skill is built.




Nothing you have said indicates any awareness of the skills that karate actually employs. I had similar thoughts about certain other arts (eg. tkd) when I was younger - until I actually fought some of their number. Then I had to acknowledge that although I still didn't like their approach they put it to good use (eg. high kicks can be hard to deal with) and they were still effective fighters (even if they weren't about to win an MMA championship - but then again, neither are you or I).

Quote:

But we've been over this before on the forum here. Kata (given that time is of the essence) would be the very last thing that I could ever, in good faith and with a clean conscience, advise anyone to do with their training time.




We've heard it before a thousand times John. And yet there are many of us who are still quite effective with kata. Go and train with the karateka I mentioned and see how you fare. I'm certain you'll never think that kata is for you - but I guarantee you won't be quite so dismissive and, dare I say it, insulting to some people who I know to be very practical fighters indeed.

Quote:

And with all due respect, the very fact that kata is not necessary in ANY way, for the creation of functional ability, clearly demonstrates the waste of time that it is, in my opinion.




I think you mean "with NO respect". Nothing in your posts indicates any real respect for the fighting ability of traditional martial artists, nor respect for their skill level overall, nor respect for their technical knowledge, nor respect for their sincere and long-standing effort.

By contrast, last I saw, NO serious traditional martial arists are out there lampooning the kinds of things you do and dismissing your methods as "useless", "fit for fighting corpses" etc.

(And your argument in the above quote is circular btw.)

Quote:

Very good Victor. How many rounds do you usually go and how much contact is there typically present? Do you wear gloves or is it bare knuckle? Just curious.




Seems to me, you're hoping to catch Victor out with an answer that "proves your point".

Well I don't know about Victor, but nowadays I hardly engage in contact at all (shock horror!).

Why not? My body just can't take it (from a degenerative immune disorder). However I've engaged in hard contact for almost 3 decades. I dare say you'll find the latter is true for Victor; he's had his share of hard knocks, I'm sure (no one who trained in the 70s went without brutally hard training - mostly bareknuckle).

Nowadays I choose to do kata and other exercises because I can still do them and I enjoy them. Furthermore, they are still improving my technique. I notice this when I do spar (even though I might regret the sparring the next day!).

A difference of opinion is fine. So is a preference in technique. The world would be boring if we all did the same thing.

But your scathing tone is sometimes a bit much.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/03/08 11:21 PM

dandjurdjevic wrote
Quote:

I'm going to preface my comments with this: I believe sparring is a necessary part of fight training. However sparring is sparring - it is not a fight. It might well be "as close as you get". But it is still MILES off real combat.





Couple of questions. 1) Whats your point 2) WHY is sparring "miles" off real combat? I mean, don't just say that it's miles away and be done with it. Explain why it is?

First, I said it's as close as you can get. Secondly, I think its not as far off as you believe it is.



Quote:


Here is the big point though:

You seem to think that because someone does kata he or she doesn't spar (with contact). Who gave you this idea?





Nope. I never said that and it wasn't my point. I realize that people can and will do both. However I also mentioned that for many folks, training time is limited. If so, its my opinion that engaging in kata for the purposes of functional skill development wastes that valuable time. If however, a person simply enjoys performing kata, great. If a person wishes to spend his or her limited training time doing kata and sparring, great as well. Doing that however (in my opinion) does not make optimal use of one's time. That's a point I've maintained her over the years.

Listen, if training time is limited, I would want to prioritize it, that's all. If my time was limited, kata would be WAY down on my list of things to do. Really, it wouldn't be on that list at all. But that's just what I'd recommend to someone who was asking my advice on the matter. Structure the training so that progressive sparring takes up the majority of one's time. But I never said that people who do kata don't spar. That never came out of my mouth. Hell, I've DONE kata years ago. And we sparred as well. Even then I wished we had done more sparring. I'd probably have been a better fighter earlier, if we had.



Quote:


Your own reference to "controlled contact" (ie. where you hit "heavy" but not "hard" etc.) is old hat in my and many, many other karate schools. Controlled (as opposed to "light" contact or "pulled" punches) comes with the territory in karate - it is inherent in the concept of "kime".

"If you want to learn how to fight, you must practice fighting against someone who is fighting back!"

I could not agree with that sentiment more.






Cool!



Quote:

Why assume otherwise because I do kata?





I've not assumed anything. I don't know you or how you train. Was your name mentioned somewhere? Did I reply to your post or something?? I may have and didn't realize it. If so, I wasn't directing anything at you personally. I'm only speaking generally.



Quote:

Yes, there are many schools out there that don't practise realistically. However arts like karate are practised by a much larger cross-section of society than, say, MMA and boxing. Many choose to do karate as a hobby without contact. Why pick them for your reference point?





I'm not picking anyone in particular. I'm simply providing a point of view.


Quote:


Ma and Pa plus kids who do taekwondo once per week are NEVER going into an MMA gym anyway. Most people (including tma) will agree that the Ma and Pa plus kids stuff is not "optimum fight training" by any stretch. Nor is the related (albeit slightly more serious) offshoot "tag competition".





What I'm saying has nothing to do with MMA or any style. It's conceptual really and is applicable to anyone, anywhere, in any system.




Quote:

there is some discrepancy in tma about how things should be done. But one thing that is consistent amongst the practical tma schools is that the basics training (blocks etc.) has a very important purpose in grooving essential angles of movement and wiring certain pathways in the brain. You cannot appreciate it by watching - particularly when you reference Ma and Pa plus kids or tag style competitions. This is a dilution of tma, not tma.





So, are you saying those angles of movement are only developed through kata or static (dead) drilling? My point has been that anything you can do with kata, you can do without kata, thus making kata or other ritualistic training methods obsolete and unnecessary. All I've been saying is, people don't need kata.


Quote:


I actually use the essence of our basics movements in sparring (though not the exact form).





You SHOULD be using the basics in sparring. Basics are all we have. It's my opinion that "advanced technique" essentially means, "things that aren't practical and workable".


Quote:

"For MY money, I'm not interested in the esoteric and endless days of training with so little resistance that I barely break a sweat."

Whoa! Who are you referencing here? This is an insult to all those tma who have literally poured blood, sweat and tears into each session for decades. I am one of them.





Did I mention your name? Did I say, "dandjurdjevic spends his days training with no resistance or doesn't break a sweat"? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.



Quote:


You clearly haven't trained with good, hard karateka in your life. I suggest you go down to your nearest IOGKF or Jundokan dojo (I can't speak for others - but I can give you my nearest equivalent). Go to Nakamura's dojo or, better yet, go to Morio Higaonna's dojo in Okinawa. Try your luck with some of the black belts. You won't find them "corpses". I dare say that regardless of your own ability you'll have no choice but to respect them as effective contact fighters - in standup and grappling. You'll come out bruised and battered - just as they do AFTER EACH SESSION. Do it or else it's all just a "paper" argument, isn't it?





Well, you're correct in a way; I've not found decent training at any karate place I've ever personally been to. So yeah, technically you would be correct.


Quote:


Well you can't contact with someone ALL the time John.





You must have glossed over a lot of things I've written.



Quote:


I do kata mostly when I'm on my own. As I said above, go to Nakamura's dojo (he's somewhere in your country!) and you'll be glad if they take a break for kata, let me tell you!





I'll look them up.


Quote:


As I've said above, kata and basics in karate is about conditioning and inclucating essential angles of movement and fundamental kinaesthetics. It is NOT necessary for fighting per se. It is however useful for karate technical development; of this I'm sure (based on my own almost 30 years of continuous training).





Karate's technical development? By that do you mean, as apart from fighting?



Quote:

You're very confident about your discoveries. Yet you don't have any willingness to even consider that tma have something to offer. You dismiss them out of hand. On the other hand, I don't dismiss modern combat sports. I'm no slouch at boxing, for example.





I'm just dismissing kata, ritualistic practice and dead patterns.



Quote:

Nothing you have said indicates any awareness of the skills that karate actually employs. I had similar thoughts about certain other arts (eg. tkd) when I was younger - until I actually fought some of their number. Then I had to acknowledge that although I still didn't like their approach they put it to good use (eg. high kicks can be hard to deal with) and they were still effective fighters (even if they weren't about to win an MMA championship - but then again, neither are you or I).





My opinion is my opinion brother, and THAT is inarguable. SHOW me, don't tell me. Then I'll believe.



Quote:

We've heard it before a thousand times John. And yet there are many of us who are still quite effective with kata. Go and train with the karateka I mentioned and see how you fare. I'm certain you'll never think that kata is for you - but I guarantee you won't be quite so dismissive and, dare I say it, insulting to some people who I know to be very practical fighters indeed.






My opinion is that any skill developed by these people, has been developed in SPITE of kata. Just imagine how good they'd be if they hadn't adopted it's practice?! They would have likely achieved that level in half the time. That's what I mean by kata being..a waste of time. That's my opinion.



Quote:

I think you mean "with NO respect". Nothing in your posts indicates any real respect for the fighting ability of traditional martial artists, nor respect for their skill level overall, nor respect for their technical knowledge, nor respect for their sincere and long-standing effort.





YOU can take it however you want. I meant what I said, or I'd have not said it. I don't have any belief in kata as a functional practice. Respect for individuals is another matter. Expect when people put words in my mouth, as you are doing now.


Quote:


By contrast, last I saw, NO serious traditional martial arists are out there lampooning the kinds of things you do and dismissing your methods as "useless", "fit for fighting corpses" etc.





Because it would only be a brainless assertion to do so. The kinds of "things we do" stem from empirical evidence as their foundation. It would be kind of hard to label them as useless in the light of that understanding.



Quote:

Seems to me, you're hoping to catch Victor out with an answer that "proves your point".





I think Victor is capable of speaking for himself. While you're at it, you can do the same for me.



Quote:

Well I don't know about Victor, but nowadays I hardly engage in contact at all (shock horror!).

Why not? My body just can't take it (from a degenerative immune disorder). However I've engaged in hard contact for almost 3 decades.
I dare say you'll find the latter is true for Victor; he's had his share of hard knocks, I'm sure (no one who trained in the 70s went without brutally hard training - mostly bareknuckle).





My points, as I've stated before, have nothing to do with Brutality. You're missing the point completely.



Quote:

Nowadays I choose to do kata and other exercises because I can still do them and I enjoy them. Furthermore, they are still improving my technique. I notice this when I do spar (even though I might regret the sparring the next day!).





Wonderful. How much time do you devote to practice each week?


Quote:


...your scathing tone is sometimes a bit much.





I'm not perfect and never claimed to be. Some folks don't like the delivery. Mine is just another opinion. You and everyone else is free to form their own, as I've said many times.
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 02:08 AM

I can see I've touched a raw nerve just by calling you on some of your flawed assumptions and arguments. To the extent that you've asked (opening question), I'm not making any arguments pro-kata - just calling you out on your arguments against kata and tma in general.

All I'll reiterate is that no matter which way you try to spin or revise it, you can't change the fact that your posts arrogantly and summarily dismiss karate and other tma methods as "useless". Your scathing tone towards tma is not a matter of debate - if you are honest you'll agree that it is a matter of fact. Your posts are clearly antagonistic towards tma in general - you can't hide behind the revision: "I was just criticising kata - not karate or tma". If kata is an important part of an art (as it is with karate and most tma) they are indivisible. For that matter, I doubt you have any time for, say, karate punching practise (what this post is ostensibly about - how you dragged kata into it is beyond me) or karate blocks etc. etc. In short you seem to feel that everything in tma is useless - unless and until it morphs into boxing, then it's okay.

And even if you haven't specifically directed your comments to "dandjurdjevic", your broad assumptions and dismissive put downs of what I choose to do is an affront to me and to many other tma on this forum (as any reasonable person would expect). It is particularly insulting because it assumes we have ignorantly pursued the "wrong direction" instead of your "better" direction just because we won't "listen" or (as you said to me once) "we don't get it". Your tag line "wants you to KNOW" is consistent with this theme.

Your attitude suggests that we tma "don't know" what you call "the truth of combat" and that you'll "inform us". It ignores that many of us are thinking, well-reasoned martial artists who have had plenty of "hard knocks" realism yet "miraculously" still choose to do what we do. It ignores that we might just have some point to what we do. It doesn't even feign respect or politeness for our many years of effort.

If the shoe were on the other foot and someone were rubbishing boxing continually, suggesting that boxers "don't get it" and need to know "the truth about combat" (ie. the "truth" according to that person) I'm sure your indignation would run for many more pages than your last response! Nor would it help if the person then revised his position as follows: "I was only criticising boxing sparring and heavy bag training as unrealistic - not boxers in general! Sheesh! Think of how much better they'd be if they did some kata instead!" Of course, no one is making or has ever (to my knowledge) made that argument or anything like it.

If you want to start getting stuck so overtly into someone else's art, then from now on expect some "resistance". Otherwise, don't start none and there'll be none.

Oh - and I haven't missed the point of your posts. It's you who seems to miss the point of mine. Take my reference to "brutal" as just one example: it was intended as a euphamism for hard, realistic training undertaken in the 70s karate dojos. I was specifically countering your inference that karate training is not "real" or "live". I was not referring to "brutality" in any wider sense (and I think you know that).
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 03:32 AM

Dan, I think the thing is that people who don't get kata don't get karate in general. But that's to be expected because most people have never seen good karate. When we talk about kata its not just performing kata over and over again. When I teach a student to attack I am teaching him kata. When I teach a student to defend I am teaching him kata. When I teach my students resistive kumite drills with contact I am teaching him kata. When I have my students hit the focus mitts, kick shields, and thai pads I am teaching him kata. The actual "kata performance" is done as either a warm up or cool down and lasts maybe 10 minutes. The key is kata is a storehouse for both technique and fighting principles. It is a method of not only remembering technique, but it is a note pad of fighting strategies. So when a karateka trains on his own and practices kata (after lifting weights and running) as a cool down exercise or before as a warm up the drills come back to mind, the pad work comes back to mind, and new ways of applying and attacking and defending come to mind as well. Then the student takes that note pad back to class and works the old and the new to gain a new understanding of what he or she has been thinking and visualizing. The thing about karate is that although there are seemingly many techniques there are actually only a few. Kata simply shows many variations on a few themes. The "basic" technique is pretty much applying one technique in one way. The intermediate technique is applying one technique in many different ways. And the advanced technique is applying many different techniques in the same way. But all are effective and all are aimed at developing functional karate. So yes, you can do everything you can do with kata without it. In the beginning it will be easier to do without kata, however, the more advanced you get the harder it will be and eventually you will be left wishing you had kata to aid in your study, that is, if you were doing everything that is contained in karate without kata. Karate is about making everything you do prepare you for combat.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 05:24 AM

Quote:

Dan, I think the thing is that people who don't get kata don't get karate in general. But that's to be expected because most people have never seen good karate. When we talk about kata its not just performing kata over and over again.




Good point. The training of the kata is more important than the performance of it imo.

Quote:

When I teach a student to attack I am teaching him kata. When I teach a student to defend I am teaching him kata. When I teach my students resistive kumite drills with contact I am teaching him kata.




Do you mean training kata? Or teaching him how to do the kata?

Quote:

When I have my students hit the focus mitts, kick shields, and thai pads I am teaching him kata.




Erm...ok. Everything is kata, so nothing can not be kata? I think you're making it more than it really is here.

Quote:

The actual "kata performance" is done as either a warm up or cool down and lasts maybe 10 minutes. The key is kata is a storehouse for both technique and fighting principles. It is a method of not only remembering technique, but it is a note pad of fighting strategies. So when a karateka trains on his own and practices kata (after lifting weights and running) as a cool down exercise or before as a warm up the drills come back to mind, the pad work comes back to mind, and new ways of applying and attacking and defending come to mind as well.




Good point,except for the padwork...

Training the kata will teach you how to use the techniques given most effectively for your body(mechanics and how the body works,etc.).

Quote:

Then the student takes that note pad back to class and works the old and the new to gain a new understanding of what he or she has been thinking and visualizing. The thing about karate is that although there are seemingly many techniques there are actually only a few. Kata simply shows many variations on a few themes. The "basic" technique is pretty much applying one technique in one way. The intermediate technique is applying one technique in many different ways. And the advanced technique is applying many different techniques in the same way. But all are effective and all are aimed at developing functional karate. So yes, you can do everything you can do with kata without it.




I think I agree for the most part,but we shouldn't try to deceive others as to what kata actually is. Kata is not hitting the heavy bag, pads, etc...

Kata training is seperate from that type of training. Bagwork, pads,mitts,running, lifting,etc. is NOT kata or kata training. I don't see how it could possibly be.

This is one of the reasons why people HATE TMA and kata types. Too many claims that they are all encompassing arts. (groundfighting,weighttraining,bagwork,etc..)

Quote:

In the beginning it will be easier to do without kata, however, the more advanced you get the harder it will be and eventually you will be left wishing you had kata to aid in your study, that is, if you were doing everything that is contained in karate without kata. Karate is about making everything you do prepare you for combat.




If you start without kata, then why would you revert back to it? I can't see how it would make it harder to be without if you start without it.

IMO if you are a kata system then you start with kata as the foundation and build upon it.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 07:20 AM

Quote:

I can see I've touched a raw nerve just by calling you on some of your flawed assumptions and arguments. To the extent that you've asked (opening question), I'm not making any arguments pro-kata - just calling you out on your arguments against kata and tma in general.





I asked a question because I was trying to get you to elaborate, that's all. Don't congratulate yourself. The only nerve you touch is when you try and put words in my mouth. Otherwise we're cool.


Quote:


All I'll reiterate is that no matter which way you try to spin or revise it, you can't change the fact that your posts arrogantly and summarily dismiss karate and other tma methods as "useless".





Well, that would be because that's how I view them. I see them as useless Captain Obvious. But that's just my point of view. Am I not welcome to my own opinion here or something?


Quote:


Your scathing tone towards tma is not a matter of debate - if you are honest you'll agree that it is a matter of fact.





Listen, all I'm doing is listing reasons why I believe TMA methods are a waste of valuable time, in my opinion. The fact that you don't like my opinion is the main reason you think my tone is scathing. Oh well. That isn't going to change I suppose.


Quote:

Your posts are clearly antagonistic towards tma in general - you can't hide behind the revision: "I was just criticising kata - not karate or tma". If kata is an important part of an art (as it is with karate and most tma) they are indivisible. For that matter, I doubt you have any time for, say, karate punching practise (what this post is ostensibly about - how you dragged kata into it is beyond me) or karate blocks etc. etc. In short you seem to feel that everything in tma is useless - unless and until it morphs into boxing, then it's okay.





Ok....what's your point, lol? I don't think kata has any use whatsoever. Thats my opinion.


Quote:


And even if you haven't specifically directed your comments to "dandjurdjevic", your broad assumptions and dismissive put downs of what I choose to do is an affront to me and to many other tma on this forum (as any reasonable person would expect).





Then I'd say, grow a pair and get OVER it. I'm not going to stop providing my opinion here. That's what these forums are about. I dont' know how they do things in communist Australia (joking) but in the free world, we're still allowed to speak our minds.


Quote:


It is particularly insulting because it assumes we have ignorantly pursued the "wrong direction" instead of your "better" direction just because we won't "listen" or (as you said to me once) "we don't get it". Your tag line "wants you to KNOW" is consistent with this theme.





Buddy, I'd say you're losing control. All I've done is pointed out my views here, then responded to Victor, then yourself. In the course of that, we've had this discussion. Have I responded to you with personal attacks? Called you names? Threatened you? Of course not. The only thing I've done here was to provide my opinion. WHICH, by the way, I will continue to do. I'd suggest that if you're that threatened by what I have to say, don't freakin' READ it. You have that option.



Quote:


Your attitude suggests that we tma "don't know" what you call "the truth of combat" and that you'll "inform us". It ignores that many of us are thinking, well-reasoned martial artists who have had plenty of "hard knocks" realism yet "miraculously" still choose to do what we do. It ignores that we might just have some point to what we do. It doesn't even feign respect or politeness for our many years of effort.





My attitude is based on saying my opinion. I've flatly done that and nothing more. The problem is, you are having a knee jerk reaction to it and losing control of yourself.



Quote:

If the shoe were on the other foot and someone were rubbishing boxing continually, suggesting that boxers "don't get it" and need to know "the truth about combat" (ie. the "truth" according to that person) I'm sure your indignation would run for many more pages than your last response!





You know, that used to happen here regularly. The TMA routinely dispensed with "sport" martial arts saying they were worthless. Over the coure of five years here, people are now more aware and more intelligent about that process (for the most part, that is). I was one of very few voices championing, athletic, sportive based training for self-defense. The thing about me is, I can use logic and reasoning to persuade. All you're doing now is whining because my opinion is negative to the TMA.



Quote:


Nor would it help if the person then revised his position as follows: "I was only criticising boxing sparring and heavy bag training as unrealistic - not boxers in general! Sheesh! Think of how much better they'd be if they did some kata instead!" Of course, no one is making or has ever (to my knowledge) made that argument or anything like it.





Again, no one is doing that because it would be stupid to do so. They would have not rational argument to back it up with. I'm all about the truth bro. If it's a duck, I'm going to call it a duck.



Quote:

If you want to start getting stuck so overtly into someone else's art, then from now on expect some "resistance". Otherwise, don't start none and there'll be none.





I don't know about you, but I LIVE for resistance. I'd have thought you would have guessed that by now.


Quote:

Oh - and I haven't missed the point of your posts. It's you who seems to miss the point of mine. Take my reference to "brutal" as just one example: it was intended as a euphamism for hard, realistic training undertaken in the 70s karate dojos. I was specifically countering your inference that karate training is not "real" or "live".






Right there is one of your misunderstandings. I've never stated ANYWHERE that karate wasn't or isn't trained "live". I don't know if you're just glossing over my posts, or intentionally misstating me. Its one of the two. My guess that is you've come so undone by my posts that you've lost your ability to read carefully what I'm actually saying. Calm down.


Quote:

I was not referring to "brutality" in any wider sense (and I think you know that).





I wasn't trying to imply that you were. My point was to only clarify my perspective, so folks would be clear that *I* not just speaking of brutality when I talk of live sparring, etc. I guess you misunderstood me, again. Perhaps I could have worded it differently, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

Try relaxing a little. Jeez, do you lose control of yourself like this in a REAL fight too?



-John
Posted by: harlan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 07:59 AM

Just an aside to another derailed thread (and who would have guessed it...the same egos)...

...there are karate people that don't do kata...and this thread is about striking...not kata.

Reminder to members...there is an 'Ignore' function.

Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to 'moderate-rs'.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 10:14 AM

Brian, kata applies to pad work because once you learn how to strike a pad properly then your "air" technique changes. You develop the ability to improve you striking power through kata practice because your technique works for real.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 02:12 PM

Victor stated - As far as strikes, empty hand I often choose to use Sanchin kata techniques against boxing, but then again...

==========================================================

I don't punch with a puncher or swim with a shark.

Just another opinion I try not to trade blows with a good boxer, I'd rather do something he doesn't expect like heel stomp his thigh or knee or instep then sweep/throw him and of course stomp him. As for people that think they can box I'll throw with them barefisted. But even then I'm looking to have his fist run into my elbow or slaps his ears or knee his balls.

Unless its dirty boxing a boxers arsenal is not as complete as Karates is all I'm saying. I like boxing and have adopted its hook punch and jab all else seems the same as far as fist strikes except for the extended knuckle punches that Te train.
When some guys were quicker boxers I use to strike with my leapord paw while gloved these guys would start avoding or would quit they said they could feel my knuckles even while gloved. Karate strike also have there advantages, even while boxing.

I know thats cheating but they were winning and I couldn't help it, Ok I'm a$$ hole, I just needed to get point (of my knuckles) across.

This is becoming an interesting thread continue.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 03:21 PM

Quote:

If the shoe were on the other foot and someone were rubbishing boxing continually, suggesting that boxers "don't get it" and need to know "the truth about combat" (ie. the "truth" according to that person) I'm sure your indignation would run for many more pages than your last response !




Or he would just show one of several videos of evidence to basically prove his claim.

As someone who has participated in TMA, I have to say that John is making a strong argument here. And I think you, Dan, are putting words in his mouth, trying to call him on what you feel the IMPLICATIONS of his posts 'mean'.

He is stating a rather logical fact:

If a complete, and fuctioning fighter can be developed without the use of kata, then kata can be seen as irrelevent to the creation of a good fighter.

It's rather simple. If you like kata (as I do sometimes, though not solo kata), then more power to you. We all learn in diffirent ways. However, I do think that kata study can easily become, as John put it, a "time waster". The fact is, many other facets of training should take precedence over kata training.
Why is this so? Again, it's fairly logical and relates to the first point:

There is absolutely no verifiable evidence that a strong fighter has been developed through kata study alone. They all need sparring and resistence in order to make what they do functional. Therefore, it stands to reason, that kata should take a back seat to other aspects of training. A good fighter can be made WITHOUT kata, but with ONLY kata, a person never learns to fight.

I don't really see how this can be argued with: kata is the most disposible aspect of training because it is completly reliant on the other facets to have meaning. However, the other facets of training (sparring, drills done with resistence, etc.) do not need kata to develop real world function.

Disagree? Show me evidence to the contrary. I, myself, have looked for years and never found it.
Posted by: butterfly

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 03:26 PM

Ames.... Exactly!
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 04:14 PM

Quote:

I don't really see how this can be argued with: kata is the most disposible aspect of training because it is completly reliant on the other facets to have meaning. However, the other facets of training (sparring, drills done with resistence, etc.) do not need kata to develop real world function.




Not so fast what you are saying is a bit off. Kata at its core is basic technique stringed together with intermediate techniques and postures. Much like the basic punches, defense, and footwork of boxing. However, a jab is nothing if it is not trained against resistance, right? What about a combination? If I teach you a combination and you never use it in sparring against resistance, on focus mitts, a heavy bag, or anything will it be any good? Probably not. Those techniques, just like kata, are nothing without their accompanying training methods. What is sparring without the basic techniques of boxing, or karate? Its nothing. Anything you can do with a boxing combination I can do with a sequence of techniques (not necessarily in order) from kata. Does that mean that the basic techniques and fighting principles of boxing are not necessary to become a complete fighter? No.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 05:15 PM

Well, I think you've answered your own question here.

The fact is that you are "taking techniques from the kata" and then using them against attacks. The thing is, you're extracting the techniques. So, you're not really arguing here for the benifit of 'kata', but rather making the asertion that kata CONTAINS workable techniques. I wouldn't argue with that. The question is, is kata really even neccesary to train these techniques? No.

You're attempting to turn this into a discussion of the content of the kata, whereas I'm discussiing them as a training methodology. Yes, you can't have boxing without a jab. But you can also train a jab without kata.

The kata may (and often do) contain usuable techniques, but the key matter at issue here (and the one you're attempting to sidestep), is: Is kata the best way to train these techniques?

Further, I've shown that one can FULLY train these techniques WITHOUT kata. So, why not cut out the middle man?

Respectfully,
Chris
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 05:46 PM

Quote:

Or he would just show one of several videos of evidence to basically prove his claim.





And you really don't have to look far to find them either. All you'd need to do is watch boxing on tv. Watch cage fighting. The western boxing delivery system is somewhere on the TV virtually every night of the week now. Boxing's delivery system "works" because it has to work, bottom line.


Quote:

He is stating a rather logical fact:

If a complete, and fuctioning fighter can be developed without the use of kata, then kata can be seen as irrelevent to the creation of a good fighter.





Thanks Ames. That's really all I've been trying to say. And I believe that's been a consistent point I've brought up here over the years.


Quote:


It's rather simple. If you like kata (as I do sometimes, though not solo kata), then more power to you. We all learn in diffirent ways.





Exactly. I also stated that in a myriad of different ways.



Quote:


However, I do think that kata study can easily become, as John put it, a "time waster". The fact is, many other facets of training should take precedence over kata training. Why is this so? Again, it's fairly logical and relates to the first point:

There is absolutely no verifiable evidence that a strong fighter has been developed through kata study alone. They all need sparring and resistence in order to make what they do functional. Therefore, it stands to reason, that kata should take a back seat to other aspects of training. A good fighter can be made WITHOUT kata, but with ONLY kata, a person never learns to fight.





And that is nothing but solid logic. That's been my whole point.


Quote:


I don't really see how this can be argued with: kata is the most disposible aspect of training because it is completly reliant on the other facets to have meaning. However, the other facets of training (sparring, drills done with resistence, etc.) do not need kata to develop real world function.

Disagree? Show me evidence to the contrary. I, myself, have looked for years and never found it.





You're spot on Ames.

And although this thread has derailed, that's no reason to stop the debate. Let it naturally progress and the forum will take on greater life. If someone wants to continue with a discussion about strikes, they can simply change the subject.


-John
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 07:50 PM

Quote:


Try relaxing a little. Jeez, do you lose control of yourself like this in a REAL fight too?




Lol! I'm calm thanks. Making a point strongly and losing control are too different things. I'm calling it as I see it. I'm "stating fact" as Ames would say.

To paraphrase you, I'm all about the truth bro. If it's insulting, I'm going to call it it insulting. Using emotive words like "corpse", "worthless", "dead" etc. in relation to methods used by some VERY formidable fighters falls clearly in that category.

If you really want to call a "duck" a "duck" then you could say: "kata is of no use to me" or "kata does not appear necessary to be an effective fighter" (which is, if you note, something which practically EVERYBODY seems to agree). Instead you go one step further and scoff, vent and use dismissive language. When it comes to kata, "not necessary" does not equal "useless" in logic. Yet this is the kind of language you use.

I could say "boxing is just sport and the technique is lousy - all that you have is sparring and conditioning, no technique" or some such thing. Saying "that's my opinion - I'm just calling a duck a duck, I'm all about truth" etc. doesn't make it appropriate for this forum or respectful towards good fighters. Do I really need to say that the reverse also applies?

And given that you are not a kata/tma practitioner, why aren't you open to hearing from a kata practitioner about how and why he or she uses kata (even if it isn't your cup of tea)? Why the constant antagonism, may I ask? Why do you and others blow a fuse every time you talk about kata?

In terms of "losing it" I think it is the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm just giving you a taste of the only resistance you've had on this subject for a while and seeing the result!

You've been getting away with it for so long that it's a big surprise when someone calls you on it.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 08:34 PM

I have maintained time and time again that while kata is not necessary, it can be put to good use and many do.

Yes, some kata is ritualistic, dead practise. On the other hand I see some silly corporate types doing "white collar boxing" of a kind that makes you laugh.

I've tried a few times to explain traditional technique and methods like kata; it might seem long-winded, but for those of us who have persevered it has produced some sizeable benefits, most of them long-term. However I have found that even as I begin to explain a very different prespective it is derailed with "kata isn't necessary" type arguments (which clearly cover old ground).

If anyone is interested I can explain my (pragmatic) experience with kata and traditional techniques. I'd love to do this on another thread. There is a lot to be said and many perspectives (such as Marcel's interesting viewpoint). You may not like to adopt them but that is another story. To have them rubbished and dismissed out of hand is counterproductive.

Pleasantly

Dan

P.S. And if you think I've "lost it" you really haven't seen anything! Remember that I'm a former prosecutor with years of experience arguing. A little debate like this isn't going to rile me up. My formal tone might come across stridently on the net, but that's just the way I speak. Remember, I call it like I see it.

You want to serve it up to kata practitoners, I'm gonna serve it up to you! It doesn't mean I'm getting angry. I can see your frustration with kata (and to some extent I can see why) but I don't think you have the full picture. In the end, I think this is a discussion that we "had to have" so that we could open up the debate beyond "kata sux". I have some (I think) useful things to say about kata and traditional technique. I don't want it bogged down by this tired argument. Better get it out of the way now.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/04/08 11:35 PM

Again I feel you're attempting to side-step the issue at hand and turn this into a debate regarding John's rhetoric, rather than a debate about the content of his message. Rather than flatout state the value of kata, you've instead chosen to tell us, again, how John's post has subjectively affected you.

Yet, this didn't seem to be a problem when you thought you had 'one-uped' me--you were perfectly willing to engage in a debate then. Now though, you have decided that the thread is 'derailed'. I think you are being intellectually dishonest here, Dan.

John never attacked Karate, or TMA, directly, yet you ARE attacking him directly. You are twisting his words and turning this into an argument rooted in your subjective interpretation of what he may or may not have said. Such an argument can go adnauseum, and thus a stalemate will develop.

This is a standard rhetorical technique for side-stepping the actual content of the problem at hand. You were probably a very good attorney. However, again, because you haven't really answered it in the first place:

Quote:

I don't really see how this can be argued with: kata is the most disposible aspect of training because it is completly reliant on the other facets to have meaning. However, the other facets of training (sparring, drills done with resistence, etc.) do not need kata to develop real world function.

Disagree? Show me evidence to the contrary




Or, if you prefer it stated otherwise, how about:

Quote:

The kata may (and often do) contain usuable techniques, but the key matter at issue here (and the one you're attempting to sidestep), is: Is kata the best way to train these techniques?

Further, I've shown that one can FULLY train these techniques WITHOUT kata. So, why not cut out the middle man?





Respectfully,

Chris
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 01:50 AM

I haven't side-stepped anything Chris.

Your posts state that kata is unnecessary. You attack me as a person who hasn't offered proof to counteract this.

However you have obviously not read my posts. I have consistently maintained that kata is NOT necessary for fighting. However I have also said that I and others find it useful. Why? I have often advanced what I consider to be uses of kata. Most recently I did so on the "kata in the street" thread. If you trawl this forum you'll see lengthy treatises on this subject from me.

Apposite to this thread about punching I invite you to read my article http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/11/kime-soul-of-karate-punch.html

It relates to karate punches, but applies generally to kata since "kime" or focus is one of the principle things grooved in kata (as with all "air" basics in traditional arts).

Quote:

John never attacked Karate, or TMA, directly, yet you ARE attacking him directly.




He hasn't attacked them in name - but even Blind Freddy can see who he is attacking (ie. those who practise kata - ahem, that would be me and others). And I'm not attacking him. I'm stating fact - remember?
Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 02:59 AM

whilst this is an interesting debate we need to keep this in mind -

Profanity, obscene language, insults, criticism of other arts, styles or individuals, or the impersonation of other individuals should be avoided in any Forum Submission. In addition, you may not upload to FightingArts.com, or distribute or otherwise publish through FightingArts.com, any Content or Submissions that are libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, threatening, abusive, illegal or otherwise objectionable, or that constitute or would encourage a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or otherwise give rise to liability or violate any law.

Lets keep things civil and relevant in this forum please guys and gals.

Olease try to keep on subject'ish, and keep things respectful, otherwise I have to work for my money.............
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 03:06 AM

I've always questioned the 'criticism of other arts' rule. Kind of puts an end to all debates here.

You can't criticize my art!!

Like when someone posts a video they just want praise and admiration,lol.
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 04:21 AM

I don't mind criticism of my art - but when you can't even start talking about kata without someone starting the "dead, worthless, pointless" etc. stuff, it can be a drag. And it can get to the point where it is counterproductive to debate - not encouraging of it. I'd like to talk about some aspects of kata without being drowned out with the same tired observations made by people (some of whom know very little or nothing about kata).

If a person wants to discuss the pros and cons of kata or (as per this thread) the karate punch let him/her make his/her point - without the usual scoffing and snideness about how "it's worthless, I've been saying it for 5 years" yada, yada.

My article above covers ground apposite to this discussion. I'm happy to discuss the issues raised in it and elsewhere about the specifics of karate punching but we'll never get there if "it's all $hit" keeps being raised as the opening gambit.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 05:12 AM

I agree with that. If a flaw was found in a technique you or I think to be legitimate then it can be debated. But, to use aggressive terms like that isn't called for imo.

It's the principles behind the training of kata that people miss. They miss it because they have never trained kata or they have never trained kata in that manner.

I'm not saying anyone "needs" kata for viable self defense either. I'm just saying it is another path that people can find useful. I've never seen it as a waste of time. All things in moderation.
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 05:51 AM

Amen.

Now I'd like to move the debate back to the karate punch vs. boxing punch. Both have benefits but have diametrically opposed approaches.

The key difference is, of course, focus; principally a bareknuckle concept. Again, I invite you to consider my article specifically on focus which covers my view on this subject anyway:

http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/11/kime-soul-of-karate-punch.html

Probably nothing new for karateka, but it might give some insight to those who know nothing about karate punches and wonder why the heck anyone would do them.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 07:11 AM

Guys, newsflash for you: I use the term "dead" not in a derogatory way here. I use it because it's the opposite of the term "alive".

Alive for me has a definition. It means, "having the qualities of timing, motion and energy in relation to a living opponent". "Dead" would be the opposite. Thus they are technical terms.

Given that I've been on this forum using the same terms for nearly 6 YEARS now, you'd think some of you would know that.

For the record; I will CONTINUE using those terms not because I'm attempting to put something down, but to describe inherent qualities of a training method.

Perhaps that has brought about a clearer understanding. Aside from that, being politically correct all the time is just as much of a drag. There's only so many ways to be nice when sharing an opinion about something that you don't find to be worthwhile.


-John
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 07:54 AM

Well John, I'll accept your use of "dead" is the opposite of "alive". Nicely put.

But I don't think it's any newsflash that your other terms for kata leave nothing to the imagination when it comes to your (perhaps contextually understandable) contempt for this training method.

I'm not asking you to like kata or see it as necessarily offering you something. All I'm asking you to do is to open enough to consider that some of us can and do put kata to a useful combative purpose (even if it isn't necessary for fighting per se or won't ever appeal to you). You might even show a bit of interest in why we kata people bother with it. Who knows, you might learn something - even if it's just about how/why other people do things differently.

Suffice it to say that I am actually in agreement with many of your posts as I've told you before. And I don't want the debate curtailed. I just want it to take a positive direction (as you frequently ask yourself). The problem is that you use language (I'm sure unwittingingly) that is fairly harsh towards us "kata types". No skin of my nose. I get hate mail all the time for my blog (the internet is full of weirdos who do things like that). I've had years of defendants shouting abuse and spitting at me for doing my job. I'm thicker-skinned than my posts seem to suggest. If I were really angry I wouldn't bother posting anything. And if I have been rude or overly strident I'm going to admit it - as I have done many times (let the record show).

But my central point is that people aren't going to debate things that I think would be useful to explore if kata/tma debate ends with "it's useless - forget it". I get the feeling my own (subtle) distinctions are frequently drowned out and missed in this context.

Remember that people aren't necessarily arguing the points about kata that you and many others who are from a Western combat sports background seem assume. A bit of textual/visible "respect" - only in not appearing to assume that we "don't get it" would be not only appreciated, but it might encourage some quieter forum members to air their views. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them weren't $hit scared of your pragmatic arguments. This is especially so when the subtlties of kata people's arguments are lost in the "prove it" invitations (which often wrongly assume they are arguing the "necessity" or "superiority" of kata over partner resistance training). Maybe people did argue such things in the past (there's no monopoly on logic with any type of martial artist). This would account for your frustration. But I'm not arguing anything like that here, nor has anyone lately as far as I can tell - although I stand to be corrected.

So sometimes you have to stamp your foot for effect.

Now I'd like to move on and invite you to consider my points made about focus in karate punches. If you want a summary I'll try to accomodate your request, but it's not a long article by any stretch and is nicely illustrated with pictures and videos.

That should give you some idea of why karateka and other tma punch the way they do (ie. why they have a different punching "delivery system") - even if you and others don't like it particularly.

Posted by: harlan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 08:23 AM

I like your articles Dan. Have you considered contacting this site's owner and getting paid to write one for the front page?
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 09:52 AM

Kata Kata Kata...so often this is discussed and so often it lands exactly in the same place.

Kata has a lot to offer a fighter, it starts with basic movements and progresses as you learn new Kata, designed to teach quite specific applicable fighting concepts. You have to understand what any given Kata is trying to teach you, and admittedly a good portion of TMA schools have lost this information, making their Kata fairly useless, and that is too bad.

But Kata, trained correctly is quite valuable. Can it's lessons be trained in other ways? Not really in my opinion. The struckture of movement plays a large role in the development of how a fighter moves, how they transition from different positions and put themselves in the best postion to continue the fight, and/or defend.

Of course these lessons should be applied in an alive setting, but you have to walk before you run, and moving too quickly into alive training actually stunts a fighters overall growth and often leads to a sloppy fighter with less then great efficiency and refinement of technique.

Kata is also a catalog. For those of us who are students of the arts, and wish to learn beyond the basics of Kicks and punches, Kata can be a treasure chest of information and contain many pearls of wisdom, if you have the inclination to look, and have an instructor that can show you the true nature of a given Kata.

Do you have to study Kata to become a great fighter? Of course not. But to say it's a worthless tool is just silly.
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 10:00 AM

Thanks Harlan

I sent Chris a article about embu (2 person drills) a while back and heard no more. Mabey it was too long and esoteric. This might be the kind their looking forward to. Who knows...
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 10:07 AM

But to the question, I don't like the idea of strikes being better. I think boxing uses a very simple delivery system that is extremely efficient and effective.
Karate uses both simple and complex delivery systems that offer far more options but also take considerably longer to make work as efficiently as boxing strikes.
So I guess it depends on how much time you want to invest.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 11:32 AM

How did Kata again become the focal point of which system offer the most potent strikes and range? Kata is foundation building and we all know that Kata doesn't contain all the strikes used in Karate. So I find that this is a foundation topic and doesn't address the idea of potentcy or best for the purpose of self defense.

I feel (and I maybe wrong) there are Kata strikes that build foundation and proper way of doing things. And there are combat strikes that adjust to the moment and are used for effect not proper posture but results. In combat you may have to weave and strike you may have to duck and kick or dive in for a tackle/shoulder butt proper poster is not always possible but proper postion and timing helps make the move work. In saying this I'll trade a eye gouge/flick for a punch to the forehead anyday, because whats coming next is Katie bar the door!!

Kata is a building process.Potency is the results of contact. I believe in Kata but I don't strike with my head always straight in the same spot or in great posture in Combat. Quite frankly I don't care how it looks only that Like a mirror I respond.

Kimo2007 there is such a thing as a better strike. For exampple in my above statement. I'll take a finger strike to eye over a jab to the forehead anyday. Which would be the closer for you? There is a better just like there times to do a technique over another. I agree with your analogy of Kata.

Another example boxing is better in Gloves imho. Karate is better at Kicking and trapping range which leads to elbows, sweeps and STOMPS!! Peanut butter and Jelly baby they go together and are better then a Tomato sandwich.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 11:49 AM

Quote:

How did Kata again become the focal point of which system offer the most potent strikes and range?




It's all Johns fault.

Quote:

Kimo2007 there is such a thing as a better strike.




Maybe if you mean for a given situation, but as the situation changes so would the best available strike. My point is simply that a jab is not better or worse then another strike it's simply different and has a specific application it is good for.

In terms of posture and stance in combat not always being perfect like in Kata, I think that goes without saying, a live and fluid environment will cause you to alter everything. But that does not preclude working within yourself and staying in control of how you move, keep balance snd set up stikes and defense. The stronger your fundamentals, the more deliberate and efficient your fighting will be.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 01:11 PM

There is no argument on foundation building making stronger strikes, as far as I'm concern. But really I don't worry about that until I'm back in the dojo. Saying you have to dance with girl you brought to the dance. The main things is to hit where you want to hit as many times as it takes.


On the question of Better strikes.

At punching range what is boxing longest strike the steping rear hand (almost Oi-tsuki like) or the jumping hook punch?

Niether is as long as a crossover side kick or kick to the leg/leg check. Is the close fist jab longer then a finger jab aginst similar reach fighters? Close fist does have more variable targets of contact.

So I'm not talking just close fist strike but total striking arsenal. Which is best?

What range/distance does each lack striking abilty at? I know that each can move into range but which system offer the abilty to hit at almost any range. Which has the longer or closest ranges which would include knees and elbows. You'd have agree there is a distance where close pucnhes are not as effective.

I agree that there is a time and place that makes one technique better then another but does both systems pratice using all ranges. Surly you could add bits and pieces to your boxing but if you don't pratice it you probably won't count on it when its needed. And back to foundation it won't be as pwoerful as if you routinely trained to set it up.

I know that Boxers will hit once they have downed an opponent but will they cover their jewels as they bend over to strike. What I'm saying is we fight the way we train, the further we get from adhock methods that are spar of the moment the more potent the move.

Boxers advantage is reflextive response and that they have fewer weapons to sharpen, but this is also their weakness, imho.

I wouldn't say that a boxer is better at Kicking range to make a mute but valid point.
Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/05/08 02:19 PM

Hi Guys,

its a great post so go for it, I only post the rules as a reminder to keep it in line - to a point, im also not particualry 'pc' but we need to remember we are in the karate section and we are running a public forum,

as a moderator I make judgements on when things need a little nudge back to topic etc etc, nothing more.
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/06/08 10:22 PM

Here is the second part to my article about punching. The first related to "kime" or focus in karate punches. This one deals specifically with a physics analysis of karate punches vs. boxing punches.

As you'll see I've not decided that "karate punches are better". Or that boxing punches are "better". I've highlighted the nature and differences in what John calls "the delivery systems".

http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/11/karate-punches-vs-boxing-punches.html

If anyone who doesn't and hasn't done an art like karate is curious to understand what karate punching is all about, this should give you an idea (at least I hope it will).

(It also follows on from my other article "Hitting harder: physics made easy".)
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/07/08 12:01 PM

karate or boxing strikes? well, the average student of boxing knows how to hit something solid without their structure buckleing...the average karateka student knows how to hit air without their ego buckleing.

so, there's one measure to think about anyway.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/07/08 12:26 PM

Lol, Ed. That was funny.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/07/08 12:34 PM

Dan nice article indept and makes some good points. And goes back to the root of this debate foundation building of the application. If we talk about just punches gloved and taped boxing has the best & strongest punches. Bare fisted Karate has the best rsults when you include the safest strike of the delievery the punch. By the way love me some Oyama he was one of the 1st Mavericks!

There is no doubt in my mind that punching in gloves boxing method is simple and superior on the bag and in the ring. But bare fisted from my personal experience Karate strikes are safer and better, because they don't try to always punuch through the target all the times the dept of the strike is more controlled and precise.

As in the long time debate in boxing, Is the padded gloves more to protect the strikers hands or the opponent? The tapped hand is definitely for the striker safety it adds support and protection for the striker.

Karate the way (dare I say) it's really suppose to be used doesn't use or require this artifical supprot or protection.

Ed personally if Karate is studied (dare I say again) correctly it should be as fluids as boxing from strikes to kicks to sweep stomps.

A boxer once stated after cross training in Karate that. That Karate was 90% hype and 10% effective. Something like that, of course I disagree.

Here I go with another story, sharing space at a boxing gym we come in the boxers are looking over their shoulders and smiling hitting the heavy bag more vigoriously. After watching me spar one of my Black belts (that uses boxing movement) and he is grabbed swept and barely dodging heel stomped he caught by a solid punch to the head. The boxers stare at their bags an stop hitting it as vigorously the defiant smiles are gones, they are wide eyed. They want no parts of that except for the few that want to learn.

Boxing is a good base to build from but Karate is far from just air punching, as you well Know. Might just be me, but I'd rather build from wider view then a narrow one.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/07/08 02:38 PM

Sorry Neko, this post just does not sit well with me.
You state that the karate punch exhibits

Quote:

dept[h] of the strike is more controlled and precise




Please show evidence to back up this claim. I don't buy it one bit.

Quote:

After watching me spar one of my Black belts (that uses boxing movement) and he is grabbed swept and barely dodging heel stomped he caught by a solid punch to the head.




But this isn't a boxer. This is a karate (I assume) black belt, who only "uses boxing movement".

If was to fight a boxer in a horse stance, and he beat me severely (as he certainly would), should I use this as evidence of the superiority of boxing? No.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/07/08 02:51 PM

Re: OP

Boxing has less total strikes than Karate. However, boxing's fewer strikes are often trained to a much higher level of real-world effectiveness, by the very nature of it's training (ie, bag-work and sparring).

Karate people that train with an equivalent level of resistance should have an advantage, due to greater variety in striking options and targets.

Ultimately, it's not a case of this or that is better, but rather how it's trained. In the real world, boxers generally have the advantage.
Posted by: Ames

Dan's article - 11/07/08 04:20 PM

Dan, I have to say that, although i think this article was well written, there are some potential issues here. This is going to be a long post, but I feel that you have obviously worked hard on the article, and I would be doing a disservice not to quote from it.

You state that:

Quote:

However as any senior karateka will tell you, the karate hip chamber is just a basic or “ideal” posture that allows a punch to be “fully loaded” for practise. It is not how the technique will necessarily look in combat.




If the chambered position is not how the technique will look in combat, then why is it an "ideal"? Would not the best training methodology be based on learning how strike from a more pragmatic and common hand position?

You say:
Quote:

Jabs are principally straight line techniques; their only real distinction from a basic karate punch is the point of origin (in karate this is at the hip, while in boxing this is from a guard position).




Then you say:
Quote:

What people seem to regard as the main distinction between the boxing jab and the kizami zuki is that the former is usually performed with a retraction or snap-back, where the latter is not [...] For a start, the retraction of your arm is largely irrelevant to the nature and effect of a punch . A snap-back in no way boosts outward speed.




Actually, this shows that the boxing jab and the "standard karate punch" are essientially very, very diffirent. You are trying to posit that each are on the same level because the retraction does not develop speed. However, the boxer does not retract his jab quickly for speed. He does so because the jab is usually a set up for something else. This highlights a MAJOR strategic diffrence between this punches, as well as a diffirent way of throwing them. In fact, these punches seem to have nothing in common, at least from the way you have described them here.

You essientially imply this key distiction with the next section (The Follow Through):
Quote:

With the exception of jabs, boxers don’t attempt to stop their punches at a predetermined point. Instead they adopt a “follow-through” to their punches.




Already you are showing a major strategic difference between boxing and karate. The follow-through makes the rapid snap-back needed for the SPEED of the techniques that will follow. So your ascertion that the snap back does not help speed, seems to be only taking into account the single punch, not the combination that the jab is setting up.

Quote:

As you can tell from the description and the picture above, the punch ideally follows a straight line in order to prevent interception or evasion; after all, the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line .




I hear this equation often regarding that effiency of the straigh punch. However, what it leaves out is the face that your opponent, in a resistent setting, is a moving one. That being the case, it is far more efficient to curve the punch in order to hit your opponent, rather than retract the hand and throw again. If the two points were stationary, then, yes, this type of equation may work. But it doesn't work when the two points are moving indeterminently. The reason why
Quote:

boxers don’t attempt to stop their own punches at a predetermined point


is because in actual moving combat, resistent fighting, ascertaining an exact "predetermined point" is extremely difficult.

Again, this goes to highlight the major differences in boxing and karate striking. Karate seems to assume an somewhat stationary attacker (don't beleive me? look at the 'ideal' scenrios in bunkai applications, including the video you posted on your blog). Boxing is developed to deal with a quick opponent, who needs to be hit hard in non-ideal positions( again for reference, look at the boxing vids you posted on your site).

This is fundemental difference in underlying strategy, and leads many to question the ability of karate to deal with a fully resisting attacker/opponent.

You also state:
Quote:

It is my view that “kime” or focus theoretically produces a more efficient punch.




This is true under the conditions you are conducting your 'experiment'. However, theory and practice are two diffirent things. Once we input the variable of a moving, resisting opponent, the idea of leaving a punch out there (thus making it take longer to throw the next punch), leads one to question the ascertion that this punch is more 'efficient'. In order for a punch to be efficent, it must hit the target. The most efficient punch is the one that hits the target the most times, not only the one that requires "less work". I could easily throw punches that, by your criteria (of less physical effort), are more "efficient" than either the karate or boxing punch. But if they do no damage, or don't hit the opponent, or put me in a better position to strike a second time, what good is it towards its actual purpose (fighting)? Again, the most efficient punch is the one that takes the least effort to hit the target.

A theme throughout your article is that when you talk about the karate punch, you seem to be making the assumption that one punch will end the altercation/fight. This is very faulty logic. As I showed above in this article you've demonstrated how the karate punch is thrown under the assumption of a one punch knockout/ end to altercation occuring. Therefore it is highly, as you put it, "focused". The boxer does not make this assumption, and his techniques bear witness to this: a fight may take many punches to end, and he shoudl be prepared and able to throw them with maximal balance between accuracy/power/speed/effort exerted.

The "focus", which you seem to judge the merit of karate on, is also present in boxing: it is only that it is balanced by the other factors I have written above. The focus is, indeed, maximal, if the ends (a resolution to the engagement) are acheieved.

Quote:

As I noted above, in order to make boxing blows more powerful you have to have some follow-through, meaning some element of curve. This increases momentum significantly. But it also increases the overall “flight time” of your blow, hence making it easier to intercept or evade.




This is wrong. You are, here, only talking about the right cross and the hooking punches. The jab can be thrown very quickly. In fact, I don't think anyone in their right minds believes that they can intercept a good boxers jab. Going back to my intial point, the jab is used as a setup for these other punches.

Quote:

It also leaves a larger opening.




See comment above. Also, I'm reminded of when you said:

Quote:

main distinction between the boxing jab and the kizami zuki is that the former is usually performed with a retraction or snap-back, where the latter is not .




If this is being used as your set-up doesn't it, by your own logic, leave one more open? I then have to say that it's my opinion that the karate style of striking leaves one "more open", because of an over reliance on the first strike landing.

Quote:

Hitting someone with a less than optimally powerful blow in boxing is problematic; you’ve wasted an opportunity to land a knockout and your gloved fists will ensure that its effect is reduced even more.





This just shows a shallow understanding of boxing strategy. Boxers do not only throw 'power bombs' with every strike!

As for the paragraph the begins with:

Quote:

On the flip side, hitting someone with a less than optimally powerful blow in self-defence might be all that is needed.




Do you honestly not think that boxers have the ability to alter the depth of their strikes to suit the situation? You seem to making an assumption here that a boxer will fight on the street the same way he does in the ring.

Quote:

However by the same token, just because civilian defence systems like karate are not suitable for use in a combat sports ring does not mean they are not fit for their purpose.





That's well and good. I don't think anyone is stating catagorically that karate won't work on the street. But here's the thing, based on your own article, you admit that it

Quote:

one training in boxing punches and one training in karate punches, then after one or 2 years the boxer would probably generate both more visible force and more applied force




If this is so, doesn't boxing stand as the better path to self defence skills? A boxer only improves after those two years--it's not like he stagnates.

I agree that karate can work, given enough time, on the street. However, boxing works on the street and in the ring. Boxing, on average, beats karate in a one on one match. Also, boxing is as as adaptable to a street situation as any other martial art.

All in all, Dan, although I think this article was a nice try, I think it suffers from numerous problems. It certainly does not make clear on any level why karate would be the better art to study.

I think you are miss John's point about 'delivery system' as well. The best delivery system is the one that holds up best under all conditions. Saying that "just because civilian defence systems like karate are not suitable for use in a combat sports ring does not mean they are not fit for their purpose," is a red herring. "Combat sports" are ways of training a delivry system in as close to a realistic way as one can get.

If what you are doing can not 'hang' with those delivry systems, then yours simply cannot be proven to be as effective.

Outside of proof in a realistic, highly resistent atomesphere, all else is mere theory.

With respect,
Chris

All quotes are from Dan's article here: http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/11/karate-punches-vs-boxing-punches.html
Posted by: student_of_life

Re: Dan's article - 11/07/08 04:46 PM

not to put words in dan's mouth, but i think i can answer one of your questions.

you said:
"Already you are showing a major strategic difference between boxing and karate. The follow-through makes the rapid snap-back needed for the SPEED of the techniques that will follow. So your ascertion that the snap back does not help speed, seems to be only taking into account the single punch, not the combination that the jab is setting up."

quick reteactions will let you throw punches in faster combinations, and if you want to spend time toe to toe unloading on your target, then thats the way for you hands down. if your using your karate studies for self defence then punching can take on a different role in the fight. the punch can strike on "a funny angle" to off ballance, then it grabs and pushes or pulls into a throw, sweep or trip. so instead of a 3 punch combination, you can use a punch, shove, trip.


so, its about different strategy. you can't use it in a boxing ring because of the rules, but outside no one has a pentent on it. tersm like effecient and effective are situational, like every freaking thing....
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Dan's article - 11/08/08 12:19 AM

Quote:

Dan, I have to say that, although i think this article was well written, there are some potential issues here. This is going to be a long post, but I feel that you have obviously worked hard on the article, and I would be doing a disservice not to quote from it.




Thanks for reading and for your time.

Quote:

If the chambered position is not how the technique will look in combat, then why is it an "ideal"? Would not the best training methodology be based on learning how strike from a more pragmatic and common hand position?




"Ideal" is a reference to loading for power. In other words if you had a sitting duck opponent and you wanted maximum load on your karate reverse punch, you would load it to the hip. You never get the chance to effect an "ideal load" in combat. In other words, I'm using the term "ideal" differently from you. I'm talking about a hypothetical "ideal" - not "ideal for combat".

Quote:

Actually, this shows that the boxing jab and the "standard karate punch" are essientially very, very diffirent. You are trying to posit that each are on the same level because the retraction does not develop speed. However, the boxer does not retract his jab quickly for speed. He does so because the jab is usually a set up for something else. This highlights a MAJOR strategic diffrence between this punches, as well as a diffirent way of throwing them. In fact, these punches seem to have nothing in common, at least from the way you have described them here.




Karate does exactly the same - retracts for a set up. I mention this in my article when I say that "in combinations the whole issue is irrelevant". In other words, when you are "setting up" you're going to be retracting anyway.

Quote:

Already you are showing a major strategic difference between boxing and karate. The follow-through makes the rapid snap-back needed for the SPEED of the techniques that will follow. So your ascertion that the snap back does not help speed, seems to be only taking into account the single punch, not the combination that the jab is setting up.




I don't see how the follow through on a cross makes another punch faster. If you mean that the jab makes the cross faster, well that's true. But it is true in karate as well. This is basic human biomechanics shared by any punching art.

Quote:

I hear this equation often regarding that effiency of the straigh punch. However, what it leaves out is the face that your opponent, in a resistent setting, is a moving one. That being the case, it is far more efficient to curve the punch in order to hit your opponent, rather than retract the hand and throw again. If the two points were stationary, then, yes, this type of equation may work. But it doesn't work when the two points are moving indeterminently. The reason why
Quote:

boxers don’t attempt to stop their own punches at a predetermined point


is because in actual moving combat, resistent fighting, ascertaining an exact "predetermined point" is extremely difficult.




Nothing in my experience suggests that kime/focus doesn't work in a moving environment. I've been known to curve my blow to keep up with movement, but in most cases the speed of an exchange makes my punch land where I want it and where I expected it. If it doesn't I've missed - but that happens with everyone, boxer, karateka - you name it.

Quote:

Again, this goes to highlight the major differences in boxing and karate striking. Karate seems to assume an somewhat stationary attacker (don't beleive me? look at the 'ideal' scenrios in bunkai applications, including the video you posted on your blog). Boxing is developed to deal with a quick opponent, who needs to be hit hard in non-ideal positions( again for reference, look at the boxing vids you posted on your site).




Bunkai is static practise. I have long maintained that it is just the beginning of karate practise. We apply our applications in dynamic environments ranging from 2 person forms to restricted sparring to ultimately free sparring. Don't believe me? Have a look at some of my other videos. Better yet, go and train with my teacher's teacher Morio Higaonna who is frequently in the US (or his North American representative Nakamura) and do some sparring with their students. They'll apply their "theoretical" bunkai to you in a very dynamic environment, thank you very much.

Quote:

This is true under the conditions you are conducting your 'experiment'. However, theory and practice are two diffirent things. Once we input the variable of a moving, resisting opponent, the idea of leaving a punch out there (thus making it take longer to throw the next punch), leads one to question the ascertion that this punch is more 'efficient'. In order for a punch to be efficent, it must hit the target. The most efficient punch is the one that hits the target the most times, not only the one that requires "less work". I could easily throw punches that, by your criteria (of less physical effort), are more "efficient" than either the karate or boxing punch. But if they do no damage, or don't hit the opponent, or put me in a better position to strike a second time, what good is it towards its actual purpose (fighting)? Again, the most efficient punch is the one that takes the least effort to hit the target.




Karate punches use far less effort - but they are harder to master and apply. So in a sense I agree with you. What I don't agree is that they are just "theoretical". My article expresses in physics terms what I have experienced in reality. Again, I suggest you visit the gentlemen I refer to above to see it applied in practise.

Quote:

A theme throughout your article is that when you talk about the karate punch, you seem to be making the assumption that one punch will end the altercation/fight.




Whoa! How in the world did you get that from my article? I've NEVER advocated "ikken hitsatsu" (the theory to which you refer).

Quote:

The "focus", which you seem to judge the merit of karate on, is also present in boxing: it is only that it is balanced by the other factors I have written above. The focus is, indeed, maximal, if the ends (a resolution to the engagement) are acheieved.




If you read my article again you'll notice that I say all fighters must have focus. It is a matter of degree. Karateka try to achieve a more specific level of focus. The differences are probably quite slight in physics terms but make a difference in tactics.

Quote:

This [some boxing punches have a curve] is wrong. You are, here, only talking about the right cross and the hooking punches.




Indeed. That's precisely why this analysis occurs under the heading "follow-through punches". I deal with jabs in the paragraph above that one under the heading "Jabs".

Quote:

The jab can be thrown very quickly. In fact, I don't think anyone in their right minds believes that they can intercept a good boxers jab.




You're kidding right? Because I intercept jabs routinely - I have done so against more than a few boxers. I suggest you revisit this. Just because you haven't done it or seen it done doesn't mean it can't be done. We discussed this fully in the "Why blocks DO work" thread and I'm not going over it again. A good karateka practises for this. I'd be happy to demonstrate it for you personally except that I'm on the other side of the world.

Quote:

I then have to say that it's my opinion that the karate style of striking leaves one "more open", because of an over reliance on the first strike landing.




This isn't part of karate theory. It might be what you've seen but it isn't good karate. Most Okinawan styles don't believe in ikken hitsatsu (one punch certain defeat). This is a relatively modern insertion from mainland Japan and reflects their sword culture. It has diluted much of karate, but nothing in standard karate theory relies or expects this.

Quote:

This just shows a shallow understanding of boxing strategy. Boxers do not only throw 'power bombs' with every strike!




I wasn't suggesting it! Some boxing punches are clearly less powerful than others. But you don't try to use any of them half-heartedly. However in karate there are many techniques (clawing movements or eye gouges being just 2) that don't require any real "force" except in the fingers. As for "shallow understanding" - that's uncalled for. I have more understanding about boxing than you realise. The fact that I can't qualify every single statement in an article (I have to make some collective statements somewhere in order to avoid writing a book), and the fact that my comments are taken out of context, does not qualify my knowledge as "shallow".

Quote:

Do you honestly not think that boxers have the ability to alter the depth of their strikes to suit the situation? You seem to making an assumption here that a boxer will fight on the street the same way he does in the ring.




I never made any such assumption. As I said above all fighters must focus; what I'm referring to in my article are small differences of degree.

Quote:

If this is so [boxing produces greater power sooner], doesn't boxing stand as the better path to self defence skills? A boxer only improves after those two years--it's not like he stagnates.




This is all well and fine if you think I'm arguing that karate is necessarily better than boxing or vice versa. I'm offering a description of the differences in their "delivery systems" and explaining that boxing places a premium on hitting harder. I then explain why karate doesn't have the same emphasis. My positive comments about boxing were honest and, on this forum, constitute a kind of olive branch. I didn't expect you to take that branch and try to hit me with it. If you're happy with boxing that's good. I hoped you'd get some idea of why karateka prefer their approach but you don't seem to accept any aspect of the reasoning. So be it. I don't imagine you'll give karateka any respect for their choice until you train with some tough ones like the gentlemen I mentioned. You probably won't change your own choice of fighting system but I guarantee you won't be as dismissive of their abilities against "resistance".

Quote:

I agree that karate can work, given enough time, on the street. However, boxing works on the street and in the ring. Boxing, on average, beats karate in a one on one match. Also, boxing is as as adaptable to a street situation as any other martial art.




Boxing beats karate in one on one? Nice one. Proof please. I always felt it depended on the individual. Like I say, you obviously haven't trained with any good karateka.

Quote:

All in all, Dan, although I think this article was a nice try, I think it suffers from numerous problems. It certainly does not make clear on any level why karate would be the better art to study.




All in all Chris I have to thank you for reading my article and contributing to the debate. However I must point out something fundamental; I was not attempting to prove "why karate would be the better art to study". I have offered some reasons why karateka do what they do. You don't appear to accept that the karate approach has any benefit, where I accept that boxing works.

Quote:

I think you are miss John's point about 'delivery system' as well. The best delivery system is the one that holds up best under all conditions. Saying that "just because civilian defence systems like karate are not suitable for use in a combat sports ring does not mean they are not fit for their purpose," is a red herring. "Combat sports" are ways of training a delivry system in as close to a realistic way as one can get.




My article in no way canvassed the requirement of "realism in training". It focussed on describing the mechanics of the punch. If John uses "delivery system" to mean more than the mechanics but also the training methods etc. then so be it. I've separated the 2 because, as I've said to John in the past, we can all agree on the need for resistance training but still disagree as to our preferred mechanical approach. I've tried to focus on the latter only. Why? Because there has been a suggestion that there is only set of "mechanics" - the human kind. To me this results from a misunderstanding of tma and I've tried to address that - not criticise boxing or any other art. Clearly I prefer what I do. I wouldn't do it otherwise. I'm offering reasons for why I like it (for combat) knowing full well that it might never appeal to someone else. Saying "I like bananas because they are sweet and full of minerals like magnesium" doesn't mean that apples are no good or that you'll like bananas.

Quote:

If what you are doing can not 'hang' with those delivry systems, then yours simply cannot be proven to be as effective.

Outside of proof in a realistic, highly resistent atomesphere, all else is mere theory.




When you've trained with some of the gentlemen to whom I refer (instead of comparing the average boxer, who is geared for contact, to the multitude of suburban people who do a diluted form of karate just for recreation) then your comments will also succeed in being more than just theory. It isn't theory to me. And I resent the insinuation that I've made my choices just because I believe blindly in a "theory". Do you really think that I haven't had some broader experiences in the last 30 years?

With respect,

Dan

All quotes are from Dan's article here: http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/11/karate-punches-vs-boxing-punches.html


Posted by: Ames

Re: Dan's article - 11/08/08 03:14 AM

Quote:

I'm talking about a hypothetical "ideal" - not "ideal for combat".





Right. And this is exactly my point. NOT an ideal for combat, but rather for some 'hypothetical ideal'. Yet, this article is about karate as a delivery system for combat is it not? That's why I don't really understand why this is ideal at all? In what hypothetical situation is this ideal for, if not combat? The dojo?

Quote:

Karate does exactly the same - retracts for a set up. I mention this in my article when I say that "in combinations the whole issue is irrelevant". In other words, when you are "setting up" you're going to be retracting anyway.





You do say that, but in the overall context you also state that the punch is generally not practiced in this way (though, in fairness, you do say that it should be practiced this way more often). You state that: " non-retracting thrusts are principally used in karate as a training tool for developing and perfecting focus." This is exactly the problem that I see with this type of training. It goes back to your 'hypothetical ideal', meaning that a percentage of training time is not involved in drilling technique that is not applicable to actual combat. I think an argument could be made that the method of drilling you refer to, that which does not have a " rigid adherence to basic form", is actually a borrowed principle from a boxing influence. That is why it is not contained in the forms.

Quote:

I don't see how the follow through on a cross makes another punch faster[...]




That's not my point at all. My point is that boxing is trained the way it is because it works largely by combination, not singular attack. Therefore it's a misnomer when you state that "a snap-back in no way boosts outward speed". This is a strawman. You use the speed argument to imply that the karate punch is just as valid, even in its traditional use where it is not rapidly retracted, because greater speed is not generated anyway. Boxing is retracting for set up, not speed. As the article continues, and from your clarification on your last post, you make clear the need for this retraction to set up combinations. If this is so, why bother writing all that came before. You seem to be attempting to 'mount two horses' here, making two seperate arguments.

Quote:

Nothing in my experience suggests that kime/focus doesn't work in a moving environment[...]




No one is saying that focus doesn't work against a moving opponent. I am arguing against the implication that the fact that boxing punch has less kime makes it somehow not as subtle, and efficient. Boxing, as you say, also has focus. What I AM saying is that karate the argument could be made that karate over relies on kime. This is one reason why it doesn't work so well in a combat sport environment. Those karateka that do do well in these environment usually have boxing hands. There is a reason for this, and I think it is largely the over reliance of kime, which often (but not always) telegraphs the punch, and generally makes it so that there is more time until the next one is thrown.

Quote:

Bunkai is static practise. I have long maintained that it is just the beginning of karate practise. We apply our applications in dynamic environments ranging from 2 person forms to restricted sparring to ultimately free sparring. Don't believe me? Have a look at some of my other videos. Better yet, go and train with my teacher's teacher Morio Higaonna who is frequently in the US (or his North American representative Nakamura) and do some sparring with their students




This is funny because I have trained with Nakamura, at his dojo in Burlington, Ont. Not for long though. I didn't like what I saw (including his higher ranked black belts). Again, I actually can't get over the irony here, because it was specifically his class that I was thinking of when I wrote what I did.

Further, this doesn't detract from what I'm saying in the slightest anyway. The early stages of bunkai (the first five years!) are largely static attacks. The IOGKF is a good organization, and they do practice resisitent sparring, so I'll give them that. However, I personally think that alot of time is wasted with this early level of training. No one (except other karateka) attack like that! Again, this goes back to your 'hypothetical ideal', which you posit throughout your article. So much of your argument is based on this hypothetical that it makes one wonder what the actual relivence of all this type of training is to combat. This goes back to the early disscusion in this thread, regarding kata (which was never well explained). Maybe the reason why a boxer is able to use his art so quickly is because he doesn't waste his time with these kinds of drills? This has been my point all along.

Boxing trains more relistically than Traditional Karate. Therefore the strikes have more functional ablity.
Which is also why I find your constant emphasis on the effiency of the karate strike, when the art itself is very ineffecient. You yourself say that this is a "civilian defence system", why take so long to build powerful defence skills then?

Quote:

Karate punches use far less effort - but they are harder to master and apply. So in a sense I agree with you. What I don't agree is that they are just "theoretical". My article expresses in physics terms what I have experienced in reality. Again, I suggest you visit the gentlemen I refer to above to see it applied in practise




I gave some pretty good reasons why this is just not so. The conditions of your 'experiment' are just plain wrong. The 'physics terms' you are using do not include key variables (such as a moving opponent).

Also, your being disingenious here. My whole point was that the physical energy exerted does not make a much 'more efficient. The defintion of efficient is :" Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. The most efficent punch is not only that which requires a minimum of "unnecessary effort" but the one that 'produces effectively'--i.e. makes contact the most regularly. In order for your experiment to have any true scientific merit (and not be the pseudo-science it currently is), you would actually need karateka, who are trained in your method vs. boxers, and then tally the amount of hits they scored on one another. Without this, your experiment is, again, missing key variables and all the physics language and diagrams in the world won't make up for this.

Quote:

Whoa! How in the world did you get that from my article? I've NEVER advocated "ikken hitsatsu" (the theory to which you refer).





No. And I NEVER said you used those words either. But you did write:

Quote:

By contrast, a large part of a karateka’s training is, just like a sword practitioner’s , necessarily devoted to honing maximally efficient “kime” or focus via an endless repetition of “cut-like” blows




The sword is exactly where the concept of ikken hitsatsu originated. Or as you say in YOUR OWN POST "This is a relatively modern insertion from mainland Japan and reflects their sword culture." So, though you are not specifically talking about this, you are indeed talking about something which, seems to refer to something similar.

You also state that "hitting someone with a less than optimally powerful blow in self-defence might be all that is needed". That's what I was refering to here. You are implying that a one punch solution may be all that's needed.

Quote:

Indeed. That's precisely why this analysis occurs under the heading "follow-through punches". I deal with jabs in the paragraph above that one under the heading "Jabs".





Dan, this really bothered me, because you are misquoting me in that quote you attribute to me. When in the brackets you change my wording to say that "some boxing punches have a curve" you are implying that you yourself said such. You did no such thing. You specifically state (and I'll quote again, and bold again):

Quote:

As I noted above, in order to make boxing blows more powerful you have to have some follow-through, meaning some element of curve.




Also, this does not come from your section "follow-through punches" at all. It comes from the section "Which is better". A very big difference wouldn't you say. This is indeed meant to be an overall description of boxing. Anyone reading the article would see this plain as day.

Quote:

You're kidding right? Because I intercept jabs routinely - I have done so against more than a few boxers. I suggest you revisit this. Just because you haven't done it or seen it done doesn't mean it can't be done.




Yeah, I've done it to, probably in the same scenrio you have, we are told by sensei to throw a boxing jab. Sure, Aikidoka love this stuff. But there's a big difference between a fairly poorly executed boxers jab done in this context and one done by a boxer (who had fought in the ring). Please tell when you have done this, against a GOOD boxer, in an environment outside a karate dojo.

I'd like to see some video evidence of this please Dan. If not you doing it, then someone. My guess is that this is not happening in free style scenrio against a good boxer.
What gives credence to this is that you would
Quote:

be happy to demonstrate it for you personally except that I'm on the other side of the world.




I'm not a professional boxer, Dan. Do you think my mind would be changed just because you, who has two decades more training than me, can intercept one of my messily jabs? That proves absolutely nothing.

If this kind of thing were as common and 'trainable' as you are suggesting, then I'd think by know boxers, or MMA fighters would be training these interceptions.

Further an 8th dan Aikido sensei told me (and keep in mind that all Aikido does is practice interception) that intercepting a jab was pretty much impossible. Gozo Shioda, 10th dan, and highly respected TMA practioner, pretty much says the same thing in "Aikido Shugyo'. So no, I'm not "kidding" and the burden of proof is on you here, Dan.

Quote:

This isn't part of karate theory.




Then what is the physical effect of karate kime then? It often results in a punch which 'hangs' in the air between making contact (or missing) and being retracted.

Here is a video clip of Higaonna, whom you have said is basically the emptomy of good karate. Note between 1:10 and 1:30, especially at 1:12, and you will clearly see just what I'm talking about here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MWxzmITOeI&feature=related

Quote:

However in karate there are many techniques (clawing movements or eye gouges being just 2) that don't require any real "force" except in the fingers. As for "shallow understanding" -




Here is the real heart of what I'm arguing against. See, all these techniques deal in a theoritical outcome, because they cannot be used in an alive manner. In other words, you can't actually eyegouge your training partner, and therefore you are theorising what the outcome of the eyegouge may be. I worked as a bouncer for two years. I've been eyegouged. Aside from making me a little angry, making my eyeball burn a bit, it did rather little. Again, if you can't practice it against resistence, you have no concrete proof of its outcome. This is what I mean when I say that you are dealing with far too many hypotheticals to 'prove' anything.

Quote:

and the fact that my comments are taken out of context




Absolutly ridiculous! I took great pains to quote you in context. I've shown how you have not done the same for me. If your article is not conotating what you want, then I think the fault lies more likely with the author (you). There are numerous holes in it.

Quote:

Boxing beats karate in one on one? Nice one. Proof please. I always felt it depended on the individual. Like I say, you obviously haven't trained with any good karateka.




How about K-1? Where boxing hands have dominated for sometiem know over tradional karate hand techniques.

Quote:

You don't appear to accept that the karate approach has any benefit, where I accept that boxing works.





Who is taking who out of context. I specifically said that "I agree that karate can work, given enough time, on the street".

Quote:

When you've trained with some of the gentlemen to whom I refer (instead of comparing the average boxer, who is geared for contact, to the multitude of suburban people who do a diluted form of karate just for recreation) then your comments will also succeed in being more than just theory




I did train with one of them (Nakamura)(and again not for very long). Now go spar an amateur boxer, lol.

Anyway I didn't need to train under Nakamura and your constant suggestion for me to meet you face to face, or to meet so and so, only helps my argument that your article does not do well to articulate any point aside from: 'Karate may help you defend youself against an untrained attacker'.


--Chris
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Dan's article - 11/08/08 04:36 AM

Quote:

Right. And this is exactly my point. NOT an ideal for combat, but rather for some 'hypothetical ideal'. Yet, this article is about karate as a delivery system for combat is it not? That's why I don't really understand why this is ideal at all? In what hypothetical situation is this ideal for, if not combat? The dojo?




This is tiresome. I was referring to an optimum load. In my article on Chambers you will read that karate practises basics from an optimum load for the sake of executing a full movement (like a full katana cut). In practise this might well be shorter, but so be it. There is no issue here other than that you seem to have no idea of the extended argument I'm making.

Quote:

You do say that, but in the overall context you also state that the punch is generally not practiced in this way (though, in fairness, you do say that it should be practiced this way more often). You state that: " non-retracting thrusts are principally used in karate as a training tool for developing and perfecting focus." This is exactly the problem that I see with this type of training. It goes back to your 'hypothetical ideal', meaning that a percentage of training time is not involved in drilling technique that is not applicable to actual combat. I think an argument could be made that the method of drilling you refer to, that which does not have a " rigid adherence to basic form", is actually a borrowed principle from a boxing influence. That is why it is not contained in the forms.




Again you are talking about time spent doing "realistic" training. I wasn't addressing this issue at all. If you are determined to put down karate, you can pursue this idea. However I can tell you that time spent on basics (in karate this means learning kime) is time well spent in the long run. If I were training for combat tomorrow I might not do it. There is no debate here other than a fight about boxing being better than karate which you are determined to pick.

Quote:

My point is that boxing is trained the way it is because it works largely by combination, not singular attack. Therefore it's a misnomer when you state that "a snap-back in no way boosts outward speed". This is a strawman.




It's a strawman if it is being used to criticise boxing jabs. I never said that, nor was it implied. Any implication to that effect is in your mind. I actually made the point that karate punches and jabs are actually very similar - probably identical in the combat execution (jabs being straight line movement). This comment was intended as a reference to criticisms for karate "leaving the hand in" - something people assume from basic kime practise (and something that ignores karate combinations when the entire issue of "snapback" becomes completely irrelevant.

Quote:

You use the speed argument to imply that the karate punch is just as valid, even in its traditional use where it is not rapidly retracted, because greater speed is not generated anyway. Boxing is retracting for set up, not speed. As the article continues, and from your clarification on your last post, you make clear the need for this retraction to set up combinations. If this is so, why bother writing all that came before. You seem to be attempting to 'mount two horses' here, making two seperate arguments.




Straight thrusts are often used as an equivalent to a power blow (the cross) which is at the end of a set up. Either way, you confuse learning "kime" in basic practise (which is important in karate) with its application (which is generally - in my art of goju anyway) in combinations. Why not just do combinations? Because karateka start with basic thrusts to learn kime.

Quote:

No one is saying that focus doesn't work against a moving opponent. I am arguing against the implication that the fact that boxing punch has less kime makes it somehow not as subtle, and efficient. Boxing, as you say, also has focus. What I AM saying is that karate the argument could be made that karate over relies on kime. This is one reason why it doesn't work so well in a combat sport environment. Those karateka that do do well in these environment usually have boxing hands. There is a reason for this, and I think it is largely the over reliance of kime, which often (but not always) telegraphs the punch, and generally makes it so that there is more time until the next one is thrown.




The above assumptions about karate show your own very shallow knowledge about its application. Sport karate and recreation karate might well telegraph things. There is nothing "telegraphic" about karate. As for boxing having kime - it does, but I suggest you try to execute a karate punch before you think you can "stop" a punch as fast (and I have explained the physics so I'm not wrong about this aspect). The only point where you start to make some sense is when you argue that karateka overstress kime in favour of more combat oriented training methods. Here you are probably right. However if you've followed all my posts up to his point and my articles you'll notice that I've never sought to argue the "superiority" of karate and acknowledge that it is a "long path". I've been in no rush, so it has suited me. I never said it should suit you. If you stop being so argumentative you might realise this.

Quote:

This is funny because I have trained with Nakamura, at his dojo in Burlington, Ont. Not for long though. I didn't like what I saw (including his higher ranked black belts). Again, I actually can't get over the irony here, because it was specifically his class that I was thinking of when I wrote what I did.




Yes - you probably did some white belt training. Did you spar with his senior students who, by your reasoning, must be completely worthless in combat? I never said they would "beat you" - but I don't know many who have come away from Higaonna's dojo (myself included) who haven't understood how effective he and his style can be.

Quote:

Further, this doesn't detract from what I'm saying in the slightest anyway. The early stages of bunkai (the first five years!) are largely static attacks. The IOGKF is a good organization, and they do practice resisitent sparring, so I'll give them that. However, I personally think that alot of time is wasted with this early level of training. No one (except other karateka) attack like that!




Well again you've made a point about how "bad" karate training is when my post concerned the mechanics of punching. Yes it takes a long time and it isn't suitable for quick self defence. Who says it is? Not suitable for self defence at all? That's another story.

Quote:

Again, this goes back to your 'hypothetical ideal', which you posit throughout your article.




Are you not reading what I wrote? I was referring to an optimum load on a particular punch - not any "ideal combat technique". I wasn't addressing the concept of "realism" - just the biggest load you can muster on the reverse punch. The biggest load on a right cross is also possible but unlikely - you implement something smaller. But do you do a half-ar$ed hit on the bag or do you load fully?

Quote:

I gave some pretty good reasons why this is just not so. The conditions of your 'experiment' are just plain wrong. The 'physics terms' you are using do not include key variables (such as a moving opponent).

Quote:

The sword is exactly where the concept of ikken hitsatsu originated. Or as you say in YOUR OWN POST "This is a relatively modern insertion from mainland Japan and reflects their sword culture." So, though you are not specifically talking about this, you are indeed talking about something which, seems to refer to something similar.




Equating the kime practise of sword cutting and karate punching does not mean you expect the same result my friend. Blind Freddy can tell you that a sword is FAR more deadly. The karateka uses conservative straight punches knowing they are not as powerful as curved punches; so he/she tries to make them as powerful as they can be. It doesn't mean he imagines they are like sword cuts (as people in some mainland dojos started believing, modelling their sparring and competition on this concept).

Quote:

You also state that "hitting someone with a less than optimally powerful blow in self-defence might be all that is needed". That's what I was refering to here. You are implying that a one punch solution may be all that's needed.




Don't know what you're reading. It just goes to show that you can and will read practically anything into what I say. There is nothing in my article to suggest that one "less than powerful technique" will win a fight. But give you a chance to do something else, then something else (including escape)? Very different point to what you think I'm saying.

Quote:

Also, this does not come from your section "follow-through punches" at all. It comes from the section "Which is better". A very big difference wouldn't you say. This is indeed meant to be an overall description of boxing. Anyone reading the article would see this plain as day.




Maybe that's where I put it, but there is no suggestion (reading the entire article) that I felt ALL boxing punches are curved. By the time I made that reference I was talking about power punches - and given that I inserted those other headings much later (at first there were only 2 - jabs and follow through) AND the fact that I wrote it at breakneck speed, you'll forgive me if it's not perfect.

Quote:

Yeah, I've done it to, probably in the same scenrio you have, we are told by sensei to throw a boxing jab. Sure, Aikidoka love this stuff. But there's a big difference between a fairly poorly executed boxers jab done in this context and one done by a boxer (who had fought in the ring). Please tell when you have done this, against a GOOD boxer, in an environment outside a karate dojo.




I've been challenged by more than a few good boxers to prove this point.

Quote:

I'd like to see some video evidence of this please Dan. If not you doing it, then someone. My guess is that this is not happening in free style scenrio against a good boxer.




I have some video - but it's unlikely to satisfy you because it wasn't intended as proof. Look it up. It's not hard to find. Otherwise I'm not trying to convince you. It's just that you'll not convince me that "jabs can't be intercepted". BTW - I can't do it EVERY time - but who can evade EVERY punch? You get hit sooner or later. I'm not arguing a "checkmate" answer - merely countering your assertion of "impossibility".

Quote:

Who is taking who out of context. I specifically said that "I agree that karate can work, given enough time, on the street".




When those words are reflected in your writing, I'll believe them. For now all I see is disdain.

Quote:

When you've trained with some of the gentlemen to whom I refer (instead of comparing the average boxer, who is geared for contact, to the multitude of suburban people who do a diluted form of karate just for recreation) then your comments will also succeed in being more than just theory




Quote:

I did train with one of them (Nakamura)(and again not for very long). Now go spar an amateur boxer, lol.

Anyway I didn't need to train under Nakamura and your constant suggestion for me to meet you face to face, or to meet so and so, only helps my argument that your article does not do well to articulate any point aside from: 'Karate may help you defend youself against an untrained attacker'.




I don't offer Nakamura (who I only know by reputation) or Higaonna (who trained my teachers and whom I've trained with briefly) as "epitomes" - merely as tough fighters who one cannot dismiss as ineffective or as "lacking in realism". It seems to me that most people who attack karate are intent on looking at sport karate kids. If you were in the same room as Higaonna I doubt you'd be waxing lyrical about how theoretical it all was.

Gouges etc. are no recipe for success. But I never said they were. On the other hand karate has a vast array of techniques that are not necessarily power oriented. Saying they can't be "tested" doesn't mean they don't work.



--Chris


Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Dan's article - 11/08/08 05:15 AM

I'm sorry I haven't had much time to join this discussion, but working for a living takes precedence over other minor pleasures.

The range of karate systems and variation of study is so great nobody can speak with authority at what karate is, outside of their direct practice or experience. Generically most systems use the same tools, strikes and kicks, kata, aplication studies and various forms of karate sparring.

Karate was not designed for short term study and execution, simply because there was no need to develop it that way.

If the issue is can karate handle 'crazed street boxers', the issue of course is it depends. In 35 years I haven't seen them so they're not my top priorty of foucs especially as I'm in my decline.

Now if I understand it a lot is framed on which is better the boxers tools or the karate-ka's tools, and for fun let's assume it's bare handed boxing, no gear involved.

Boxer's jab, ok. Isshinryu's first technique taught is a lead hand snapping strike.

Boxer's cross, ok Isshinryu's second technique taught is a snapping strike with the rear hand.

Boxer's uppercut, ok Isshinryu's third technique taught is an uppercut.

Boxer's hook, ok hook strikes against the body and/or the head are also Isshinryu beginner techniques.

Boxer's use a high sliding stance. Again ok, Isshinryu's front stance is remarkably similar to how boxer's stand.

So from a basic tool check, there is little difference between where Isshinryu beginners start and what boxing uses.

Boxers use combinations, well so does Isshinryu as I teach it. There are layers of training in karate.

Of course boxer's don't chamber... then again part of my Isshinryu instruction does't use chambering either.

Boxer's bob and weave around attacks. Interestingly in 1933 Mutsu Mizuo published a huge book on karate, 1/2 of which was dedicated to karate application and his opening section was just that use of bobbing and weaving around strikes.

The selection of available karate tools depends on strategic choices agains credible attacks. It is more telling that karate does not have one answer but layers of anwers.

Of course the incomprehensible thing seems to be karate uses kata and thats a waste of time.

One person's waste is another person's blessing. The value lies in how a group approaches training.

As I'm not a technique snob, theoretically any technique should be able to finish any attack. How one works to do that is a complex study. Any technique, period.

Kata techniques are very deceptive. What is often shown for basic training as one technique, in reality may be dozens of different technques using fractals of those motions. Obviosuly some techniques fit various attacks better than others, but just because it's obvious doesn't mean its reality either.

Of course boxing has some answers. Those who can't take it leave quickly, leaving those who can endure some body punishment. Wait, step back, when I began there was no difference bare knuckles and frequently blood, and those who stayed......... Today we reach different audiences and teach to the students needs and wants, but that doesn't mean karate can't choose to return to the same path earlier either.

The boxing vesus karate argument is old. Back in the 60's and onward the magazines kept the same arguments going. In reality very few boxers have faced karate-ka in a true no holds barred street manner.

Of course depending on one's training karate isn't bound to just on variety of striking. For example there is an old tradition of using knuckle strikes instead of fist strikes.

I tend to be neutral, I don't worry about the others delivery system rather take the gift of something presented to me and work to break it, stay away from it, or move around it as necessary.

Indonesian tjimande begins training cycles of all 4 'boxing' tools, working for speed and precision of execution, but at the same time they also work counters to totally eliminate those attacks, working to who is first allows the other to feel the pain.

This short piece doesn't begin to cover how one trains. Even in my decline I still train to do what I can.

Against anyone, if it comes in your direction work to:
1. Not play by their rules.
2. Boxing is powerful striking where they keep their center in focus sliding to bring their attacker to their center. So don't play that game. Move, stick and move, work to frustrate them so they over extend and use that.
3. Boxers focus on their striking techniques. Work to ignore them and take it to their body. It's street so you're working shoes and slicing kicks into and across their shins, or focused tam tuie like kicking to the legs disrupts hands too. But you must respond in a layered manner. Move your hands to distract their focus then..
4. Develop strong use of other tools boxers don't concentrate on. Follow the lead of Uechi, respond with finger tip, knuckles and or thumb strikes, flowing parries and other open hand responses.

There isn't a simple answer, but as I see it the choice of karate training is for a much larger goal than boxing type attacks.

I enjoy everyone trains as they see fit.

I also enjoy that I do the same.

pleasantly,
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Dan's article - 11/08/08 05:29 AM

I'm going to reiterate: kime might be used by sword practitioners and karateka. In fact it is used in almost every weapon discipline. This doesn't mean they have the same tactics.

This was not the point of my article.

Just because karate uses kime doesn't mean it expects every punch to be deadly. Quite the reverse. It expects that its best power punches won't be as powerful as they could be because they aren't executed in the manner of a cross (boxing's most powerful punch).

Accordingly when it comes to "power punching" karate doesn't have as much momentum from the load and tries instead to maximise it's focus so as to make up for this.

To Chris and all and sundry, I apologise for my argumentative tone above.

My aim is not, and has never been, to prove karate "superiority". The fact that I offer some "pros" doesn't mean there aren't "cons". If you are a karateka you're probably happy with the situation because you don't do the art just for fighting. And just because I offer some "pros" does not mean I'm making disparaging remarks about boxing or any other combat sport. Suggesting positives does not consitute an attack.
Posted by: janxspirit

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/08/08 03:36 PM

Quote:

Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? I've been asked this question often and my answer is it depends if we are talking tapped and gloved then it's boxing or bare knuckle then I believe it's Karate.

After studying boxing for a little while 2-3 yrs. and Karate for 25-30 years I've come to this conclusion. I might be bias but I'm trying not to be.

Seeing the injuries caused by boxer to themselves in street fights or sparring I concluded that boxing has a good delievry system but not a good foundation its builds upon. Giving boxers there due they have some of the most devastating strikes in combination because they are few, fast, simple and direct.

Karate on the other hand (though injuries occcur it happen less often then in the boxers hook punch) one reason is the foundation development of most Karatekas and the precision and snap in the strikes not all drive through. Another thing is the staggered target is easy to get a good shot on the head when you kick someone in the ba%%s or slap their ears and grab them and then strike them.

There are other factors but this is enough to start this discussion. I know one of the argument is if Karate is better or had the best strike why is it not used in MMA. My answer is because eye gouges, rigdehands to the the groins or ear slaps are illegal.

I like Boxing (especially its footwork as a defense) but it leaves out a lot of options.

Whats your take?




I did karate for years.

I box now.

When "karate guys" come to our gym, they get owned.

I keep waiting for a karateka to outdo us.

I'm still waiting.

I love Kyokushin. But no Kyokushin guys have showed up. When they do, I'm sure I'll ask them to teach a segment on striking to the body. It would be a really good thing.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/08/08 03:52 PM

Quote:

I did karate for years.

I box now.

When "karate guys" come to our gym, they get owned.

I keep waiting for a karateka to outdo us.

I'm still waiting.

I love Kyokushin. But no Kyokushin guys have showed up. When they do, I'm sure I'll ask them to teach a segment on striking to the body. It would be a really good thing.




Do you fight MMA rules or boxing rules? Do you pick the rules or let the karate guys pick the rules? Do you go bare knuckle or fight with pillows on your hands? Your training gym doesn't sound like an egoless training environment. Go for a work out and worry about some guy on the internet talking about how he "owned" you. Its the individual and how he uses his art, not the art. Who did you train karate with in STL? That's my hometown, U-City to be exact. Too bad I don't live there anymore and rarely visit these days. Then you could see if you could "own" this karate guy.
Posted by: CVV

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/08/08 04:14 PM

Well I knocked a muay thai practitioner a few meters back , landing on his back. He got up and and said 'you train at our gym and I train at your dojo'. We did so for a year. Got owned a few times by competion guys (A and B fighter) but did manage to stand my ground most of the time. Lacked the insight in making combinations and continuing even after landing a good technique. I learned this training muay thai for a year and changed my way of fighting in karate. This was 15 years ago.
But did not change the way I punch. Do not like swing or uppercut, especially when the thumb-side is up. Tried it a few times without gloves and partner blocked(hitted) hard on the thumb or wrist just above the thumb. Hurts like hell.
My friend the muay thai guy did not like kata and all that stuff. He was a natural fighter. But did teach him some stuff on protecting your jewels or locking fingers or hitting the incoming arm.

All in all, wherever or whenever I trained, it was on base of respect. Never about how to own somebody. Sometimes got physical though. Most of the time it either ended with respect each other or with one not coming back. Got hospitalized too a few times, but only by friends.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Dan's article - 11/08/08 08:00 PM

Dan, I don't think you're really reading my posts, and I don't want to turn this into a 'me vs. you' thing.

Quote:

have no idea of the extended argument I'm making.




Actually, Dan I can understand what you're writing pretty well. I'm an A-level student at one of the toughest University's in Canada. Thanks.

Quote:

Again you are talking about time spent doing "realistic" training.




The reason why I am talking about this, is because that what I have been talking about all along. That's what this is all about. No, you're article didn't really touch on that, but it should have, as it would have made your article stronger. I don't think you understand what 'delivry system' even means.

Quote:

If you stop being so argumentative you might realise this.




Read the condesending tone of your posts to me, and tell me this again. Again, you posted that article in relation to this thread. This thread came to be about delivry systems for striking. So, I'm relating what you wrote to this thread.

You're telling me that I must have only trained as a white belt, aside from stating the obvious, also misses the point. I don't really care how great your karate techniques become in ten, twenty years. It doesn't distract from the fact that alot of what is done, is done due to the culture from which the art sprang, not for pragmatic reasons.

Here's an example of IOGKF bunkai, done by black belts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzvXcUXdVXA

This is the kind of unrealistic training I'm talking about. Now don't go tell me there is some secret bunkai that I don't know about that they don't show on video. I don't care. The fact is that these techniques only work against karate attacks, because it is only karate attacks being thrown at these people. No one in real life attacks anything like this, not unless they are a karate yellow belt. So, my question is, why waste several years (these people are black belts and have been training at least half a decade) practicing this kind of thing? There are valid reasons, yes. But one of those reasons is not bettering striking ability, nor self defence skills. These type of drills are useless for both.

Here's an example of IOGKF black belts doing a 'punching/blocking exercise'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLrvBRzsW_M

Note how long their punch is held out there. Please look at these punches and tell me again that There is nothing "telegraphic" about karate Again, videos don't lie. It is what it is.

Before, you tell me that this is just an 'exercise', keep in mind that I'm questioning the validity of these exercises to begin with. What is the point of these if they can't be used against a resisting opponent of equal ability?


That being said, I know that this isn't how you guys actually fight. Actually the IOGKF is one of the few Okinawan Goju Org. which practices irikumi (free sparring). The others do not spar much, because Miyagi banned the practice after giving it a shot. As a matter of fact, many other orgs. consider this too much 'sport' at not what tradional karate should be like. For this they have good evidence, namely that tradional karate NEVER SPARED! So, don't be so quick to dismiss sport karate there, okay? Because you pretty much only are sparring because of that influence (and sport karate was influenced by boxing, funny how that works, huh?).

Nontheless, here's some irikumi from the IOGKF:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNZt1x5Ragc

Now there's few things I'd like to say about this. First, I didn't see any blocks, or intercepttions. Now, sure, you could, just because these two couldn't do it, doesn't mean no one can. Sure, you could say that. But then I could say how I have never, ever, seen two apprx. equally skilled opponents able to block and intercept each other. Never. The burden of proof is on you to show be otherwise.

Next, the hand techniques in this, seem to have as much follow through as many boxing punches. Why? Because the opponent is moving. These strikes are very diffirent than those in the video I posted above, aren't they? They are like boxing strikes, only sloppier than most boxers would have after five years of training (like thise black belts). Why? Because these students wasted most of their time (IMO) with the type of training I showed above, rather than focusing on what randori. In the IOGKF, for example, sparring isn't introduced till green belt (two years).

What I'd like to point out that, this seems to be a longer path to the same level of skill that a boxer has (with his hands) in far less time. That has been my point all along.

Now, I know you'll probably tell me that your style of karate (because I'm being careful not to lump all styles together here) has more to offer than just irikumi. Fine. But, this is about developing pragmatic striking skill, not hypothetical what-if techniques like finger jabs, knee breaks and groin slaps.

Now, Dan, I'm sure you think I'm attacking the IOGKF in this. Let me make clear that I absolutely am not. I respect Morio Higaonna for going against the grain and introducing free sparring and grappling and altering the tradional curriculum do to so. I am merely pointing out that what I say does have merit. And I'm using the IOGKF because you have used that as bench mark of what good karate should be. Please don't try to deny that. It would be condescending to say the least.

Dan, you're welcome to respond to this post, but if you say something to effect that I am taking you out of context, or try to put words in my mouth that I haven't said (like I have an agenda against karate),as you've done in your last two posts. Here's an example, just so we're clear.
Quote:



Me: Further, this doesn't detract from what I'm saying in the slightest anyway. The early stages of bunkai (the first five years!) are largely static attacks. The IOGKF is a good organization, and they do practice resisitent sparring , so I'll give them that. However, I personally think that alot of time is wasted with this early level of training . No one (except other karateka) attack like that!

Your response
Well again you've made a point about how "bad" karate training is when my post concerned the mechanics of punching. Yes it takes a long time and it isn't suitable for quick self defence. Who says it is? Not suitable for self defence at all? That's another story.





Based on the above, who is taking who out of context? This is the second time you've behaved like this. Where did I say that Karate is "not suitable for self defence at all"? Don't try to turn this into me hating and having an agenda against all karate. I am against some of the faulty logic of your article, which, is also the same kind of logic often used to prove the value of certain tradional training methods that actually really only exist for reasons that are(imo) only culurally/period based. No, I'm not against karate as a whole. As a matter of fact, I'm trying to convince my wife to take up Kyokushin, because I think it would be great for self defence.

Anyway, if you want to keep this discussion going, I'm going to have to ask you to stop such childish behavior. In other words, speak to the points I raised here in an authetic way--without trying to imply that I need to challenge the karate world's masters, or spend ten years learning nonsense like I posted above, before I can comment on it--or shut up.

--Chris
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Dan's article - 11/08/08 09:51 PM

Ames,are you saying that free fighting was not a part of karate training before karate came to Japan in the early to mid 1900's?
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Dan's article - 11/08/08 10:01 PM

to everyone reading this thread, in your opinion, is there a difference between squaring up against someone toe to toe vs. reacting to a spontaneous flank attack?

or what I'm really asking is, would the training method be different between those two goals:
A. training to defend yourself in a toe to toe confrontation.
vs.
B. training to develop initial reflexive responses to a spontaneous attack.

..are the skillsets needed the same? I'm being careful not to get into 'scenario' arguments - but in general, if one person trains to defend themselves against a confrontation, and another person trains to defend against a spontaneous incoming attack: would the training methods/drills be optimized differently?

or perhaps the assumption within the question itself is flawed - maybe some feel there IS NO difference between a square-off vs. flank attack, and therefore no difference in what is trained/optimized.

I'm trying to ask so that the question is not leading or assuming anything of anyone's training.
I suppose another way to ask the overall question is, do people feel there are certain types of self-defense they are targeting to train for? or are you training for the best well-rounded defense to any sort of predicament (given the finite time you have available to train) ?

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Dan's article - 11/09/08 12:08 AM

Quote:

Dan, I don't think you're really reading my posts, and I don't want to turn this into a 'me vs. you' thing.

Read the condesending tone of your posts to me…




Yes – there was a tone of condescension. It was not appropriate. My apology above was meant to address that. To the extent that I did not apologise for this specifically, I will do so now. It is no excuse to say this, but I live with a fairly strong pain load because of my degenerative autoimmune disease. I can get quite grumpy and irritable. From time to time I realise this and make the appropriate amends.

Quote:

The reason why I am talking about this [realism], is because that what I have been talking about all along. That's what this is all about. No, you're article didn't really touch on that, but it should have, as it would have made your article stronger. I don't think you understand what 'delivry system' even means.




Now I’ll ignore your tone of condescension in that last comment. I will say this: I have used “delivery system” to refer to the actual mechanics of the punch. That is my use of the term. The fact that I might have misunderstood John’s or your use of that term is probably correct. It doesn’t mean that I don’t understand what those words mean in English.

Quote:

Again, you posted that article in relation to this thread. This thread came to be about delivry systems for striking. So, I'm relating what you wrote to this thread.




I posted that article on this thread to explain the mechanics of karate punching. Not to discuss karate training methods generally (ie. are they generally “live” enough) or to purport that they are better than boxing etc. This thread has a narrow topic; are “who has the best striking techniques”. I was attempting to provide some information on how karate approaches its striking mechanism – with a view to the broader conclusion that the question is misconceived; I don’t think either is “better” or “worse” because it depends on what you want to do and your reasons for training and your preferred tactics. They are just different.

I was attempting to be helpful in shedding some light (for the first time on this forum, if I’m not mistaken) on what this difference is. I was not intending to go further and discuss how these approaches are applied in a dynamic environment etc. This is a much bigger subject – one I’ll be happy to discuss (and have discussed elsewhere many times). My blog has many, many articles directly on point. I am a strong advocate on the need for application in a dynamic (moving) environment. Karate training (as I do it) starts with basic “static” drills, then progresses to putting these drills into a dynamic context. It is for this reason that all our kata have 2 person equivalents (see my article http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/06/muidokan-embu-2-person-forms-for-karate.html). A good example of how such a drill looks with black belts is to be found here:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=4jUiAafxswQ.

You’ll see the basic movement done solo and short, then progressively longer chains of movement until the sequence becomes “circular”. The idea behind these drills is to groove practically every “macro” eventuality (each kata adopts a different approach so that ultimately you cover the principal angles of movement and the principal possibilities). You then find (as we have done) that you CAN apply your karate in free sparring (rather than just defaulting to some kind of faux boxing (see: http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/10/faux-boxing.html) – ie. just doing “any old thing”. You’re actually using the techniques that you’ve been taught.

Here is a Jundokan drill with Buddy Govender covering a different kata: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2C3xZ0BL5Go

I also understand the importance of “resistance” and “liveness”. None of these were issues in my article, nor do I think I have to make them an issue with every single thing I write. If I did, I’d never write anything else! Moreover you and others who don’t do karate would never get the chance to learn something you didn’t know (eg. why karate does things like punch the way it does).

Quote:

You're telling me that I must have only trained as a white belt, aside from stating the obvious, also misses the point. I don't really care how great your karate techniques become in ten, twenty years. It doesn't distract from the fact that alot of what is done, is done due to the culture from which the art sprang, not for pragmatic reasons.




My point here was not meant to be antagonistic. I surmised that you didn’t really get a chance to spar with the black belts and see whether they can be dismissed as lightly as your posts suggest they ought.

Quote:

Here's an example of IOGKF bunkai, done by black belts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzvXcUXdVXA

This is the kind of unrealistic training I'm talking about. Now don't go tell me there is some secret bunkai that I don't know about that they don't show on video. I don't care. The fact is that these techniques only work against karate attacks, because it is only karate attacks being thrown at these people. No one in real life attacks anything like this, not unless they are a karate yellow belt. So, my question is, why waste several years (these people are black belts and have been training at least half a decade) practicing this kind of thing? There are valid reasons, yes. But one of those reasons is not bettering striking ability, nor self defence skills. These type of drills are useless for both.




There are many reasons why karate basics are done the way they are done. They occupy a very different role to boxing basics. They are actually drills for grooving angles of movement and also for conditioning the body. Their purpose isn’t obvious and is not easy to understand for an outsider. Just as kime training underlies the karate punch, factors such as plane of deflection grooving underlie blocking training etc. (See my articles: http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-blocks-do-work.html and http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/06/evasion-vs-blocking-with-evasion.html.)

The first article above has embedded in it the video about the jab. Bear in mind that the jabs are done in isolation; they are not intended to represent a “real” approach. I know full well that a jab is usually followed by another punch. Then again, I also don’t just “deflect” and do nothing more.

While the video is not necessarily “proof” of anything, I can assure you that the fellow punching me (Jed) is not only fast, but very “cross-trained”. He can and does hit like an ox. One day soon (when I’m better) I’ll get him to put gloves on and do it all in a completely “dynamic” environment. Yes, he’ll land one or 2. But I’ll deflect the majority and hit him back.

Quote:

Here's an example of IOGKF black belts doing a 'punching/blocking exercise'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLrvBRzsW_M

Note how long their punch is held out there. Please look at these punches and tell me again that There is nothing "telegraphic" about karate Again, videos don't lie. It is what it is.

Before, you tell me that this is just an 'exercise', keep in mind that I'm questioning the validity of these exercises to begin with. What is the point of these if they can't be used against a resisting opponent of equal ability?




This is an example of a basics drill. Even senior black belts will keep going back to basics. This doesn’t mean that it even approximates their sparring. This isn’t a disparity in logic: It is a disparity in purpose. You don’t fully understand the purpose of the drill so you interpret it within your own paradigm. I’ve tried to open up the karate paradigm so as to increase that understanding.

A karate punch in combat borrows what the Chinese call the “yi” or concept of the basic; it does not attempt to apply the exact “xing” or form/shape. The “xing” is primarily useful in teaching certain concepts that will be alien to you, as I stated above.

While these basic drills might seem worthless practise to you I have suggested to you to spar with some senior IOGKF and Jundokan practitioners only for you to see that these methods have indeed left their mark on those practitioners; I doubt you’ll come away thinking that it was pointless. Is this “long road” suitable for you or others who want quicker results? Probably not. I never said it was. There are many reasons people do arts like karate.

As to Nakamura sensei, I’ve neither trained nor met him. I just picked him as ONE example because I know him by reputation as a very formidable fighter. In terms of drills here is Nakamura showing a push-hands sensitivity drill that also progressively grooves karate grappling in a more dynamic environment:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=aRg2XTIzhmI

Quote:

That being said, I know that this isn't how you guys actually fight. Actually the IOGKF is one of the few Okinawan Goju Org. which practices irikumi (free sparring). The others do not spar much, because Miyagi banned the practice after giving it a shot. As a matter of fact, many other orgs. consider this too much 'sport' at not what tradional karate should be like. For this they have good evidence, namely that tradional karate NEVER SPARRED! So, don't be so quick to dismiss sport karate there, okay? Because you pretty much only are sparring because of that influence (and sport karate was influenced by boxing, funny how that works, huh?).




Actually this is not historically correct. Sport sparring and the kind of sparring done by IOGKF (iri kumi) are vastly different and have a different origin. While karate traditionally didn’t engage in free sparring it did have limited sparring. In this sense early karate wasn’t dissimilar in its attitude to sparring to, say, krav maga. In any event, the absence of sparring in karate and its history is not something I sought to engage in on this thread. It is an interesting and worthwhile topic, but not one that I want to start here.

And while I might be seen to comment adversely on sport sparring, this is only to point out that it is not intended to be anything like combat karate. It is a very specific “game”. I don’t actually disparage it at all. I have a great deal of admiration for those who do it. It takes a lot of skill and, dare I say it, courage. But it is not real fighting and it bears little resemblance to how karate is designed to work – which is in what I have called the “melee range”. (See my article: http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/07/melee-karates-fighting-range.html).

Quote:

Nontheless, here's some irikumi from the IOGKF:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNZt1x5Ragc

Now there's few things I'd like to say about this. First, I didn't see any blocks, or intercepttions. Now, sure, you could, just because these two couldn't do it, doesn't mean no one can. Sure, you could say that. But then I could say how I have never, ever, seen two apprx. equally skilled opponents able to block and intercept each other. Never. The burden of proof is on you to show be otherwise.




One of my pet hates is the fact that karateka have themselves deserted their traditional blocks. Because they don’t understand its intended use in the melee, they tend to practise it at a distance. Even if that distance is “closer” than, say, taekwondo, it is still a foot or 2 too distant for the blocks to work.

I come from a long tradition of actually using my blocks and other interceptions in sparring. Needless to say, unless you practise some of the basic drills to which you’ve referred, you won’t be able to implement these techniques.

In this regard you are free to consider my article http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/04/randori-function-of-soft-sparring-in.html. That article has a video embedded in it:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2tL9rGeKZGU

This shows some deflection/interception. This isn’t even representative; it’s just all that I had on video of sparring. That article explains our approach to sparring – going from soft and slow (where you get a chance to actually implement the bunkai you’ve learned) to hard and fast which is more of a test or experience for “liveness”.

Quote:

Next, the hand techniques in this, seem to have as much follow through as many boxing punches. Why? Because the opponent is moving. These strikes are very diffirent than those in the video I posted above, aren't they? They are like boxing strikes, only sloppier than most boxers would have after five years of training (like thise black belts). Why? Because these students wasted most of their time (IMO) with the type of training I showed above, rather than focusing on what randori. In the IOGKF, for example, sparring isn't introduced till green belt (two years).




But limited sparring is introduced from day one in IOGKF as far as I know. In any event, this is a separate topic.

As to the “follow through” punches, there is a vast disparity between karateka right around the world in how they implement their basics. There is nothing wrong with “follow through” anyway. Even karateka do it. My article was about goals and degrees of difference. On this topic, see my article: http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-are-my-karate-punches-more-like.html

Quote:

What I'd like to point out that, this seems to be a longer path to the same level of skill that a boxer has (with his hands) in far less time. That has been my point all along.




Well, you’ve made your point. What you seem unwilling to concede is that karate does develop something useful that boxing does not. You might not need them to be effective, but in my view karate does develop skills you and other boxers don’t have. This is not an attack. It is my attempt at an objective statement. As I say, you can dislike the karate methods of deflection (rather than using “pure” evasion as per boxing), you can dislike karate’s emphasis on kime (which might never be applicable to protracted matches but might have bearing on a single punch attack/defence in a car-park) etc. but it doesn’t mean that karate has a different methodology that I am attempting to explain – not convince you to follow.

Quote:

Don't try to turn this into me hating and having an agenda against all karate. I am against some of the faulty logic of your article, which, is also the same kind of logic often used to prove the value of certain tradional training methods that actually really only exist for reasons that are(imo) only culurally/period based. No, I'm not against karate as a whole. As a matter of fact, I'm trying to convince my wife to take up Kyokushin, because I think it would be great for self defence.





I’ll ignore the vitriol of your last comments. I will say this: I was out of line with some of my comments because I used a dismissive and rude tone. But I don’t agree that my article has “faulty logic”, nor that I put “words in your mouth” (although I might have misunderstood some of your points). I’ve just re-read my article; even the part at the end under the heading “which is better” to which you refer is consistent with my argument. I revisited it to correct any errors and found it read just fine. I have made some other adjustments on the basis of your comments.

While you seem to expect every one of my comments to be qualified to the nth degree (and I have actually tried to do so as much as possible, resulting in an over-long article just for starters), I note however that you do not hold yourself to the same standard. For example please re-read your comment that “a boxer beats a karate man” or words to that effect. It would seem to imply that the skill of the individual is irrelevant; that ANY boxer will beat ANY karate man. You offered K1 as proof. I picked you up on that logic, but you have never resiled from your position.

It is my view that your own posts have generally poured scorn on karate-type arts. The tone speaks for itself. There is nothing in your posts that suggests any willingness to consider that they have some benefits for combat or some validity in their approach. You feel that these attacks on karate (which are necessarily very dismissive of, and insulting to, some very tough people) are justified because they are fact. If anything it seems to me that you will only find karate agreeable once it resembles boxing – or have I misread you?

I think that if you’re honest you’ll admit to your own scathing and argumentative tone that shows clear disdain for karate and assumes that I and others have nothing to contribute to your understanding of this art and tma, rather than doggedly deny it.

In terms of proof/'putting up' etc. - I'm sure you'll agree that I do more than my fair share (without ANY commercial angle - I don't and have never derived income from MA). I wish I could say that my openness (I don't even have a nom de plume), sincerity, enthusiasm and efforts have been met with any due respect or even civility.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Dan's article - 11/09/08 02:02 AM

Quote:

I come from a long tradition of actually using my blocks and other interceptions in sparring. Needless to say, unless you practise some of the basic drills to which you’ve referred, you won’t be able to implement these techniques.

In this regard you are free to consider my article http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/04/randori-function-of-soft-sparring-in.html. That article has a video embedded in it:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2tL9rGeKZGU

This shows some deflection/interception. This isn’t even representative; it’s just all that I had on video of sparring. That article explains our approach to sparring – going from soft and slow (where you get a chance to actually implement the bunkai you’ve learned) to hard and fast which is more of a test or experience for “liveness”.




I dunno...think you overreached a little on that one Dan?


Here's another good example of some 'resistive sparring' ->

Posted by: Ames

Re: Dan's article - 11/09/08 02:08 AM

Dan, I accept your apology.

I'll start off by agreeing with you on your point, regarding my use of the term 'karate man'. What I meant, and should have qualified afterwards, was that I don't beleive that someone trained in tradional (meaning without resistent sparring, as most uber-tradional dojo's do not) karate would defeat a professional boxer. Actually, I think there are many karate systems out there that train very good fighters.

Bringing this back to the original post, what got my back up intially was this:
Neko said:
Quote:

My answer [as to why karate is better than boxing] is because eye gouges, rigdehands to the the groins or ear slaps are illegal.




My argument here is that reliance on these types of techniques, imo, is exactly what detracts from the development of a funtional fighter. What makes a good karate fighter is the introduction of resistive sparring, not the amount of hand formations he knows. The problem with these techniques, as has been said many times, is that they cannot be trained in an alive manner. Therefore, the result of these techniques on an opponent is always a hypothetical. Over training of these kinds of techniques, especially believing that they are what makes a system better than another, leads, from my experiance, to a kind of festishizing of violence. One becomes more and more invested in the hypothetical/theoritical, and forgets what real violence looks like, and how hard it can be to stop someone set on doing you severe damage.

The antidote to this kind of thinking is consistent limited rules sparring. In effect, what makes someones karate funtional is not the technique acquisition, but rather the method by which those techniques are trained. Limited rules sparring is a new component to karate systems, from my understanding. Many of the more tradional dojo's in Okinawa still frown in this type of thing. Those karate orgization's which have embraced it generally produce the most capable fighters. These fighters are not only fuctional in the ring. The skill set transfers easily into a street scenerio.

I do, however, question the need of the preamble to this type of training that is a hallmark of many dojo's. I just don't understand why someone needs to spend two years before they can test what they have learned. I have yet to hear what I would consider a valid reason for this. Some say it is because the techniques are complicated, and take awhile to sink in.
However, those techniques which are the most complicated are often not used in sparring anyway, because of the adrenline dump and so on. It is unlikely that they would be used on the street either. As for those techniques which cannot be trained in sparring, I think that there are too many variables going on to know for sure whether or not they work. Something as simple as knowing the proper depth of, say, an ear slap can win a fight or put you in the hospital, or worse. Unfortunately, one cannot know the proper depth of strike it takes to rupture the inner ear until one has done so. The early UFC's proved that these techniques are not the fight enders they once were thought to be.

So my point is that, yes, karate can be functional. But that is assuming that resistent sparring is involved, not whether or not ear/groin slaps and eye gounges are taught. I would argue that a karateka does not begin to have functional ability until resitent sparring is begun.

On the other hand, boxers learn this type of thing very early in their training. After that 'dirty' techniques can be shown (and most decent, authentic boxing gyms will show you these techniques for self defence purposes). However, they are always a subset of techniques, with those techniques that can be used in an alive manner taking precedence in the training. From my perspective, this is just a more functional way to train for striking ability (which is that topic that started this thread).

It's just a matter of percentages here. The boxer spends more time developing the delivery system to put his skill (techniques) into play. Most karateka (outside of those in knockdown systems) don't begin the development of this functional delivery system until years into their training. What we are talking about here, I assume when we say 'the best strikers', is the one's who can deliver the most strikes, the most times in the least amount of training time. The longer it takes to train the ability to deliver functional strikes, the longer it will take to develop a functional striker who can actually use his or her techniques. This is why I think, as a general rule, boxing is indeed a better system for training striking.

--Chris
Posted by: CVV

Re: Dan's article - 11/09/08 05:38 AM

Quote:

Neko said:
Quote:

My answer [as to why karate is better than boxing] is because eye gouges, rigdehands to the the groins or ear slaps are illegal.




My argument here is that reliance on these types of techniques, imo, is exactly what detracts from the development of a funtional fighter. What makes a good karate fighter is the introduction of resistive sparring, not the amount of hand formations he knows. The problem with these techniques, as has been said many times, is that they cannot be trained in an alive manner. Therefore, the result of these techniques on an opponent is always a hypothetical. Over training of these kinds of techniques, especially believing that they are what makes a system better than another, leads, from my experiance, to a kind of festishizing of violence. One becomes more and more invested in the hypothetical/theoritical, and forgets what real violence looks like, and how hard it can be to stop someone set on doing you severe damage.




You are correct in a sens that these 'targets' and the techniques used should not be considered the ultimate fight enders but they create great openers. Kicking the groin followed by smacking into face/nose. Or grabbing testicles combined with head-but and knee usually are good self defense techniques. You train first without resistance next oartner blocks individual techniques or into padding. Even boxers aim for certain specific areas (neck, liver, stomach, eye-brow, side of the head). Karate includes eyes, throath, collar bone, ...) But you are right not to rely on just one technique into such an area. I grant full-contact sports their filosophy not to rely on just one good hit but to continue combinations. Karate , in my view, does the same.

Quote:


The antidote to this kind of thinking is consistent limited rules sparring. In effect, what makes someones karate funtional is not the technique acquisition, but rather the method by which those techniques are trained. Limited rules sparring is a new component to karate systems, from my understanding. Many of the more tradional dojo's in Okinawa still frown in this type of thing. Those karate orgization's which have embraced it generally produce the most capable fighters. These fighters are not only fuctional in the ring. The skill set transfers easily into a street scenerio.




Limited rules sparring exists in my opinion since day one in the karate I train. Just depends with whom you're training. I am training since 1980. But control is a must to minimize injuries. We use minimal protective gear. I usually did not use protective gear. Grant you that due to ippon shobu or sanbon shobu or wkf shobu competition system many focus on getting the point. But that is competition fighting with rules. In free sparing (jiyu kumite) combinations are encouraged, at least where I train. But I encourage this type of fighting only to adults. I encourage youngsters (up to 25 years old) to focus on competition fighting. But as of +16, they are allowed to train witn the adults, where there is no competition mindset.

Quote:


I do, however, question the need of the preamble to this type of training that is a hallmark of many dojo's. I just don't understand why someone needs to spend two years before they can test what they have learned. I have yet to hear what I would consider a valid reason for this. Some say it is because the techniques are complicated, and take awhile to sink in.
However, those techniques which are the most complicated are often not used in sparring anyway, because of the adrenline dump and so on. It is unlikely that they would be used on the street either. As for those techniques which cannot be trained in sparring, I think that there are too many variables going on to know for sure whether or not they work. Something as simple as knowing the proper depth of, say, an ear slap can win a fight or put you in the hospital, or worse. Unfortunately, one cannot know the proper depth of strike it takes to rupture the inner ear until one has done so. The early UFC's proved that these techniques are not the fight enders they once were thought to be.




I have been introduced into sparring from day one. Anybody training in our ojo is introduced to sparring from day one. But for kids(-12 years) and adolescent(12-25 years) I encourage competition fighting , shobu WKF rules).

Our dojo (my trainer) started in kyukushinkai. He till has fond memories fo training seminars with Mas Oyama en John Bluming. By the time I started training we were IOGKF, nowadays JKF Goju-Kai - Uchiage-Kai; Jiyu kumite from day one. Most dojo I know in Europe in whatever style did and do practice jiyu kumite (or free sparring). It was introduced by Gogen Yamaguchi around 1940. But even then on Okinawa they were experimenting with free sparring (eg bogu kumite and use of protective gear). But emphesisis in karate is to examine kata and the application of kata techniques. Bunkai is just a little piece of this. Eventually training in free form is a development in karate from around WWII. But in all, when I trained muay thai, we only free sparred for about 15 mins per training of 1,5 hr. The rest was conditioning, and partner drills.In karate, at our dojo, ususally last 15-20 mins is sparring. Especially with youth. Adults center more on conditioning (with contact) and partner drills.
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Dan's article - 11/09/08 07:07 AM

Quote:

Quote:

I come from a long tradition of actually using my blocks and other interceptions in sparring. Needless to say, unless you practise some of the basic drills to which you’ve referred, you won’t be able to implement these techniques.

In this regard you are free to consider my article http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/04/randori-function-of-soft-sparring-in.html. That article has a video embedded in it:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2tL9rGeKZGU

This shows some deflection/interception. This isn’t even representative; it’s just all that I had on video of sparring. That article explains our approach to sparring – going from soft and slow (where you get a chance to actually implement the bunkai you’ve learned) to hard and fast which is more of a test or experience for “liveness”.




I dunno...think you overreached a little on that one Dan?


Here's another good example of some 'resistive sparring' ->






I should have made it clear. When I said:

"That article explains our approach to sparring – going from soft and slow (where you get a chance to actually implement the bunkai you’ve learned) to hard and fast which is more of a test or experience for “liveness”."

I was not intending to imply that the video showed all elements of that approach. The video is titled "soft sparring" after all.

I presume that this is Ed's point.

Other than that, the gif is quite illustrative of hard and fast randori!
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Dan's article - 11/09/08 07:33 AM

Quote:

I just don't understand why someone needs to spend two years before they can test what they have learned. I have yet to hear what I would consider a valid reason for this.




Firstly, they should "test" themselves in more limited sparring from day one. More on that in a minute.

As to free sparring, the reason for the delay is because you are actually being taught to fight in a very particular way and to use particular techniques. Granted, in many schools they never progress past the basics and only do "faux boxing" which are unconnected to their basics. However we try to develop the use of particular techniques in free sparring, such as deflections. If you just go straight into free sparring you end up doing "your own thing" which doesn't use any of the karate techniques. From a karate perspective you groove habits which are opposite to the ones we are trying to teach (deflect with tenshin/taisabaki - don't just duck, etc.).

Lastly free sparring is not real fighting, no matter how close you and others feel it might be - it is a kind of "dance" no matter how much controlled contact you have. You know when it starts and you know when it going to finish. Karate is not concerned with protracted pre-arranged fights but deals with scenarios like the single punch thrown at you in the car park etc. Our beginners are taught to groove responses to such an attack via limited krav maga style stimulus-response drills. I've had many a beginner student come to me over the years and tell me how, after the first few lessons, someone threw a punch at them in an unprovoked environment. The student has blocked, countered and the "fight" was over. Stimulus-response training has served its purpose - and usually with the type of personality type that wouldn't last a week in a boxing gym because the training doesn't appeal to them.

Ring fighting produces very good fighters, but the shorter stimulus response drill is, in my view, not to be discounted as a means of teaching the "ordinary Joe" something that will serve him well.

You might disagree, but in all my years as a prosecutor I saw many surveillance videos of assaults; the majority related to one or 2 blows maximum (certainly the first one dictated the rest of the following events).

And if you look at my sparring video, regardless of what you think of it, you'll agree that we have a particular way of moving and deflecting/dealing with blows. It takes a long time to learn and develop. Because we spend our sparring in the "hot seat" of the melee range (the toe to toe range) beginners get injured - and cause injuries to others too. So there is a safety aspect to not unleashing them into completely "unrestricted" sparring. We don't favour gloves because we work intensively on the deflection aspect which isn't easy when gloves get in the way.

You probably won't be satisfied with these reasons, but there they are. Please don't attack me on this issue but agree to disagree. I'm too tired and sick tonight to carry on a hefty debate! You asked - so I've tried to answer honestly and reasonably what seems like a legitimate and reasonably polite query.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Dan's article - 11/09/08 10:47 PM

Quote:

Ames,are you saying that free fighting was not a part of karate training before karate came to Japan in the early to mid 1900's?




Medulant: It depends on what you mean by 'free fighting'. But from what I have read, no, sparring was not a usual part of training in many style prior to Karate's going to Japan. That's not to say that there were not those who did practice free sparing, or who engaged in challenge matches. In Goju Ryu, I can say without a doubt that Chojun Miyagi only briefly (for less than year) experiment with free sparring, but eventually rejected it. Today, many ultra tradional Goju dojo's (notably the Meibukan and Jundokan) still do not officially recognize irikumi.

This information comes from articles I've read in the Journal of Asian Martial Arts. I'm no expert on this topic, but certainly this seems to be a viewed held by many, that knockdown sparring was not widespread until after arriving in Japan.

--Chris
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Dan's article - 11/10/08 10:08 AM


Karate can't block a Jab, idea.

________________________________________________

Though you seem very informed on both fields of study, to me you seem to not understand what Karate IS. I heard the same thing in a JKD class that Karate was too stagnate to block a fluid jab or combination. I just smiled as the Sifu showed almost robotic movement to show how Karate is out gunned. He went on to display JKD more fluid counter.

But the key is weather Karate or JKD if you react after the strike you will be too late. You must react to his movement if you don't try to arm block but duck and stomp his knee/thigh or or weave and sweep his front leg. You don't need to block his jab or lean away and raise your elbow to cacth his jab. The whole thing is if you put one art in a corner and say just block you going to get hit. What I try to stress is that we teach self defense not blocking, you use your self to atatck his action in defense of your body.

Of course a age uke won't block a quick jab, mosts times but it will snap the elbow if you stop his motion with a ankle or instep stomp, then pop the elbow as it dangles in the air. My point is (and we practice this in class) bobbing and weaving is a great defensive move against a head attack but it doesn't help any in defending against lower attacks. So having a narrow view of what Karate is doesn't help give a good comparison of the two.

I agree boxing is an easier skill to develope and gives you a good potent base and so, does well in competition/Sports K1,MMA and such. But one of the reason is that 60% of what Karate is, is illegal and some say dangerous to apply in sports.

My comment of dept and precison is more about expectation and purpose rather then accuracy, basic boxers are taught to punch through there target also but more then 6;" a Karateka is taught to punch at different dept pending the target 2" to 4" at the head and deeper or snapping if at the body pending the target.

Boxing is more blunt trama and Karate imho is more like BT and dicing and slicing or knuckle accurpunctor;-).

Please continue.
Posted by: Ames

Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 11:36 AM

Quote:

But one of the reason is that 60% of what Karate is, is illegal and some say dangerous to apply in sports.






But then, how do you know this 60% will have the intended effect? In other words, how do you practice these 'too dangerous' techniques. Isn't the only way to practice them against a compliant opponent? How do you know what the result of this kind of attack will actually be. Using your example of knee break, how do you know that the knee will be broken? Further, how do you train to use such a technique as precisely as it must be done against a moving, resisting opponent? I myself have been kicked in the knee several times and never had any problems. Not to sound like a UFC nutridder, but watch those first ones again. There are several knee stomps/kicks that do nothing at all. Same with elbows to the back of the neck/spine and so on.

--Chris
Posted by: CMLEYamabushi

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 12:32 PM

I believe they both have their good points. Boxing has good powerful punches but aims at places that usually have alot of muscle and can cause minimal damage. But i think Karate has more focused techniques that are aimed at vital points on the body. Both can be as effective as eachother if they are performed correctly.
Posted by: student_of_life

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 01:33 PM

theres no real way of knowing it for sure. but its commen sense that your knee will slow you down if its broken or damaged. or a jab to the throat will cause the chin to tuck and the person to move away from it. we can't practice these things in sparring, but we can practice safer versions that are more forgiving on the partner, as long as we are aware that a small change in the application could have different effects. not say they will for sure do this instead of that, but nothing is 100% in a fight.

boxers spar with protective gear on sometimes as well (just to bring this kind of back to the op) for safety. safety in training is important and any kind of training has to have safety considerations so you can repeat the training over time.

boxers hit heavy bags for training, but they don't hit back, so heavy bag training could be considered a waste of time. how do you know the punches you work on will actualt work against someone who can move with you?

"I myself have been kicked in the knee several times and never had any problems."
and i've been punched in the chest and had to have 4 ribs poped back into place. one story isn't can't be used to predict the future or all combat. if you want to use your expirence to help guide your training, then go for it. if you want to use a "one time, at band camp" kind of story to discount a knee stomp, go for it.

"How do you know what the result of this kind of attack will actually be."
how do you know the result of a punch to the jaw will be? how many times have you seen a guy get hit in the jaw and not go down compared to how many have actually gone down? you can't know the percentage success of anything really, you can talk about high percentage and low percentage, but who the hell has done the math on that?

if, for example, a hook to the jaw fails to KO your target, you try to hit him again. so, if any one karate attack failed to do its job, can't we throw another too?
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 02:51 PM

I see your point and it's a good one HOw Do we Know that these so called deadly techniques are effective if you can't practice them on others? I mean you can practice RNC, Arm Bars, right hands the chin and take downs, for sure.

And you are right a stop kick to the knee won't have much affect unless you do it when the knee is loaded and at the right angle or better yet when are pulling him on to that knee. The average person won't know the affect of some of deadlier espects of Combat bc they don't practice with intent. But from past experience I've hit guys on the button and dropped them, hit another guy and he only staggered, hit him with fore knuckles in the throat and he grabs his throat hacking, coughing, eyes bugled watering, no defense drops to his knees or barely standing I hate sweeping him stomping him. The same for the kick to the bal%s some drop like a rock other knees buckle and they coming forward, but this same person get kick to the grion and flick his eyes/touched hard you got this wild defenseless motion again.

I think some things is just common sense you upward elbow a guy in the chin & grab his throat and smash his head against the brick wall behind knee him. Guess what when his eyes roll back in his head you can let go and let him fall. Sounds like common sense to me.

You say a strike to the knee don't do damage well it depends if it starts you to buckle and your shirts grabbed and you are pulled into 3-4 punches to chin and temple, swept and stomped on the side of knee into the concret floor. Tell me that a the knee being struck doesn't cause any damage, cripple. Again common sense concret is harder then flesh and knee cartilage.

You shuto a guy on the side of neck and No he doesn't go unconcisous but he drops like he ran into a wall, next time you see him he is wearing a neck brace. Unexpected result not a KO but a TKO he didn't get back up and wearing a brace. Common sense that must have done damage, not what you wanted but damage non the same.

You are right you can't tell unless you experience this, but you won't have many friends and your enemies will not want to fight they will want to shot you now. They feel you used a weapon on them so fair is fair. Somethings you don't want to know.

Foam sparring IS NOT Karate.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 03:36 PM

Quote:

but its commen sense that your knee will slow you down if its broken or damaged. or a jab to the throat will cause the chin to tuck and the person to move away from it.




True..but the key thing here is IF it's broken or damaged. The jab to the throat is IF you hit the throat. The point of my 'one time at band camp story' was to express the difficulty actually involved in breaking the knee. I also gave the example of those early UFC's, something you neglected to mention. Can a knee be broken with a stomp/kick. Sure. Is is high percentage, well from what I have seen, both in personal experiance and video, no, it is not. The problem is, you can't train the technique to know how it's going to work. You are making an assumption that the way you have been shown will have the desired effect. Although it is indeed common sense that a damaged knee will slow someone down, it is not so easy to effect this damage on a moving, resisting opponent. This move was allowed in the UFC and no one, not once, was able to do it. The burden of proof is on those that say this type of technique will have the desired effect.

Same with the throat. Sure, hitting the throat can really mess someone up. It's a good place to target in a fight, that I would not disagree with. But what is better to build up the kind precise punches needed to hit a fairly small target? Surely not by practising non-resistive, co-operative drills, but rather by learning how to target other areas precisely in the heat of a live exchange. From this, a skill transfer can take place, because the live exchange is less removed from the real event than co-operative practice. In other words, if you know how to target and open up a jaw, then the throat is also opened, and, further, you have the ability to hit it while adreniline is high and the opponent is moving.

Quote:

boxers spar with protective gear on sometimes as well (just to bring this kind of back to the op) for safety. safety in training is important and any kind of training has to have safety considerations so you can repeat the training over time.





I don't really understand your point here. Are you saying that because boxers practice is a way that minimizes injury that this analogous to co-operative practice which is never tested in a resistive environment? I don't really think this is an accurate comparison at all, if that is indeed what you're implying

Quote:

boxers hit heavy bags for training, but they don't hit back, so heavy bag training could be considered a waste of time. how do you know the punches you work on will actualt work against someone who can move with you?




Well, because you practice those same, exact techniques against a resisting, moving partner. Heavy bag training is a way to build the endurance and striking power needed to deliver these techniques. The techniques then DIRECTLY transfer into the sparring, so they are constantly subject to testing for workablity. You don't know what the outcome of your punch will be based the how the heavy bag reacts, you know the outcome based on how your sparring partner reacts. Even then, a diffirent partner may react diffirently. That's why boxing intrinsically trains combinations, rather than single technique, fight ending, 'deadly' moves. The importance of the resistent sparring stage is what I've been trying to get at.

Quote:

how do you know the result of a punch to the jaw will be?




Thanks for making my point for me, and agreeing with me in a round about way. To answer your question, I don't know what the exact outcome will be. I know what the possible and hoped for outcome may be. But do I think this strike will effect everyone in the same way, absolutely not! That's why I train to still be in a position to deliver more strikes, which, again, is the strategy of boxing.

Quote:

if any one karate attack failed to do its job, can't we throw another too?




Of course you can. You'll have to clarify what you mean here by "karate attack", but yes, you can. The point is that through sparring, one builds up an intuitive knowledge of how even a poor punch will generally effect someone. With the kind of techniques were talking about here (eye gouges, throat strikes etc) you have no idea how anyone, even on a general level will be effected. In boxing, I'll know if my strike has had its desired effect. With footwork (assuming I'm using good footwork) I'll be able to throw another shot, or cover myself if need be. But the most important thing of all, is that I'll be more used to dealing with the ramifications of a failed attack in an alive (indeterminate) manner, because it will have happened a great many times in sparring and practicing the technique in an enviroment which more closely resembles actual combat (because at least my opponent is reacting to what I actually throw, not reacting based on a hypothesis, no matter how "common sense" it is).



--Chris
Posted by: student_of_life

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 04:35 PM

"True.."

AH HA! you agreed, i win the debate, lol.

you make great points here Ames, in fact i agree with most of what your saying, i've actually said most of it before on these forums, lol. except the part where you seem to be linking karate to non resistive/compliant training.

your also refering to boxing only as ring sport, something john kogas warned us karate freaks about earlier on this thread. i'm saying that your only refering to the ring sport version of boxing because you being up how it has to be trainied in a live enviroment to be considered real. all the dirty boxing stuff, the stuff that would be most usefull in a fight, you can't use in a boxing ring. because of the rules.

atheltic, resistive sparing is a HUGE HELP to getting fighting skill. the techniques and strategy boxers use in sparring is great, hell yes it is. so is the stuff i do when i spar in karate. yes, we spar. were not boxers, but we spar and its hard sparing too, but safety has to be taken into account, like in a boxing ring. so we punch, kick, strike, sweep and throw in a live enviroment. we can't practice the "deadly" teachniques in sparing for obvious reasons, but just like we can't so can no one else.

my point is that sparing is great, but it has its limitations. all forms of sparing do, all forms of combat sports do too. commen sense, not exactly ground breaking news to any of you but considering your posts, i'd thought i'd remind you.

"Thanks for making my point for me, and agreeing with me in a round about way."
i do mostly agree with you...so your welcome?

"To answer your question, I don't know what the exact outcome will be. I know what the possible and hoped for outcome may be. But do I think this strike will effect everyone in the same way, absolutely not!"
which is the answer i'd give you if you asked me the outcome of a knee kick, or eye gouge. you can't know for sure until you do it. there are tehhniques you can do full force in training, but you can apply a little pressure and see where it could end up. not the same thing as getting to know it full force, of coarse, but at least you have an idea.

the bottom line is that in a fight, you look for weak spots to target, if you only want to target a few, go for it.

"You'll have to clarify what you mean here by "karate attack""
my bad, lol. any attack from a karate person would count as a "karate attack", lol.

"With the kind of techniques were talking about here (eye gouges, throat strikes etc) you have no idea how anyone, even on a general level will be effected. In boxing, I'll know if my strike has had its desired effect. "

now that i have this entire post written, that quote from your post brings to memory an episode of "fight science" where they looked at self defence techniques, like the eye gouge, the neck strike, and a few others. you should check it out for some results that might be a littel suprising, or they might not be.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 05:20 PM

Quote:

except the part where you seem to be linking karate to non resistive/compliant training.





If it comes off like that, I aplogize, because that's not what I'm trying to say. It's not really about an art, it's about the way that art is trained. I think there is plenty of good karate dojo's out there. But there are many more that train with what I consider outdated methods. Let me clarify what I mean with that...

You said:
Quote:

the dirty boxing stuff, the stuff that would be most usefull in a fight, you can't use in a boxing ring.




That's true. But keep in mind, I'm not trying to say that something like an eyegouge can't work. What I'm saying is that what is far more important than knowing about an eyegouge is training delivry system to make that eyegouge a reality. In other words, if I was to just give a percentage, I'd say 90% of time should be dedicated to drilling techniques that can be used in a resistive environment, and sparring. That's totally subjective, and I know it. But the point is that my argument is that someone is much better served spending the majority of thier time developing the qualities to use their 'weapons'; further, I beleive that the only way to effectively develop these qualities is through sparring. That being said, sure you can stick your thumb out and eyegouge someone. But honestly, this is just gravy: the meat is the delivry system that allows me to open up my opponent enough so that this stuff can take place. As an example, if you can open someone enough to hit their jaw, then you can throat strike them. The thing is, can you get them into that position. Boxing is all about positioning. The person in a superior position has the most potential weapons to be deployed. On the other hand, tradional karate footwork (looking at kata, bunkai) is far more linear. One might say that it works by the deployment of the right 'weapon' in response to the given attack, not really by positional dominance. That being said, alot of karate has more recently introduced more taisabaki that seems to be very similar to boxing, in which case my analogy doesn't hold. So, I'm really talking here about tradional karate that finds the majority of its strategy in kata and bunkai. If I'm wrong about this, I'd like to see some video that refutes it; because all that I've seen show this to be true.

Quote:

my point is that sparing is great, but it has its limitations. all forms of sparing do, all forms of combat sports do too




I totally agree with this. I think boxing itself has a lot holes that need to be filled with cross training other arts, such as those that deal with more effective clinch skills and ground work.

That being said, I think sparring is as close to the real thing as you can get. Now this thread is specifically talking about striking, so I think boxing is a great way to focus on that aspect of your game, because, again, it's focuses on resistive application from the get go.

Quote:

there are tehhniques you can do full force in training, but you can apply a little pressure and see where it could end up. not the same thing as getting to know it full force, of coarse, but at least you have an idea.





If you have the main course on your plate, then sure dribble on some gravy. I'm just arguing the importance of those techniques that can be used under pressure in response to the o.p. Basically my point is that karate isn't better than boxing because it contains deadly techniques. What makes someones karate good is the abilty to use the basics in a resistive environment where skill can be measured by some level of accuracy.

Quote:

now that i have this entire post written, that quote from your post brings to memory an episode of "fight science" where they looked at self defence techniques, like the eye gouge, the neck strike, and a few others. you should check it out for some results that might be a littel suprising, or they might not be.




You know, I've seen those episodes. As I recall, from another forum, someone with a background in kineseology came on and talked about some major errors in some of those. I'm not saying it was this one in particular, but some of them had major errors.

But that doesn't really matter. My point is the same. That technique is based on proper conditions being met before it can be used. The problem is, is that it is exceedingly difficult to understand those conditions without actually ever training them (or the closest thing to them).

My problem with tradionally taught karate (please note 'tradionally taught') is that it functions with the exact opposite methodology of how a good system should. Bruce Lee's example of basketball player being told to hold a basketball for three years before he takes a shot, is a pretty good analogy for what I'm getting at. Basically, sparring should take place at the begining of training, maybe not full out on day one, but definately with resistence. Only after this level is acheived do I think you should learn those techniques that have been shown to be lower percentage. Alot of trad. karate reverses this completely, teaching the low percentage stuff first, drilling one person kata and co-operative application. Many, especially the most tradional dojo, don't move past this stage. Those that do I feel do so only after an overlong preamble. Karate such as Anshin, Ashihara, Daido Juku (though not Karate in a strict sense) have shown that one just doesn't need this long of a preamble in order to perform at a functional level.

When I say I prefer boxing, it's because it is ALWAYS trained in this resistive way. Therefore, generally, I think it's a better choice for striking ability.

--Chris
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 05:48 PM

Neko456 wrote
Quote:


I agree boxing is an easier skill to develope and gives you a good potent base and so, does well in competition/Sports K1,MMA and such. But one of the reason is that 60% of what Karate is, is illegal and some say dangerous to apply in sports.





Yes, and too dangerous to actually practice as well. If you can't practice, you can't develop skill. There's a lot of dangerous stuff in boxing as well, otherwise people wouldn't have died in the ring, no? There are also a lot of illegal things that boxers do in the ring as well, that take no practice whatsoever to do them. Why can they do this? Because they're functional fighters. Foul tactics require no skill. Skill comes from a functional delivery system, which comes from functional practice. And that functional practice knows no stylistic boundaries; karate, boxing, you name it, can all practice alive and functionally. As Krishnamurti said, "the truth is outside of all fixed forms". No form then, owns it. It's ALL a matter of how you train.


Quote:

I see your point and it's a good one HOw Do we Know that these so called deadly techniques are effective if you can't practice them on others?





I think that is a very legitimate question. The truth is, you cannot "know" if your technique is worthy if it isn't repeatedly testable (ie, using it in training against a resisting opponent or in competition). If you cannot use it, it's only theory isn't it? It's often said that what looks good on paper doesn't often fly in the real world.



student_of_life wrote
Quote:

theres no real way of knowing it for sure. but its common sense that your knee will slow you down if its broken or damaged. or a jab to the throat will cause the chin to tuck and the person to move away from it. we can't practice these things in sparring, but we can practice safer versions that are more forgiving on the partner, as long as we are aware that a small change in the application could have different effects. not say they will for sure do this instead of that, but nothing is 100% in a fight.





You know, you're right. If you kick someone's knee and injure, he may slow down. But you can't be sure. I've seen people do some damned near incredible things when you'd have thought that they were injured severely. I know of a guy that broke his forearm in a fight and he ended up knocking the guy out with his other arm. You just don't know what effect your "alleged" technique is going to have.

And the problem with "pretending" to train is that you're not really training. Why do I say, "pretending"? Because if you're pretending to kick at the knee of your partner and aren't really kicking it, then you're just pretending. You're playing a game that is called "fantasy martial arts". I've even seen people "pretend" to be injured after their partner "pretended" to kick them in the knee. What good is that really when you are unable to derive any legitimate feedback from your technique?

Here's one big problem with that; many people will tell you that unless you have confidence in a technique, you probably won't be able to use it. How are you going to develop confidence in something you have to "pretend" to do? I could go on and on but, do you see my point?


Quote:


boxers spar with protective gear on sometimes as well (just to bring this kind of back to the op) for safety. safety in training is important and any kind of training has to have safety considerations so you can repeat the training over time.





True, but that is only so that they can actually train live. They wear equipment so they don't have to "pretend" to hit each other.


Quote:


boxers hit heavy bags for training, but they don't hit back, so heavy bag training could be considered a waste of time. how do you know the punches you work on will actualt work against someone who can move with you?





Boxers don't hit heavy bags to learn to fight. They hit bags to develop attributes like stamina, power, etc. They learn to apply those skills through alive training against resisting partners/opponents. That's key.


Quote:


and i've been punched in the chest and had to have 4 ribs poped back into place. one story isn't can't be used to predict the future or all combat. if you want to use your expirence to help guide your training, then go for it. if you want to use a "one time, at band camp" kind of story to discount a knee stomp, go for it.





As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't discount any technique. Anything is possible and some things aren't as likely. I'm not personally that concerned about the dreaded knee stomp. Any good fighter isn't going to stand there posing like a statue and allow someone to have full access to the knee. It's a low percentage technique as far as I'm concerned, unless I'm coming in, walking forward with me legs straightened out like stilts. But that's really beside the point. The real question is, how does one train such a technique to be functional. The true answer is, you can't. It's all theory and hope that such a tactic works like you think it should. That's still fine, whatever floats your boat. The only reason I'm discussing this topic is because it should be seen for what it is - a theoretical, "best guess", like a lot of other "vital points" and foul tactics.

Really, I don't have a problem with that sort of thing either. I have no problems with people practicing any of that sort of stuff provided that they have something to fall back on - a functional delivery system developed through athletic (read, "sport") style training. You CAN have the best of both worlds.



Quote:


how do you know the result of a punch to the jaw will be? how many times have you seen a guy get hit in the jaw and not go down compared to how many have actually gone down?





I don't know if that is the point here. The point is, you can practice hitting the jaw, where you will have a harder time practicing hitting your training partners groin at full power. Is that no true? I mean, that a person won't drop after a technique is of secondary relevence to what is being discussed here. The primary point is how one goes about developing said technique, how one trains.



Quote:


you can't know the percentage success of anything really, you can talk about high percentage and low percentage, but who the hell has done the math on that?





The "math" is what you do in training. The gym is where you do your research. That's the only place you can reliably and repeatedly research your theories is it not?



Quote:


if, for example, a hook to the jaw fails to KO your target, you try to hit him again. so, if any one karate attack failed to do its job, can't we throw another too?





Certainly you can. I would never say otherwise. But again, it's not what you think you can do, it's what you know you can do that matters, at least as far as I'm concerned. Some of the points that I've been trying to make over the course if this thread and, my entire time on this forum, has been on the matter of theory vs. practical reality; of impracticable technique vs. practicable technique. That's a very substantial point, imo.

However I am NOT going to be the man to go on record and say karate guys can't fight. That completely depends on the individual and how that person trains. All I've ever said is that there are training methods that, in my opinion, are more functional than others. There are some things that are a complete waste of valuable, irreplaceable time. But that's just my opinion.


-John
Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 07:59 PM

Quote:

However I am NOT going to be the man to go on record and say karate guys can't fight. That completely depends on the individual and how that person trains. All I've ever said is that there are training methods that, in my opinion, are more functional than others. There are some things that are a complete waste of valuable, irreplaceable time. But that's just my opinion.




This summarises your position very well John.

However are you not prepared to concede that it is possible that some of the things you consider "a waste of valuable time" are done for reasons pertinent to karate tactics and goals that you don't fully understand?

For example, if you sparred with Morio Higaonna even now in his 70s I know you'd have to respect his extremely high level of effectiveness. You might be inclined to put that down to the training he does which is similar to boxing - and say that whatever else he's done has been a "complete waste of time". In fact, he does (and has always done) very traditional karate training - very little of his personal routine looks ANYTHING like boxing (this is in contrast to even my own approach). Ditto some of his top students such as Graham Ravey in the UK with whom I have trained with on and off for many years - an extremely formidable fighter by anyone's standards (very few people I know can dish out full power blows AND take them like Graham).

The fact is that karate has a fundamentally different approach to its tactics. I can tell that this is not something you have experienced (at least properly). Neither, it seems, has Chris - even though he's done some karate. Yes it takes a bit longer to master, but the reason Higaonna and others like him fight as well as they do (and don't take my word for it, try your luck as many have done) is because of their own particular approach and the methods they use. These might not be intuitively easy to understand for a Western-based fighter because they are so different. The "drills" you lampoon as ineffective actually serve a very different purpose than what you assume. Until you've done them and realised the benefits you are unlikely to appreciate that purpose.

I've tried (in good faith) to open up the karate paradigm to greater understanding by referring to some of the fundamentally different aims (just one being developing kime). However (and correct me if I'm wrong) it seems to me that my perspective (being just one here) is not accorded any serious attention. It is automatically seen by you and Chris as a "lame justification" rather than what it is; a sincere attempt to give you some insight into karate methodology. I was (rightly) criticised for using a condescending tone earlier on, yet it seems to me that you and Chris make no real attempt to be open to a VERY approach despite the fact that some of its adherents demonstrate an extremely high level of practicality (if you ever train with them directly - as opposed to joining in white belt basics - you'll see what I mean). You take the information I provide to explain how their approach (how they got to be able to do what they do) and interpret it as an attack, rather than a sincere attempt to expand the debate.

Butterfly said to me a little while ago that I "had no truck" with some of the guys I appeared to be implicitly criticising when I made some sweeping statement about combat sports. I had spoken rashly and immediately conceded his point. You criticise karate methods using very strong language ("complete waste of time" etc.), yet you have no truck with some seriously tough guys - who do no boxing style training at all and mostly do the "waste of time" stuff. The fact that karate has a large number of adherents who practise a very diluted recreational form does not invalidate its methodology; they are not the only examples of karate (even if they are in the majority).

In other words, "complete waste of time" is something I think you should revisit. On the other hand, you're unlikely to do so as long as you refuse to concede ANY ground in relation to your views and to open up to other possiblities (even if they are not what you would ever choose to do).
Posted by: harlan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 10:23 PM

Funny. My teacher told me on day one of karate, 'We are a traditional dojo...no sparring.' Or essentially, no sparring until a certain level of control is reached. I'd like to point out that 'traditional' as a term doesn't mean no-sparring, or no-sparring until several years, or no-resistance in some dojos.

But you may not be familiar with this type of karate. And people that teach it are notably absent from forums.

Quote:

My problem with tradionally taught karate (please note 'tradionally taught') is that it functions with the exact opposite methodology of how a good system should. Bruce Lee's example of basketball player being told to hold a basketball for three years before he takes a shot, is a pretty good analogy for what I'm getting at. Basically, sparring should take place at the begining of training, maybe not full out on day one, but definately with resistence. Only after this level is acheived do I think you should learn those techniques that have been shown to be lower percentage. Alot of trad. karate reverses this completely, teaching the low percentage stuff first, drilling one person kata and co-operative application. Many, especially the most tradional dojo, don't move past this stage. Those that do I feel do so only after an overlong preamble. Karate such as Anshin, Ashihara, Daido Juku (though not Karate in a strict sense) have shown that one just doesn't need this long of a preamble in order to perform at a functional level.

When I say I prefer boxing, it's because it is ALWAYS trained in this resistive way. Therefore, generally, I think it's a better choice for striking ability.

--Chris


Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 10:34 PM

If here is a place of opinions, why do you need to ask people to conceed things that go against their experience or better judgement? Why isn't it ok for people to think some theories of self-defense training are a waste of time?

Isn't there a sliver of possibility that some may think it's you who should conceed in the appearence that you talk alot on subjects and come off as an expert, but your movement suggests that assumed position is unfounded? for instance, your talk/blog/website suggests you've been training for decades - but I'm sure it seems to some eyes, your movements and drills show unrefined body dynamics and compliant training methods.

or is it all about being so polite, and not stepping on any toes, that nobody self-reflects?
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 10:38 PM

Boxers before the early 1900's fought bare-knuckle and had a completely different style. Then people started using gloves and then larger and larger gloves and more and more rules (or different rules) and strangely boxing changed as the rules changed. Bareknuckle boxers fought much more like traditional Karate fighters than "modern" boxers. IS that because they were "less scientific" and more premitive in their use of boxing? It seems odd that all of the sudden in a period of maybe 40 or 50 years the techniques of boxing would increase drastically and all those years before the techniques had stagnated and no one progressed in knowledge or skill and would just less skilled. Jkogas would you say fighters of recent times are more skilled than fighters of the bareknuckle days or early days of gloved boxing? I find that hard to believe. Fighters of the old days usually fought a lot more and boxing had been around for a couple hundred years I would think they would've gotten pretty skilled after all that time. Maybe thir style went along with the rules just like today rather than simply being worse. Also, the use of boxing in mma is very different from boxing under boxing organizations. If it's all basically the same wouldnt they use textbook boxing in mma rather than modifying it so much?
Also, while boxing is great it's a bit narrow, Karate is nice as you learn to incorporate a lot of grabs with yoru strikes which is hard to do with big gloves. Bareknuckle boxers incortporated a lot more techniques, I would think, because they didnt have gloves getting in the way or as many rules. You adapt to different situations. Not all fighting is equal or the same.
Different rules/situatiosn require a different approach. You could say that bareknuckle boxers didnt spar as more or something due to know glvoes but from reading a lot on it I'm pretty sure they sparred just as much. Fought very differently yet the fighters were usually more experienced than todays fighters and did use 'aliveness' in their training. Seems crazy to think they were worse fighters.

And why is everyone criticising Dan so much, Jkogas is way more aggressive against Karate yet no one really cares. Here Dan is at least as experienced as Jkogas (not trying to insult you or jump on you Jkogas and you guys BOTH know wayy more than I ever will lol).

Jkogas-just curious about yoru idea that dirty tactics are so instinctual-what makes you think that? I've seen many fights where guys in even the most disadvantagous of positions failed to use such tactics. I havent seen any evidence or research saying that dirty fighting is an inborn human instinct. they're movements like any other, such as a jab, and they have to be trained like any others (such as jabs). If you train to never use those you probably wont in a fight. Granted it's hard to train them with 'aliveness' it's possible-Tony Blauer does some of that I thought same with Paul Vunak.

Or and you can train something with "aliveness" all you want but that doesnt mean it'll necessairly be a tactically sound technique.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 10:54 PM

Quote:

This summarises your position very well John.

However are you not prepared to concede that it is possible that some of the things you consider "a waste of valuable time" are done for reasons pertinent to karate tactics and goals that you don't fully understand?





I'm quite sure. But fighting is fighting and isn't exactly rocket science. I know enough about fighting to make astute observations.


Quote:


For example, if you sparred with Morio Higaonna even now in his 70s I know you'd have to respect his extremely high level of effectiveness. You might be inclined to put that down to the training he does which is similar to boxing - and say that whatever else he's done has been a "complete waste of time". In fact, he does (and has always done) very traditional karate training - very little of his personal routine looks ANYTHING like boxing (this is in contrast to even my own approach). Ditto some of his top students such as Graham Ravey in the UK with whom I have trained with on and off for many years - an extremely formidable fighter by anyone's standards (very few people I know can dish out full power blows AND take them like Graham).





Don't know any of these people you mention and therefore, I can't comment.


Quote:

The fact is that karate has a fundamentally different approach to its tactics. I can tell that this is not something you have experienced (at least properly). Neither, it seems, has Chris - even though he's done some karate. Yes it takes a bit longer to master, but the reason Higaonna and others like him fight as well as they do (and don't take my word for it, try your luck as many have done) is because of their own particular approach and the methods they use. These might not be intuitively easy to understand for a Western-based fighter because they are so different. The "drills" you lampoon as ineffective actually serve a very different purpose than what you assume. Until you've done them and realised the benefits you are unlikely to appreciate that purpose.





Well again, fighting isn't rocket science. It's quite simple in fact. My point of view is, there's no need to build a more elaborate mousetrap when the simple one works quite well. I don't know any of these people that you refer to, but I'm game enough to train with anyone.

But let me ask you a question; could these individuals that you speak of an obviously respect, do well in sparring matches? Could they spar in all "ranges" or phases? Not knowing anything about them and given the fact that you apparently do, I figured you might know.


Quote:


I've tried (in good faith) to open up the karate paradigm to greater understanding by referring to some of the fundamentally different aims (just one being developing kime). However (and correct me if I'm wrong) it seems to me that my perspective (being just one here) is not accorded any serious attention.





We're just skeptical folks I suppose. We prefer to be shown and not told I suppose. I've studied karate in the past and have had experience with it to know that what I've seen has basically sucked with a capital SUCK. I'm not ignorant to the point where I believe that every karate school on earth operates in the same manner. Though I'm aware that most are essentially the same.


Quote:


It is automatically seen by you and Chris as a "lame justification" rather than what it is; a sincere attempt to give you some insight into karate methodology.





That's fine bro. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I mean, at the end of the day, I'm pretty opened minded. Just not to the point where my brain falls out. I believe that Chris is a cool, down to earth guy as well. I think we're both here because we have a point of view. That point of view is shaped by the exclusivity of other points of view. That's just the way it works. That said, opinions, mine included, have been known to change over time. But my opinions have only been reinforced over the years, not softened. With each passing year, a little more depth is added, not breadth. No reason for that.


Quote:


...it seems to me that you and Chris make no real attempt to be open to a VERY approach despite the fact that some of its adherents demonstrate an extremely high level of practicality (if you ever train with them directly - as opposed to joining in white belt basics - you'll see what I mean).





Dan (I am assuming your name is Dan), I've just been talking about kata mostly. My opinion isn't going to change on that matter. I can say that much. It doesn't matter what arguments are used. I've heard them all and disagree with them.



Quote:

You take the information I provide to explain how their approach (how they got to be able to do what they do) and interpret it as an attack, rather than a sincere attempt to expand the debate.





No, I don't really see it as an attack, unless you're attacking. You're not attacking now, you're being reasonable. That's why I'm not attacking. See, I believe you and I (and everyone else) can have a reasonable discussion. Even if it means agreeing to disagree. If the truth is all we're after and we follow a LOGICAL and rational path (those are the key words) path toward it, we will eventually come to a point where we agree, most likely. That is, if we don't fall back on emotional arguments.


Quote:


.....You criticise karate methods using very strong language ("complete waste of time" etc.), yet you have no truck with some seriously tough guys - who do no boxing style training at all and mostly do the "waste of time" stuff.





I don't know what else to call kata than a waste of time. But the only reason I call it that is because that's what I see it as. In other words, I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just being honest. Saying that kata is a waste of time is just an easy, to the point way of expressing how I feel about it. I don't know how else to say it in a nicer way. I guess I could say that kata is an "exercise in futility", but I doubt that would go over well either. So I'll just leave it at that. Seriously, I'm not trying to be mean spirited here. I just don't know how else to say it because to me, time is limited and I want to spend it well. Doing something that I consider to be meaningless and have no functional purpose for fighting is, a waste of valuable time -- to me. I hope you understand that I'm not trying to slam the practice. There's a difference between being mean and being honest. It may not seem like much, but there is.


Quote:


The fact that karate has a large number of adherents who practise a very diluted recreational form does not invalidate its methodology; they are not the only examples of karate (even if they are in the majority).





Sure, I recognize that, even though I've never personally met any. But I'm not afraid to spar with anyone. I've had my ass handed to me enough over the years that a few more times isn't going to kill me. If I ever had the opportunity to meet and train with some good karate ka, I would consider it an honor. I would only hope they would consider it the same. By train, I mean, to "spar" and not do kata however.....just so we're clear.


Quote:

In other words, "complete waste of time" is something I think you should revisit. On the other hand, you're unlikely to do so as long as you refuse to concede ANY ground in relation to your views and to open up to other possiblities (even if they are not what you would ever choose to do).





Again, lets be clear that I'm talking mostly about the practice of kata than anything else. Even the 1-3 step sparring stuff I don't like either. But that's just me. I have reasons why I don't like it. Those reasons are perfectly valid. If someone can convince me, using logic, of their merit, and more importantly, SHOW me, I might be persuaded. However, no one has ever done that sufficiently. Thus we arrive at the point that we have now.


-John
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 11:15 PM

I will agree Kata, while it may be fun for some people and good exercise I suppose, isnt all that necessary (I sometimes like doing it but thats just me). I dont think was ever really meant for anything other than a way to record the methods of a system in the absence of video/pictures, etc. Kind of like a ryme to help remember moral ideas or something. Take Kajukenbo, it's a very traditional form of fighting (at least compared to mma/boxing) yet forms are a pretty small part of it and they do just fine.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 11:22 PM

Quote:

Funny. My teacher told me on day one of karate, 'We are a traditional dojo...no sparring.' Or essentially, no sparring until a certain level of control is reached. I'd like to point out that 'traditional' as a term doesn't mean no-sparring, or no-sparring until several years, or no-resistance in some dojos.




Yes, I agree that tradional doesn't mean 'no sparring'. Actually I said that some 'tradional' dojo now spar. However, this appears to be a fairly modern innovation in Okinawan Karate. Many of the most tradional dojo still, staying tradional, still do not spar. Now we can perhaps debate about what the word 'tradional' means, and in this case your sensei was probably using it in to better differeniate what he/she does from modern sport Karate. However, I'm using 'tradional' in the strictest sense, and no, 'tradional' Okinawan karate did not spar, due to numerous reason, not the least of which was not having access to modern medicine, as well as not having safety gear. This is coming from several articles I've read over the years in Journal of Asian Martial Arts. Sadly, I don't have them anymore (accidently tossed them during a move), so I can't reference them. I think one was by Mario McKenna. Anyway, this historical information is easy to come by: tradional Karate did not spar much. Certainly not enough for it to be considered a part of the methodology of passing down the art.

--Chris
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 11:38 PM

Stormdragon wrote
Quote:

Boxers before the early 1900's fought bare-knuckle and had a completely different style. Then people started using gloves and then larger and larger gloves and more and more rules (or different rules) and strangely boxing changed as the rules changed.






1) Boxing changed a lot when US servicemen went into the Philippines. At that time they still fought in the manner of John L. Sullivan (arms outstretched, etc). The Filipinos with whom they sparred had a different style of striking. They fought with their hands close to the face/torso because, having your arms outstretched over there would have them carved up by knives (the Filipino martial arts being, heavily "blade oriented"). Their empty hands approach was an extension of their weapons approach and thus they kept their hands close even when fighting empty handed. The had greater mobility and footwork than their Western counterparts who basically stood motionless like statues. Clueless statues. These Filipinos are said to have greatly influenced American boxing subsequently.

Primitive you ask? You betcha.


Quote:


Bareknuckle boxers fought much more like traditional Karate fighters than "modern" boxers. IS that because they were "less scientific" and more premitive in their use of boxing?





That they may have fought similarly, doesn't mean that they were doing the same thing or even had the same goals. Primitive, you ask? No more primitive perhaps than someone in the NBA reverting to using a two handed set-shot as their primary shooting mechnanic.


Quote:


It seems odd that all of the sudden in a period of maybe 40 or 50 years the techniques of boxing would increase drastically and all those years before the techniques had stagnated and no one progressed in knowledge or skill and would just less skilled.





You're just assuming that boxing stagnated. Who is really to say what happened in other part of the world (the Philippines for example) where boxing looked more like it does today? Boxing there had a great effect on the nature of boxing as I mentioned. That's one big reason why the styles began to evolve. Living arts evolve, dead arts don't.


Quote:


Jkogas would you say fighters of recent times are more skilled than fighters of the bareknuckle days or early days of gloved boxing? I find that hard to believe.





Unequivocally. Let me answer it this way; are today's football players better than those of a hundred years ago? What about today's basketball players vs. those of a hundred years ago? Why woudn't boxers be any different? The old bare knuckle guys didn't even use footwork. It's not even comparable. We know more today. We have greater science. We simply understand more about scientific training. It's no contest.


Quote:


Fighters of the old days usually fought a lot more and boxing had been around for a couple hundred years.





Yes, and now it's been around even longer. We know more today as a result. There is no question that the skill is better. Don't get caught up in the romance of the "olden days". They weren't necessarily that much better. We can however see that vast improvements have been made. Like, keeping your hands in close and protecting your head for example.


Quote:

I would think they would've gotten pretty skilled after all that time. Maybe thir style went along with the rules just like today rather than simply being worse.




What are you basing that on, having BEEN there or something? Come on man.


Quote:

Also, the use of boxing in mma is very different from boxing under boxing organizations. If it's all basically the same wouldnt they use textbook boxing in mma rather than modifying it so much?





Its actually not that much different. The stance is a bit wider, but otherwise, the better strikers in MMA have boxing experience. They AREN'T walking in there with their arms stuck straight out in front of them, that's for sure. It's really not modified as much as you're making it out to be. They have to square up more to defend shots. Otherwise that's about it. Plus, there is no accounting for skill. It's not my fault if many of today's mma fighters can't box extremely well.


Quote:


Also, while boxing is great it's a bit narrow, Karate is nice as you learn to incorporate a lot of grabs with yoru strikes which is hard to do with big gloves.





Who said boxing had to have gloves? I know *I* never mentioned gloves anywhere here on this thread. Gloves have nothing to do with the delivery system of boxing - of which I am speaking.


Quote:

Bareknuckle boxers incortporated a lot more techniques, I would think, because they didnt have gloves getting in the way or as many rules.





What kinds of techniques? And why Stormy, are you and I going around (again) on this topic? You only come out of the woodwork whenever I show up on a thread it seems. You should already know everything I'm going to say already.

Gloves, gloves, [censored] gloves again. Dude...perhaps you've been absent from here a lot or have just forgotten everything we've ever said to each other. Delivery system bro, does not automatically mean "ring" sport.


Quote:

You could say that bareknuckle boxers didnt spar as more or something due to know glvoes but from reading a lot on it I'm pretty sure they sparred just as much. Fought very differently yet the fighters were usually more experienced than todays fighters and did use 'aliveness' in their training. Seems crazy to think they were worse fighters.





Stormdragon, you don't know, because you weren't there. All we have is now brother. Today, not yesterday. What you, I and everyone else can do, execute and perform TODAY is all that matters. I don't care about John L. Sullivan. I really don't. It's as dead an issue as the man himself.


Quote:


And why is everyone criticising Dan so much, Jkogas is way more aggressive against Karate yet no one really cares. Here Dan is at least as experienced as Jkogas (not trying to insult you or jump on you Jkogas and you guys BOTH know wayy more than I ever will lol).





Who is criticizing Dan? I haven't. I've been critical of kata, but don't even try and make something out of nothing and start that crap. Re-read the posts. As far as my being "aggressive 'against' karate"... well, I speak my mind. Don't know what else to do.


Quote:

Jkogas-just curious about yoru idea that dirty tactics are so instinctual-what makes you think that?





Let me ask you a question. How easy is it to bite? How difficult is it to stick your finger into someone's eyeball? Not very hard is it?


Quote:

I've seen many fights where guys in even the most disadvantagous of positions failed to use such tactics. I havent seen any evidence or research saying that dirty fighting is an inborn human instinct.





Boy, I don't know where you've been looking. Ask Mike Tyson about that. And he's a moron.



Quote:


they're movements like any other, such as a jab, and they have to be trained like any others (such as jabs). If you train to never use those you probably wont in a fight. Granted it's hard to train them with 'aliveness' it's possible-Tony Blauer does some of that I thought same with Paul Vunak.





Lets just say that I have a difference of opinion.

-John
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/10/08 11:46 PM

I'm about to go but I'll respond fully later (whether you like it or not lol jk).
What I'm going on is some video footage I've seen of the older fighters (Sullivan, Corbett, etc.), as well blow by blow accounts from people, what they said about their training, and so on.
I admit I didnt know about the connection boxing had with the Filipino fighters.
About the Mike tyson dirty fighting thing, thats one example, obviously some people will go agaisnt the rule. I can think of other examples of that happening. Still there are far more where it didnt happen. According to what seems to be your idea that dirty fighting is an instinct that people will likely go to under stress, that should happen often in the chaos of fighting, including sport fighting. But it doesnt. What abotu wrestlers who turn their backs in a match with BJJ guys knowing it exposes the neck to chokes? Not exactly the same as dirty tactics but the idea is you do what you've had ingrained in you most. To be most effective you have to adapt at least somewhat to changing situations.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/11/08 02:14 AM

Quote:

The fact is that karate has a fundamentally different approach to its tactics. I can tell that this is not something you have experienced (at least properly). Neither, it seems, has Chris - even though he's done some karate. Yes it takes a bit longer to master, but the reason Higaonna and others like him fight as well as they do (and don't take my word for it, try your luck as many have done) is because of their own particular approach and the methods they use. These might not be intuitively easy to understand for a Western-based fighter because they are so different. The "drills" you lampoon as ineffective actually serve a very different purpose than what you assume. Until you've done them and realised the benefits you are unlikely to appreciate that purpose.





Are you telling me that in order to judge an art, one must first master it? How much time in does one need in order to decide that the training methods are not for them, and have, at least from their perspective, several serious flaws?

Quote:

In fact, he does (and has always done) very traditional karate training - very little of his personal routine looks ANYTHING like boxing (this is in contrast to even my own approach). Ditto some of his top students such as Graham Ravey in the UK with whom I have trained with on and off for many years - an extremely formidable fighter by anyone's standards (very few people I know can dish out full power blows AND take them like Graham).





Here's the thing, this is faulty logic, imo. Just because a given training method can make one good fighter, doesn't validate the system as a whole. Higaonna, if he is as good as he is cracked up to be (and you're not the first to say he is good, Don Draeger was another) then he appears to be the exception, not the rule. What matters isn't that one person is at a high level; but, rather, how often the results are repeatable in the building of these abilities. So, just because you can use one or two examples of people who have benifited from this type of training, doesn't validate it as a whole. Boxing has repeatable results, the nature of it's teaching methodology is not pass on the style without obsructions. The very nature of the ranking system of Karate creates a teaching methodology built around the rank system. Knowledge is given only to a few, while the rest 'pay their dues' and hope for the best. There are several reasons why this occurs, but, suffice it to say, none one of them is a pragmatic one (at least not for our time). It is rather a system of passing down knowledge that has it's roots in a period where knowledge had to be closely guarded, and the practioner had be tested for trustworthiness. For the time, it made sense. Now, not so much.

So I disagree with the whole premise of your, and others, argument that Karate takes longer to learn because the tactics are in some way more advanced, or innately needing more time to learn. Actually "their own particular approach and the methods they use" is highly steeped in the culture from which these arts sprang and to try and justify the training approach as anything more than this is wrong, imo. The training approach takes longer, because it was made to take longer, not because it NEEDS to take longer.



Quote:

However (and correct me if I'm wrong) it seems to me that my perspective (being just one here) is not accorded any serious attention.




Alright, I'll correct you: you're wrong, lol. But seriously Dan, I respect that you have diffirent opinion. I just disagree with you, it doesn't mean I haven't given what you're saying serious attention. I mean, look back at those posts I wrote regarding your article, I obviously read it througly. It's just that I strongly disagree with a lot of what you've said. It's not personel, it's just a difference of opinion.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/11/08 02:52 AM

General reply here not directed at anyone.

From this thread we can all clearly concede and appreciate that experiences do vary greatly.

I see NEVER and ALWAYS in alot of posts,but there can't be never or always because of my first statement.

Karate is used too generally. Which style of karate has the best strike? How does each dojo in that style train? How do they strike? When do they spar? What are their rules?

We have to narrow down greatly to see where someone is coming from. So far, Dan is the only one who has clearly listed his experience, taken the time to make indepth articles, and posted videos of what he is talking about. Doesn't mean his opinions hold more water,but you get a better idea of his perspective. That's what the whole debate is about anyway, different people's perspective.

My take is that karate and boxing methods can have more to offer different people. I doubt people like harlan would have much use for boxing or boxing's general training methods(could be wrong,I'm not trying to speak for her).

Some people see kata as a waste of time, I see it as a useful,but not necessary training tool. I don't think John would get much anything out of kata training than he already knows.

Ok, I'm done......
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/11/08 06:34 AM

Quote:

What I'm going on is some video footage I've seen of the older fighters (Sullivan, Corbett, etc.), as well blow by blow accounts from people, what they said about their training, and so on.





Hearsay about the distant past. Nice.


Quote:

About the Mike tyson dirty fighting thing, thats one example, obviously some people will go agaisnt the rule. I can think of other examples of that happening. Still there are far more where it didnt happen.





Uh....it's not supposed to happen...in the RING! I mean, there are rules. Some people just don't care and others are sneakier about it, yet it happens. There is a "dirty" side to boxing that includes low blows, headbutting and other aspects. The entire repertoire of Filipino boxing (Panantukan) is basically referred to as "everything that is legal in boxing and, everything that isn't". Yet the delivery system is still boxing. It's built on boxing and has to be because without fundamentals, all the dirty stuff doesn't mean a thing. "Dirty tactics" without fundamentals, is like having bullets without a gun.

But your point about being unable to think of other examples of where "dirty fighting" didn't happen....WTF?! What are you TALKING about? In the ring or on the street? If you're talking about the ring, it isn't supposed to happen in the ring man! If you're talking about on the street, how many people who have trained in boxing and have gotten into fights have you polled on this matter? That's an absurd point.


Quote:


According to what seems to be your idea that dirty fighting is an instinct that people will likely go to under stress, that should happen often in the chaos of fighting, including sport fighting.





Listen man, people are aware of the rules in a competition apparently, or they'd be thrown out. Perhaps these competitors have more stability, poise, and control than you do and the chaos doesn't make them flip out in the way you're assuming one must. It's a straw-man argument you're attempting to make.

Answer the question: how easy is it to bite? How easy is it to stick your finger into someone's eye?


Quote:


But it doesnt. What abotu wrestlers who turn their backs in a match with BJJ guys knowing it exposes the neck to chokes? Not exactly the same as dirty tactics but the idea is you do what you've had ingrained in you most.





Another strawman argument. Haven't you ever seen wrestlers who wrestled dirty, headbutting their opponents? I have. In fact, its been said by some of the greatest wrestlers that to be the best, you have to wrestle on the very edge of the rules. So please Stormy, take this fight you can't win somewhere else. Pick your battles wisely. You ARE NOT going to win this one.


Quote:


To be most effective you have to adapt at least somewhat to changing situations.





I never said otherwise. YOU are simply saying that it's impossible to do so if you haven't trained specificially for dirty/foul tactics, which is absurd.

Listen Storm (what's your real name bro?), you and I have been over this before. Here you have me doing this before. The problem with you is, you just don't want to concede a debate you can't win. You'll use strawman arguments to try and prove a point and I'm not going to lose energy battling through that garbage as I have in the past.

I will say that you are better prepared if you include foul tactics in your training...but only from a defensive point of view. Offensively, there's nothing to train. Biting isn't an "art", neither is sticking your finger into someone's eye.



-John
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/11/08 12:52 PM

Who has the best strikes?

Shotokan of course!
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/11/08 03:27 PM

Quote:

Quote:

What I'm going on is some video footage I've seen of the older fighters (Sullivan, Corbett, etc.), as well blow by blow accounts from people, what they said about their training, and so on.





Hearsay about the distant past. Nice.


Quote:

About the Mike tyson dirty fighting thing, thats one example, obviously some people will go agaisnt the rule. I can think of other examples of that happening. Still there are far more where it didnt happen.





Uh....it's not supposed to happen...in the RING! I mean, there are rules. Some people just don't care and others are sneakier about it, yet it happens. There is a "dirty" side to boxing that includes low blows, headbutting and other aspects. The entire repertoire of Filipino boxing (Panantukan) is basically referred to as "everything that is legal in boxing and, everything that isn't". Yet the delivery system is still boxing. It's built on boxing and has to be because without fundamentals, all the dirty stuff doesn't mean a thing. "Dirty tactics" without fundamentals, is like having bullets without a gun.

But your point about being unable to think of other examples of where "dirty fighting" didn't happen....WTF?! What are you TALKING about? In the ring or on the street? If you're talking about the ring, it isn't supposed to happen in the ring man! If you're talking about on the street, how many people who have trained in boxing and have gotten into fights have you polled on this matter? That's an absurd point.


Quote:


According to what seems to be your idea that dirty fighting is an instinct that people will likely go to under stress, that should happen often in the chaos of fighting, including sport fighting.





Listen man, people are aware of the rules in a competition apparently, or they'd be thrown out. Perhaps these competitors have more stability, poise, and control than you do and the chaos doesn't make them flip out in the way you're assuming one must. It's a straw-man argument you're attempting to make.

Answer the question: how easy is it to bite? How easy is it to stick your finger into someone's eye?


Quote:


But it doesnt. What abotu wrestlers who turn their backs in a match with BJJ guys knowing it exposes the neck to chokes? Not exactly the same as dirty tactics but the idea is you do what you've had ingrained in you most.





Another strawman argument. Haven't you ever seen wrestlers who wrestled dirty, headbutting their opponents? I have. In fact, its been said by some of the greatest wrestlers that to be the best, you have to wrestle on the very edge of the rules. So please Stormy, take this fight you can't win somewhere else. Pick your battles wisely. You ARE NOT going to win this one.


Quote:


To be most effective you have to adapt at least somewhat to changing situations.





I never said otherwise. YOU are simply saying that it's impossible to do so if you haven't trained specificially for dirty/foul tactics, which is absurd.

Listen Storm (what's your real name bro?), you and I have been over this before. Here you have me doing this before. The problem with you is, you just don't want to concede a debate you can't win. You'll use strawman arguments to try and prove a point and I'm not going to lose energy battling through that garbage as I have in the past.

I will say that you are better prepared if you include foul tactics in your training...but only from a defensive point of view. Offensively, there's nothing to train. Biting isn't an "art", neither is sticking your finger into someone's eye.



-John




Where did I say that other I am unable to think of other examples where dirty fighting didnt happen? I said it does happen, and I CAN think of other examples where it happens, but I can think of more where it does NOT happen. Learn to R-E-A-D. Anyhow, if dirty fighting was as instinctual as you make it out to be, people would react with it under intense stress more often despite rules which is what happens with instincts, you just do it. But they dont, they train to play by the rules, and that training tends to spill into street fighting in many cases where they fail to use tactics that could actually save them.

About the heresay thing-I did mention old video footage, it's out there buddy boy you can find it on YOUTUBE! So again I say-R-E-A-D.

Panantukan (sp?) doesnt look too much like boxing, with all that hand trapping (which as far as I know you cant stand-just like the wing chun kind of trapping) if this is what you mean anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLv3uuis60s. They do utilize dirty tactics in training as well, like you said, along with "boxing" (or something like it I guess) doesnt that go against you whole point? Thanks for the counterexample bro.


By the way when I say boxing I mean the American, ring kind. Thats why I mentioned gloves so much before, I mean boxing as applied in the ring with gloves.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/11/08 03:55 PM

I know you're adressing John here, but there's a few things I'd like to say about some of your points.

Quote:

But they dont, they train to play by the rules, and that training tends to spill into street fighting in many cases where they fail to use tactics that could actually save them




Possibly.Possibly, training for a sportive environment may make someone less likely to use foul tactics. I don't necessarily agree with that, but let's go with it. Your argument falls apart with: "they fail to use tactivs that could actually save them". Who's to say that 'combat sport' tactics wouldn't save someone in a 'real' fight? As a matter of fact, a case could be made for these being the best tactics to use with regards to prosecution after the fight occurs. Anyway, why is knocking someone out with a cross to the jaw any less valid than an eye gouge? When you say "could save them" this opens up so many variables, that I could just as easily say that "that training tends towards co-operative practice, and that training tends to spill over into street fights, where they fail to use tactics (that can only be learned through alive training) that could save them."

Quote:

About the heresay thing-I did mention old video footage, it's out there buddy boy you can find it on YOUTUBE! So again I say-R-E-A-D.





That's good, and I could show you examples of modern boxers too. What does that prove? Boxing has changed over the last eighty years because there is a price (literally) to play for not staying current, and changing with the times. The sportive environment works like Darwin's theory of survival of the fitest: the techniques and methods that currently exist are there because they beat the old ones.

--Chris
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/11/08 09:21 PM

Quote:

I know you're adressing John here, but there's a few things I'd like to say about some of your points.

Quote:

But they dont, they train to play by the rules, and that training tends to spill into street fighting in many cases where they fail to use tactics that could actually save them




Possibly.Possibly, training for a sportive environment may make someone less likely to use foul tactics. I don't necessarily agree with that, but let's go with it. Your argument falls apart with: "they fail to use tactivs that could actually save them". Who's to say that 'combat sport' tactics wouldn't save someone in a 'real' fight? As a matter of fact, a case could be made for these being the best tactics to use with regards to prosecution after the fight occurs. Anyway, why is knocking someone out with a cross to the jaw any less valid than an eye gouge? When you say "could save them" this opens up so many variables, that I could just as easily say that "that training tends towards co-operative practice, and that training tends to spill over into street fights, where they fail to use tactics (that can only be learned through alive training) that could save them."

Quote:

About the heresay thing-I did mention old video footage, it's out there buddy boy you can find it on YOUTUBE! So again I say-R-E-A-D.





That's good, and I could show you examples of modern boxers too. What does that prove? Boxing has changed over the last eighty years because there is a price (literally) to play for not staying current, and changing with the times. The sportive environment works like Darwin's theory of survival of the fitest: the techniques and methods that currently exist are there because they beat the old ones.

--Chris




I am not saying that dirty fighting is better all around or anything but that in many cases it's more practical, at least for some people. A big, strong guy could use a cross just as well as am eye poke, maybe easier as it takes less accuracy, however in the case of say, my 120 lbs. girlfriend who isnt too athletic, a cross might work but a properly used eye poke, and a knee to the groin, would work much better. It deends a lot on the person, and the situations you are likely to find yourself in, as to what tactics would be best. It's nice to have those options in mind though, I'd say.
And I never said anything about training co-operatively. I agree that step sparring and similar practices are useless past your first month maybe of training. You obviously cant go "all out" but you cant do that anyway, no matter what techniques you use you always have to hold back a bit, or change how you do thigns to protect yoru training partners, however you CAN train some dirty tactics un-cooporatively, to some extent anyway, especially with a good set of gear. And even if you cant, it's still valuable as long as you're getting some un-cooporative practice.

In the Marines, through the 80's and 90's, they practiced the LINE system, which was all about dirty fighting and the drills of coruse were pre-arranged and mostly co-operative. They combined it with what they called combat hitting which was basically boxing as far as I know. For people who actually kept up with it past boot it worked great, and I've heard from many guys that it was a better program than what they have today. Most notably because it trained them to react in as violent a way as possible. And plenty of guys used that training in real situations. They said that the LINE program combiend with combat hitting was about perfect for them. It obviously can work.

About the old footage I mentioned, I was using it to show how different boxing was in the old days and then went on to state my opinion that it wasnt necessairly worse in terms of effectiveness of their methods.

In any case, are saying we should just forget the past entirely and all that it can teach?

About Darwinian evolution, you're partially right but evolution is not quite that narrow. New species might beat old ones in one environment, but in another environment the old ones may be better able to survive. I.E under different "rules".

Jkogas-jsut because the short Filipino stance was best for knife fighting doesnt mean it was best for everything. It's just speculation but I doubt many if any of those Filipinos could've bested John L. Sullivan in a bare-knuckle boxing match, or Bob Fitzimmons or any other champions of those days. Their methods obviously worked for them and they continued using them for a reason.
Posted by: matt_mcg

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 04:41 AM

Quote:

Quote:

but its commen sense that your knee will slow you down if its broken or damaged. or a jab to the throat will cause the chin to tuck and the person to move away from it.




True..but the key thing here is IF it's broken or damaged. The jab to the throat is IF you hit the throat. The point of my 'one time at band camp story' was to express the difficulty actually involved in breaking the knee. I also gave the example of those early UFC's, something you neglected to mention. Can a knee be broken with a stomp/kick. Sure. Is is high percentage, well from what I have seen, both in personal experiance and video, no, it is not. The problem is, you can't train the technique to know how it's going to work. You are making an assumption that the way you have been shown will have the desired effect. Although it is indeed common sense that a damaged knee will slow someone down, it is not so easy to effect this damage on a moving, resisting opponent. This move was allowed in the UFC and no one, not once, was able to do it. The burden of proof is on those that say this type of technique will have the desired effect.






It's worth remembering that there are arts where a lot of these 'deadly' destructive techniques that can't be used in sparring are actually used all the time ... in sparring.

Kicks to the legs (including knees and shins) -- while wearing hard shoes -- are perfectly legal in savate. I've seen guys being pounded on the knees and shins [even in controlled contact 'assaut' matches] with little effect other than some bruising. Obviously, in most controlled contact matches people aren't really really trying to break your leg, but I've seen some fairly ill-tempered and pretty much full on contact to these joints and stomps to the shin are routine.

I'd not want to rely on these techniques as a definite 'stopper' because the percentage just doesn't seem that high.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 05:55 AM

Quote:


Where did I say that other I am unable to think of other examples where dirty fighting didnt happen?





What *I* gather here, you're implying that people aren't going to be able to fight dirty unless they explicitly practice to.

And what I am saying is, it's not as difficult as you think. Beyond that, we go around and around, trying to get the other side to see our point. I've been able to see your's and just disagree with it. Is it possible for you to see mine?


Quote:

I said it does happen, and I CAN think of other examples where it happens, but I can think of more where it does NOT happen.





It's not supposed to happen, is the whole point. What is so hard to understand about that?



Quote:


Anyhow, if dirty fighting was as instinctual as you make it out to be, people would react with it under intense stress more often despite rules which is what happens with instincts, you just do it. But they dont, they train to play by the rules, and that training tends to spill into street fighting in many cases where they fail to use tactics that could actually save them.





You're making a strawman argument, by discussing situations that you have no factual basis for. All you are doing is creating a hypothesis with no measurable proof. At least I have mentioned cases where it DID happen in the ring to support my point.

What you fail to see is that people understand the rules of competition, and what they are allowed and not allowed to do. It is just that simple.

People don't do foul tactics in the ring because they are trying to win under the rules and not be disqualified. Have you never seen someone disqualifed from an event because of repeated offenses???? I have.



Quote:


Panantukan (sp?) doesnt look too much like boxing, with all that hand trapping (which as far as I know you cant stand-just like the wing chun kind of trapping)





Have you ever trained panantukan? Videos like the one you provided look more like demonstrations than they do sparring. BIG difference there in my view. I don't do hand trapping that looks like Wing Chun in any way. Too risky.


Quote:


if this is what you mean anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLv3uuis60s. They do utilize dirty tactics in training as well, like you said, along with "boxing" (or something like it I guess) doesnt that go against you whole point? Thanks for the counterexample bro.





Like I said, that is an example of a demo. These are shown to demonstrate all the potential variables. However when the gloves are on (or off) it comes back to fundamentals. Striking (boxing style) is emphasized because you have to have something to fall back on as I have been mentioning.


Quote:


By the way when I say boxing I mean the American, ring kind. Thats why I mentioned gloves so much before, I mean boxing as applied in the ring with gloves.





Boxing is boxing, with or without gloves - is the point that I've beent trying to make here for...well, years. When I talk about "delivery system", that's what I'm talking about, and I've said this a lot. Delivery system is the root core of the art and science of boxing. This has zero to do with rules, gloves, referees, rings, or anything else.



-John
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 10:06 AM

Jokgas wrote - Yes, and too dangerous to actually practice as well. If you can't practice, you can't develop skill. There's a lot of dangerous stuff in boxing as well, otherwise people wouldn't have died in the ring, no? There are also a lot of illegal things that boxers do in the ring as well, that take no practice whatsoever to do them. Why can they do this? Because they're functional fighters. Foul tactics require no skill. Skill comes from a functional delivery system, which comes from functional practice. And that functional practice knows no stylistic boundaries; karate, boxing, you name it, can all practice alive and functionally. As Krishnamurti said, "the truth is outside of all fixed forms". No form then, owns it. It's ALL a matter of how you train.


I agree totally with the last part of your statement. But we differ on the "Alot of dangerous stuff in boxing" I disagree because these dangerosu things are called fouls and unless a boxer trains to included fouls or illegal techniques he will fight the way he trains. Boxers to me can avoid getting hit in the head and deliever hits well, but are not prepared for what happens in real fights.

For example I'm helping a Kung-fu buddy start up his school there is a boxer there he uses boxing to defend, his hands up guard invists grab knees and close range grab the guard eye swepts and setup for throws and swepts. I find boxing a great base much to be desired too basic real world self defense art.

But admittly Boxing has a good delievery system when gloved and weapons are not used. Admittly boxing is a good base to grow from.

So we come full circle again to Karate imo have better ungloved strikes because of results and less self injuries.
And boxers having better glove/taped strikes. I add to my defense in this debate even in your MMA training boxing only is 30% or 20% of your training the majority of your tecbniques can be found Karate, from clinching, head butts, elbows and knees to striking a downed oppoent and mounted strikes and stomps. I know most will say thats not legal in Karate either.

I say it depends on which Karate you are thinking of foam sparring or what Karate raelly IS. As one replier stated that Boxing use to be practiced bare fisted I bet they didn't hurt their hands as much then then. Again, You fight the way you Train.

Damn this is a good discussion!!! With great input on both sides and even people in middle.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 10:21 AM

Quote:

About Darwinian evolution, you're partially right but evolution is not quite that narrow. New species might beat old ones in one environment, but in another environment the old ones may be better able to survive. I.E under different "rules".






Ehhhh........not really, Stormy. Evolution is dependant on the environment in question, so to say that something may do better in another environment is specious logic. Things "evolve" to best suit the environment they exist in. Darwin actually proved that evolution is quite "narrow" (specific).
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 12:49 PM

matt_mcg: You're right. I had totally forgotten about savate (shame on me). Indeed, they do utilize knee strikes/stomps regularly, and often the match continues. Plus, they are doing so with hard soled shoes.

Neko, you said:

Quote:

So we come full circle again to Karate imo have better ungloved strikes because of results and less self injuries.





I haven't gone full circle, sorry man. I'll need to see some actual evidence that supports that karateka injure their hands less than a boxer in an ungloved setting. In training, I could see this being accurate, because a boxer spends more time sparring. But on the street? I don't personally buy it. The only potential reason why a boxer would be more likely, is because he is used to wearing gloves during sparring. So do most karateka who spar full contact. And the ones that don't have eliminated head shots, (because those are the ones where you're most likely to break your hand). So, again, I need to see some evidence of this, not just assumption.

Quote:

And boxers having better glove/taped strikes. I add to my defense in this debate even in your MMA training boxing only is 30% or 20% of your training the majority of your tecbniques can be found Karate , from clinching, head butts, elbows and knees to striking a downed oppoent and mounted strikes and stomps. I know most will say thats not legal in Karate either.





Yes, they can be found in karate, but MMA fighters don't usually train karate (especially tradional karate) in order to gain these skill sets.

The reason why I myself haven't brought MMA into this debate was because we are talking specifically about striking, and who does it better, which implies who has the better delivry system to implement their training.

Nonetheless, regarding the skills you speak of here (clinch, takedown, mounting, stomping) I would say that although these might be found in the kata, the fact is they are rarely trained in a realistic way. Very few karate tournaments even allow throws, let along mounting to ground and pound your opponent. So, although this is interesting, I think it is another thread altogether. Again, though, the answer would be the same: having the technique is not enough, it must be trained with resistence in order to be used effectively. Until this is done, one doesn't 'have' (know) the technique at all, rather an abtract understanding of the possibilty of that technique.

--Chris
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 01:49 PM

I can look up articles that could verify boxing injuriees done training and street fighting but this is individual incidents. You could probably bring the same about Karate but I doubt it.

The thing is in personal experience while training with boxers and Karatakas, the Karate guys are less worried about hand injuries. I guest pounding hard things makawaris, concret blocks, boards, red bricks, glass bottles even, help teach how to hit hard things and a rules like soft on hard and hard on soft. Not jus hit it no matter what, bc that what we do. Anyway I don't have any evidence from experts in the different fields. All I have is personal experience interfacing with the two groups. Of course one of the reason boxer fear hand injuries is bc these are their main tools, whereas Karate has 6-7 others.

As for boxing sparring more then Karateka in some schools, to me boxers and wrestlers advantage is conditioing. Few Karate men train 15-20 rounds on the bag or in the ring. Nor run 10 miles more then twice a week. Of course this is not the advantage of a less serious boxer that doesn't a goal or trainer. Make shift boxers are ok at what they do.


I sse the discussion as more then just a delievery system but more what system is gear for what purpose. Given each their due respect. Boxing is a activty that stress standing defense using the upper body and foot movement & offense with the hands. Its goal is to strike the opponent more then he does you and ultimate KO is possible, this is the sweet science. Karate is a self defense that stress the use of the human body as a weapon. Its goal is to stop the oppoent as quickly as possible and ultimate goals is to damage and even the forbidden K word, not by accident.

I know words and intended purpose doesn't mean much unless or until you practice these INTENTS, intensly.

We talk about fighting dirty in boxing it's a unintend foul awaya from the referee sight but in Karate its the proper way to train and is incouraged.

As others mention this is just about opinon I really don't expect to change anybody mind or have mines changed. All I expected is what I got, many difference in opinon, experience and reason why.

I could bring up plenty of incidents on the Web to prove things one way or another but experience speaks louder then what others say I believe. Personally I respect what you guys say more then people I don't know.


I ask this for all that box, aren't you afriad of hand injuries? Jkogas among others stated it's a hindsight. Isn't it your main fear other then an ankle/knee injury after falling wrong after a knock down or out?
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 02:43 PM

Yes, hand injuries happen. And yes, I'd rather they didn't. That's why I would target soft areas, if I could.

Quote:

We talk about fighting dirty in boxing it's a unintend foul awaya from the referee sight but in Karate its the proper way to train and is incouraged.





Right. And that's the thing. This type of thing is encouraged in the kata and the co-operative drills that go along with it. This type of thing is certainly not encouraged in sparring (that I know of). I don't know of any karate org. where a kick to the groin, or an eyegouge is legal in sparring.

And that's the whole point isn't it? Those techniques which you, and others, suggest make karate better suited to street defence, are the very ones that are hypothitical and unmeasurable. They are the very ones that cannot be trained with resistence. Thus, the chance of application (in a real fight) is low percentage. They may be conceptually known, but they remain untested until the fight occurs. Same with the hard/soft thing. Sure, you can say that a karateka trains with this intent, but is it tested against a moving, resisting opponent, bare knuckle? No. Just like boxing (and any trainer will tell you to hit the soft areas with your knuckles when you are ungloved).

So, again, we arrive at the same point. What actually should be the priority is the restistent training which is the main focus of boxing.

Quote:

Of course one of the reason boxer fear hand injuries is bc these are their main tools, whereas Karate has 6-7 others.





He has those only if he knows how to use them. He knows how to use them through sparring. This topic was one of generalities. We are talking about, from my understanding, tradional karate. Which, as I've shown, did not in the past have sparring as part of its training.

Now, if the topic was, 'What's better to train striking, boxing, or anshin karate', my response would have been diffirent.

But, speaking in generalities, the methodology of tradional karate is, I believe flawed (at least in respect to creating the best possible fighter). I think boxing is closer to the goal.

-Chris
Posted by: harlan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 03:33 PM

Hmmm...I do believe you have validated a question I've been asking for some time. And this is: why don't I see karate in sparring?
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 04:13 PM

Narda, THAT is an excellent question. Should be the topic of an entire thread.


-John
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 05:47 PM

Quote:

Quote:

About Darwinian evolution, you're partially right but evolution is not quite that narrow. New species might beat old ones in one environment, but in another environment the old ones may be better able to survive. I.E under different "rules".






Ehhhh........not really, Stormy. Evolution is dependant on the environment in question, so to say that something may do better in another environment is specious logic. Things "evolve" to best suit the environment they exist in. Darwin actually proved that evolution is quite "narrow" (specific).




Well I kind of see what you mean so look at it this way, say a species evolves and is better able to survive then the older form, the older form starts dying out of course. The new form grows and survives, being fitter.

Now the environment could change in a way that makes the newer species less fit, and the older species will start to grow again and the other one will start to die out. Or less likely but possible, another species could come in that is able to trounce the newer one but not the older one.

Look at human vs ape evolution, we got smarter but a lot weaker physically. Are we better able to survive? Well the first forms of humans werent at all better able to survive, they barely got by and then eventually we got smart enough that we became better able to survive than most anything else.

An evolutionary adaption isnt necessairly good either, it may not effect the species and their ability to survive or may negatively impact their ability to survive, it's a somewhat blind process. They may evolve and not really be any "fitter" just different, and just happen to survive and outlast other forms for other reasons.

One other point, an older species doesnt necessairly have to completely die out, often they are mostly wiped out but survive in small numbers and might later make a resurgence in the cases I mentioned.
So again I say you're partially right. Within an environment a species generally adapts and is then fitter although in another environment the older species may be fitter, but things within an environment can change making an older species the fitter one again. I'd say that this is why we have so many similar forms of animals rather than a few vastly different ones in our world. Thats purely speculation though.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 05:51 PM

About using Karate in sparring, Dan uses it in sparring just fine, and older fottage of Karate training on Okinawa shows it being used. It obviously can work. Unless a person has a lot of exposure to boxing (and most today do)they'll use they're style. ld Karate fighters rarely fought like boxers at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciek8LmaI5Q&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Beft4Z80uU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c124cNd08T4

But of course video footage doesnt mean anything right Jkogas?
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 07:48 PM

Hmmm. I guess I'll start with the first one, of the Uechi sparring.

First off, the fact that in the description it says that this is when they are trying to figure out the rules for the sparring (meaning there hadn't been any up till then), helps prove my point that sparring is relatively new to Okinawan Karate. So, in the truest sense of the word 'tradional', no tradional Karate did not contain sparring, it is a relatively new phenomenon.

Secondly, I'm not sure what the rules are here, but the ref seems to be stepping in regularly and breaking them up. Not when they are deadlocked, but when someone looks like they might get knocked out, or when someone scores a particularly solid hit. All in all, this certainly isn't 'knockdown', sparring. It seems more like point sparring without the gloves and headgear.

On to the next video.
This is Shotokan Karate, not Okinawan. More than that, this is the Japenese mililtary practicing Shotokan. Bloodier, yes. I doubt there is much kata training going on with these guys. This video does not speak to the training methodologies of tradional karate in the slightest.

As for the third...well...thanks for the laugh. I hope you don't think that was a well trained boxer, LOL! THis is exactly the kind of crap I was talking about before. Just because you put boxing shorts and boxing gloves on someone and tell them to imitate a boxer, does not make them one! Maybe, and I really mean maybe, this guy has rudimentry training in boxing, but I doubt even that.

Anyway, where to begin with this obvious propaganda piece? Hmmm. Well first off, this is apparently Shotokan (again. Probably because sparring wasn't widespread in Okinawa, huh?).
That intial scene certainly isn't sparring, is it? The boxer was going very slow, and was using absolutely NO FOOTWORK! Then we see a quick demonstration of diffirent techniques. Then what do we get? Wait for it....complient drills against a 'boxer'! They don't even make contact with each other.

Stormdragon, I have to thank you for illustrating my points better than I did!

Seriously though, I'm not sure what you're trying to 'prove' with these videos? I really hope you don't think that proves that "it obviously can work."

Of all, the second video of the Shotokan guys was the best. But again, these guys arn't using tradional training methods. So...

By what you, and what Dan posted earlier of his 'full contact' sparring, I have to seriously question if either of you know what full contact, knockdown sparring even is?

--Chris
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 07:51 PM

Quote:

Hmmm...I do believe you have validated a question I've been asking for some time. And this is: why don't I see karate in sparring?




I see "karate" in sparring. Karate simply teqaches you to use your own body the most efficiently. My karate may not look like your karate.
It's not going to look like a kata, nor should it.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 07:52 PM

Quote:

About using Karate in sparring, Dan uses it in sparring just fine, and older fottage of Karate training on Okinawa shows it being used. It obviously can work. Unless a person has a lot of exposure to boxing (and most today do)they'll use they're style. ld Karate fighters rarely fought like boxers at all.





I've not seen Dan's sparring. I don't typically look at "member videos" because I'd be hesitant to make comments. I'm not into attacking people personally. Dan may spar like a demon, I don't know.


Quote:



But of course video footage doesnt mean anything right Jkogas?





The videos you provided were bad. The first two identified karate guys vs. karate guys. The last was complete garbage.


Storm, do you even understand why the PKA adopted a more boxing like structure?


-John
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 08:13 PM

Quote:

Hmmm. I guess I'll start with the first one, of the Uechi sparring.

First off, the fact that in the description it says that this is when they are trying to figure out the rules for the sparring (meaning there hadn't been any up till then), helps prove my point that sparring is relatively new to Okinawan Karate. So, in the truest sense of the word 'tradional', no tradional Karate did not contain sparring, it is a relatively new phenomenon.

Secondly, I'm not sure what the rules are here, but the ref seems to be stepping in regularly and breaking them up. Not when they are deadlocked, but when someone looks like they might get knocked out, or when someone scores a particularly solid hit. All in all, this certainly isn't 'knockdown', sparring. It seems more like point sparring without the gloves and headgear.

On to the next video.
This is Shotokan Karate, not Okinawan. More than that, this is the Japenese mililtary practicing Shotokan. Bloodier, yes. I doubt there is much kata training going on with these guys. This video does not speak to the training methodologies of tradional karate in the slightest.

As for the third...well...thanks for the laugh. I hope you don't think that was a well trained boxer, LOL! THis is exactly the kind of crap I was talking about before. Just because you put boxing shorts and boxing gloves on someone and tell them to imitate a boxer, does not make them one! Maybe, and I really mean maybe, this guy has rudimentry training in boxing, but I doubt even that.

Anyway, where to begin with this obvious propaganda piece? Hmmm. Well first off, this is apparently Shotokan (again. Probably because sparring wasn't widespread in Okinawa, huh?).
That intial scene certainly isn't sparring, is it? The boxer was going very slow, and was using absolutely NO FOOTWORK! Then we see a quick demonstration of diffirent techniques. Then what do we get? Wait for it....complient drills against a 'boxer'! They don't even make contact with each other.

Stormdragon, I have to thank you for illustrating my points better than I did!

Seriously though, I'm not sure what you're trying to 'prove' with these videos? I really hope you don't think that proves that "it obviously can work."

Of all, the second video of the Shotokan guys was the best. But again, these guys arn't using tradional training methods. So...

By what you, and what Dan posted earlier of his 'full contact' sparring, I have to seriously question if either of you know what full contact, knockdown sparring even is?

--Chris




My point with posting these was simply to show that Karate can actually be used in sparring/fighting/kumite without resorting to some bastardized form of boxing/kickboxing.

The boxer vs. Shotokan guy obviously wasnt a full force, knockdown kind of thing, it was just easy going sparring, the point was to show what Karate would look like applied against a boxer and that it can be used for such. Say the boxer went a bit faster and harder. So what, the Karate guy could do the same. The technical side is what I'm looking at.

And no that boxer wasnt all that great. Is he pro level? Hell no. He looks like he's been doing it a a few months. He has maybe average boxing skills. Enough to demonstrate how boxing might look against traditional Karate. Both looked like they were just screwing around though, they're both probably much better than that.

Again, he could probably go harder and faster and meaner, but so could the Karate guy. Same difference.
It's not propaganda. How come when you guys post stuff to back up your opinions it's just that, but when we do it it's propaganda, or we're being unfair somehow? Like we're trying to manipulate people.

I'm simply rying to show that Karate techniques can be applied against boxing techniques and can be applied in fighting in general. And it is possible. Hell ask Victor Smith, he should know he has more experience than all of us combined. It's not like boxing has a monopoly on effective hand techniques. IT's good but it's not the be all end all like you're making it out to be.

As for that first video, the techniques are pretty traditional, and it is sparring. Whether you personally like the rules or not, it's still sparring. Whether they trained that way origionally or not, thats not the point, the point is whether the techniques are applicable.
Honest question-is your issue with the techniques of traditional Karate, or the training methods? Kata I dont see as really necessary, and sparring is very necessary (it's not everything though). We agree there.

And about the defense force karate-Who're you to say they never use Kata in training or pre-arranged sparring? You always get on me for hypotheticals, well your opinion that they dont do kata is just an opinion, a hypothetical. You have no evidence.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 08:18 PM

Quote:

Quote:

About using Karate in sparring, Dan uses it in sparring just fine, and older fottage of Karate training on Okinawa shows it being used. It obviously can work. Unless a person has a lot of exposure to boxing (and most today do)they'll use they're style. ld Karate fighters rarely fought like boxers at all.





I've not seen Dan's sparring. I don't typically look at "member videos" because I'd be hesitant to make comments. I'm not into attacking people personally. Dan may spar like a demon, I don't know.


Quote:



But of course video footage doesnt mean anything right Jkogas?





The videos you provided were bad. The first two identified karate guys vs. karate guys. The last was complete garbage.


Storm, do you even understand why the PKA adopted a more boxing like structure?


-John




Ah so when we have a good demonstration of Karate in action, you get evasive. Wonderful. You can always pm me with your opinion on it but of course you wont. It might actually back up my point pretty well.
Anyway I'm not just trying to show that Karate works agaisnt boxing but that it can work in general in fighting/sparring.

And again, boxing is good, jsut not the be all end all.
What about Lyoto Machida? I've seen a number of Karate techniques in his fights, especially Shotokan style sweeps. He's punching has a somewhat Shotokan like flavor to them.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 09:07 PM

Quote:


Ah so when we have a good demonstration of Karate in action, you get evasive. Wonderful.





Evasive? How? Because I'm not going on record to be critical of anyone? That's being evasive to you? I see it as being "nice".



Quote:

You can always pm me with your opinion on it but of course you wont.





I have nothing to say regarding Dan. That's the way it is and will be. I've not seen his clips and don't care to. If he wants, he can provide a link to some. But let HIM do so if he chooses. Regardless, I probably won't leave a comment.


Quote:


It might actually back up my point pretty well.





Or, it could lessen it.


Quote:


Anyway I'm not just trying to show that Karate works agaisnt boxing but that it can work in general in fighting/sparring.





Define sparring for me? I mean, when I speak of sparring, clinching and takedowns to continued ground fighting is allowed. Still believe in what you say?



Quote:

And again, boxing is good, jsut not the be all end all.





I guess you haven't really listened to anything I've said. I speak of boxing as a delivery system. As a practitioner, I don't just "box". I utilize muay Thai, wrestling, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, savate, Panantukan, etc. However the fundamentals of boxing are in place and have to be, as far as I'm concerned.

I never stated that "karate guys" could not fight. I've said this on this very thread I believe, in response to Dan I believe. My main point has to do with the practice of KATA. I'm sure you're aware of this. Still, I would NOT choose to come out and fight/spar in the way I've seen a lot of karate guys spar. It wouldn't be my cup of tea. Arms down....just not good habits, imo.



Quote:


What about Lyoto Machida? I've seen a number of Karate techniques in his fights, especially Shotokan style sweeps. He's punching has a somewhat Shotokan like flavor to them.





I've seen him. He's good. He trains with MMA teams now. Good for him.


-John
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 09:17 PM

Sparring, as I do it includes punching/hand techniques of all types, kicks, knees, clinching, ground fighting, ground n pound with open hand strikes, no elbows, etc. Full power to the body, slight power to the head/face with open hands usually. No gear most of the time. Soemtimes it'll jsut be kicks and punches or grappling only. Thats sparring as I do it.
Just to be clear I'm with you on the kata thing for the most part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tL9rGeKZGU This is a video Dan has posted before. A lot of it actually isnt Dan. Would you be willing to tell me, good and bad, what you think by pm? Or if it's all bad say nothing, only good stuff you see, what've makes you feel like you're being nice. I'm actually genuinely curious what people think.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 09:55 PM

Quote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tL9rGeKZGU This is a video Dan has posted before.





What did I say in my last post about this? I'll tell you what, I'll quote myself:


I wrote:
Quote:

I've not seen his clips and don't care to. If he wants, he can provide a link to some. But let HIM do so if he chooses. Regardless, I probably won't leave a comment.





That's all I'm saying about this here.


Quote:


.... what've makes you feel like you're being nice.





What makes me feel like I'm being nice when I don't criticize another's performance on a public forum??? Call it, a sense of decency maybe?

If a person asks me to and wants my honest opinion, I would STILL probably have a hard time doing so, to someone that I speak with on a regular basis and, someone whom I respect (and I do respect Dan).

You should know the deal here bro. I have respect for everyone here, providing they show it to me.


-John
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/12/08 11:24 PM

You know you can critique something without being rude.
Anyhow, I suppose I still dont fully grasp your view of using boxing as a delivery system. I suppose for you it's more integrated than my image of it. What I'm talking about is using the basic jab, cross, hook, uppercut, evasions, from boxing, and thats it vs. traditional Karate (depending on what you mean by traditional Karate). I'm not looking at boxing, plus Panantukan, plus muay thai, plus whatever else you've mentioned. Just plain old boxing.
You mean boxing as it is when integrated with other skills.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 12:21 AM

Quote:

Sparring, as I do it includes punching/hand techniques of all types, kicks, knees, clinching, ground fighting, ground n pound with open hand strikes, no elbows, etc. Full power to the body, slight power to the head/face with open hands usually. No gear most of the time. Soemtimes it'll jsut be kicks and punches or grappling only. Thats sparring as I do it.
Just to be clear I'm with you on the kata thing for the most part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tL9rGeKZGU This is a video Dan has posted before. A lot of it actually isnt Dan. Would you be willing to tell me, good and bad, what you think by pm? Or if it's all bad say nothing, only good stuff you see, what've makes you feel like you're being nice. I'm actually genuinely curious what people think.



you are genuinely curious, yet you limit the reviews to only the good stuff. hmmm...ok. The good thing about the video was that it contrasts the sharp difference to boxing's resistive training method.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 12:54 AM

I only said that because Jkogas is afraid of not being nice.
Anyway, there was a lot of resistance in that video.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 01:14 AM

Quote:

The boxer vs. Shotokan guy obviously wasnt a full force, knockdown kind of thing, it was just easy going sparring, the point was to show what Karate would look like applied against a boxer and that it can be used for such. Say the boxer went a bit faster and harder. So what, the Karate guy could do the same. The technical side is what I'm looking at.





Do you see how this contradict's itself? How is anything being shown at all. This is what this video is showing

1. A beginning level boxer, with no footwork to speak of.
2. A black belt Karateka
3. Karate techniques being performed against prearranged attacks, done at a much slower motion than actual 'fighting speed', and that are entirely compliant.

How does this show, or prove anything? Do you honestly not see how this is exactly the hypothetical, co-operative practice that I've stated is the core of much of tradional karate, and the very kind of training that can lead to an art being ineffective? The way those 'boxing' (and I use that term loosely) attack are performed, I could insert any hairbrained technique in there. How about a back flip, into flying jump kick, land that, then tornado kick the boxer from behind? In other words, I could use any technique in the situation presented in the video. IT PROVES NOTHING. It doesn't even 'show' anything, there is absolutely no value to this video at all. It is not scientific, nor suggestive on any level of what a fight between a karateka and a boxer would look like. Why?

Well, firstly, in order to produce such a thing, you need a boxer. I didn't see a boxer in this video, just someone imitating a boxer. If I took a boxer, put a gi and a blackbelt on him, showed him a video of karate techniques and asked him to perform them against, say, Lennox Lewis, would I invalidate karate by such a process. No. Of course not. The same goes for this thing.
The next thing I would have to do, if showing what a karateka would look like in a fight against a boxer, is actually have them fight.

Neither of these are present in this video. There is no boxer, there is no fight. There is only choreography and hypothesis.

I also strongly object to you saying this was "just easy going sparring". This was NOT sparring! This was a choreographed movement and has about as much to do with sparring as that knife fight in West Side Story has to do with sparring. I'm not being dramatic here, I mean this seriously.

Quote:

Again, he could probably go harder and faster and meaner, but so could the Karate guy. Same difference.





No, it isn't the same difference at all. A boxer (not the one in the video, again, that isn't a boxer) has proven his techniques in resistent combat for many centuries. The karateka (the kind in this video, not all of them!) has not yet to do so once.

Quote:

How come when you guys post stuff to back up your opinions it's just that, but when we do it it's propaganda, or we're being unfair somehow? Like we're trying to manipulate people.




I'm not saying YOU are manipulating people. I'm saying whoever made this video was engaging in the creation of propaganda. Here's how Webster's defines propaganda:
Quote:

2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause ; also : a public action having such an effect





This video, in relation to what I said above, has all the hallmarks of propaganda.

Quote:

I'm simply rying to show that Karate techniques can be applied against boxing techniques and can be applied in fighting in general




Ok, then do that. So, far none of those videos do so at all. Oh, and you will eventually be able to find videos of 'karateka' beating boxers. But those karateka will be using boxing hands and boxing style footwork, and their training methodology will most likely be more akin to the Western/sport approach, than the Eastern.


Quote:

Whether you personally like the rules or not, it's still sparring. Whether they trained that way origionally or not, thats not the point, the point is whether the techniques are applicable.





I'm not talking about any old sparring, especially not the point sparring *stuff* in that first video. If I was to chose between what is more effective, point sparring or co-operative driling, I'd choose the latter. I'm not talking about anything that call's itself 'sparring', I've been talking about knockdown, sparring, which better approximates real combat. Point sparring, as it applies to fighting, is good for learning how to pull a punch, and that's about it (imo).

Quote:

Honest question-is your issue with the techniques of traditional Karate, or the training methods?




My problem is with any tradional karate techniques that are drilled using tradional training methods.

Quote:

And about the defense force karate-Who're you to say they never use Kata in training or pre-arranged sparring? You always get on me for hypotheticals, well your opinion that they dont do kata is just an opinion, a hypothetical. You have no evidence




I actually do know this. At least I know that kata did not play a major role in the training of those people in those video. They drilled aplications with resistence and sparred. There was quite a large thread on e-budo about that video in question. I'm not going to go searching the archives, so you'll have to take my word for it. If you choose to disbelieve me, then I'll go and search out the evidence to prove it.

But that doesn't matter anyway. This is what I actually said:
Quote:

I doubt there is much kata training going on with these guys. This video does not speak to the training methodologies of tradional karate in the slightest.




Let's just go off that video and what it shows. Tell me, would you say the type of training in that video is the exception or the rule for tradional karate and the way you've seen it taught. Be honest now. It isn't. There is obviosly a very diffirent training methodology happening even in those videos and therefore they do little to make a case for trad. karate as whole.

--Chris
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 01:50 AM

Yes I realize most of that video you hate was choreagraphed, except for the first short part although nontheless even the choreagraphed parts somewhat show what boxing vs. Karate would look like. And if you think the Karate guy sucked so much and probably had crappy training methods dont equat this with putting somebody who doesnt do Karate putting on a gi and imitating agaisnt a boxing champion. The Karate guy must suck so it's more like an amateur boxer vs. another amateur boxer putting on a gi and imitating Karate.
But hey it's a moot point, the video sucks right? I concede about the Defence Force Karate video, I'll take yoru word for that one.
One example I can think of, is Mas Oyama (an old traditional Karate master) and some of his students beating a few Thai boxing champions in the 70's or 80's which is fairly well known. Granting it actually happend what would you say about that?

I'm not concerned so much with the training methods as the specific fighting techniques. I realise Kata isnt all that useful. Though starting out some pre-arranged sparring can be helpful I think.
As far as what's the rule, well you're right Karate usally sucks but I have seen some good places. For exmaple my old Kenpo school was a traditional system but they trained hard and with resistence. Even in the "step-sparring" and self defense training it was either your technique worked or you got clocked. Sparring was full contact, though without grappling.
What would you say about Victor Smith's view of Karate as being highly functional?

Come to think of it the sparring part of that first vid was too brief.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 02:15 AM

Okay...I'm just going to move on from the video. All I'm going to say is this:

Quote:

even the choreagraphed parts somewhat show what boxing vs. Karate would look like.




No.

Quote:

And if you think the Karate guy sucked so much and probably had crappy training methods dont equat this with putting somebody who doesnt do Karate putting on a gi and imitating agaisnt a boxing champion.




No.

I'm not trying to be glib here, but I already made a pretty good case for why that video does nothing towards your argument.

Anyway...

Quote:

One example I can think of, is Mas Oyama (an old traditional Karate master) and some of his students beating a few Thai boxing champions in the 70's or 80's which is fairly well known. Granting it actually happend what would you say about that?





I would say that Oyama's fighters intially lost and that in order to beat the Thai's they had to start training like the Thai's. The Thai's took their training approach from Western Boxing. I would say this is a good example of what I'm talking about: that a functional system is focused on resistive sparring, not kata study or bunkai. In Kyokushin's case, kata and bunkai took a far second to drilling techniques that could be used in knockdown sparring and then proving them in knockdown sparring. Again, Kyokushin is the exception to other karate orgs.

Quote:

I'm not concerned so much with the training methods as the specific fighting techniques.




From my perspective (and what myself and John have been saying all along), is that you don't have techniques unless you can actually use them. You are just as likely not to be able to use the techniques as you are to be able to use them, because they remain hypothetical and theoritical until they are tested. Go back to the Kyokushin example. What made Kyokushin able to beat the Thai fighters the second time? The techniques stayed pretty much the same, didn't they? What changed were the training methods.

Quote:

What would you say about Victor Smith's view of Karate as being highly functional?




I disagree with him. Mostly because of this statement that he made:

Quote:

Karate was not designed for short term study and execution, simply because there was no need to develop it that way.





When I'm talking about funtional I don't mean functional in a longer amount of time than absolutely needed. To me that is inefficent, and therefore is not as functional a system as possible. The reason why the system takes so long to learn is because of the cultural trappings that are involved in the training methods. I don't think that issue can be skirted so easily. If a system takes longer to learn than it needs to, then it is not ideally functional, because it is not ideally efficient. Because the statement quoted above was a key link in the chain of the logic of Victor's post, I disagree with the rest.

--Chris
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 02:26 AM

I see what you're saying. I don't completely agree but I kind of do. I wasnt aware of the Kyokushin figthers winning only the second time or even that they fought on two occasions. Where can I find the details of that online?
What about you saying that the techniques were the same the second tiem but the training methods were different? Thats what I mean is that the techniques arent the problem only the training methods. And thats part of traditional martial arts I have an issue with. I really feel that to a large extent traditional techniques can be trained somewhat live and trainign that isnt fully alive can still be useful, at least in the early stages training. My ideal martial art would probably be Kajukenbo, as practised without the forms (which they dotn pull fighting techniques from much anyway). Many groups do this, including using the self defense techniques in training but then adding elements of mma. Krav Maga that includes sparring is very good as well imo.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 02:45 AM

I can't find a specific web link. Search around, it's there somewhere.

Harry Cook, a leading Karate historian, had this to say on another forum regarding the influence of Muay Thai on Kyokushin:
Quote:

[...] I suspect that a major influence on the development of Kyokushinkai knockdown was the matches that Oyama's students had with Thai boxers, Tadashi Nakamura in his The Human face of Karate, Shufunotomo Co. Ltd, Japan 1989 refers to the matches he and others held in Bangkok. I interviewed Nakamura sensei over ten years ago for the now defunct Fighting Arts International magazine and I certainly got the impression that the idea of knockdown was derived to a large degree from Muay Thai.




http://www.e-budo.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-15410.html

Maybe check that book out.
--Chris
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 08:11 AM

Quote:


Anyhow, I suppose I still dont fully grasp your view of using boxing as a delivery system. I suppose for you it's more integrated than my image of it. What I'm talking about is using the basic jab, cross, hook, uppercut, evasions, from boxing, and thats it





Storm, the things you mentioned are FUNDAMENTALS. This may come as a shock to you, but fundamentals are 1) All you really have use of in fighting. 2) All you really NEED for use in fighting 3) The foundation without which, you have nothing. You'd have a sand castle.

For people to fight well, they need nothing more than fundamentals. The further one drifts from that fundamental core, the more their entire structure breaks down. Especially under pressure, and that's the key point.

So when I speak of boxing a "delivery system", it starts with fundamentals. All I practically do anymore is develop more fundamentals: balance, footwork, timing, tight structure, defensive ability before offensive ability, economy of motion, punching out and straight back, keeping elbows to center, etc. Nothing is more important than those things. REAL pressure is a mother. If people haven't sparred to knock-out intensity before, they will have no true appreciation for fundamentals. And I'm not talking about playing "slappy hands" either.

If I'm sparring with someone who doesn't have those fundamentals in place the level that I do, I will break his defense down and "score" (and I'm not talking about points). The best fighters have just mastered the basics. Have you ever heard that before? (food for thought here; is there really such a thing as an "advanced" technique?)

Now, once you have those fundamentals in place (again, without which you're building a house on quicksand), you can begin to branch out slightly (slightly). You can adjust things here and there (tricky footwork, feinting/faking, attack by drawing, etc) and you can add techniques that move you away from the core. You can work false leads, brush passes, etc. and move to outflank. You can work sweeps (I practice a lot of sweeps from silat into my game where I can). However, doing those things is only possible to the degree to which my fundamentals are superior to my opponents. If we are equal in that department or my opponent is superior, I'm not straying from that small cluster of fundamental movements that you described. To do otherwise is flat-out suicide.



Quote:


You mean boxing as it is when integrated with other skills.





Delivery system is not limited to "just" boxing. It simply means that you have those fundamentals down as your foundation. You aren't limited to them however. So you are correct in a sense. It's just that whatever you "add" should resemble that general delivery system (such as Thai boxing, savate, etc. Both of those arts have the same delivery system as their foundation.)
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 11:56 AM

For all of you wondering about the history of Muay Thai vs Kyokushin here is a link from an unbiased kung fu cat.

http://crane.50megs.com/index6w.htm
Posted by: CVV

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 02:56 PM

Quote:


....

On to the next video.
This is Shotokan Karate, not Okinawan. More than that, this is the Japenese mililtary practicing Shotokan. Bloodier, yes. I doubt there is much kata training going on with these guys. This video does not speak to the training methodologies of tradional karate in the slightest.






I have the entire DVD serie where this footage was taken from. Originally it is a French DVD series (2 dvd) of Karate Bushido called 'Tresor du Japon - Okinawa Karate'. Shotokan is presented as a shorin ryu school. The
demonstrator is Yoshitaka Mueno (8th dan Kyoshi in Shotokan-ryu), of the Federation of self defense karate of the Japanese police force. They demonstrate also kata and application on the video (JION).
So I guess they use kata in their instruction. When I trained at Wakayama university, it was pretty much this format of kumite. Accidents happen but usually everybody ended training without bleeding. But when pushed and at end of the training when evrybody is tired and control was not that good enymore, sometimes accidents happen. My last training day I got a punch on the chin wich I felt till I got home 2 days later.

Here is a video of one of my students in competition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKZB7Q4E3Cg
Too fast fo me nowadays but they do not commit there techniques with body weight, only speed. In adult training (non competition) pace is slower but techniques are more determined towards destroying, but with control so that technique does not penetrate. This is done by stopping before target. We fight without protective gear. Sometimes fist protector not to rip the skin at contact.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 03:57 PM

Right, police force. Thanks for clarifying.
And yes, as I said, kata may play a role in this training, but kumite seems to play a greater one. I think this would be true of any training where results had to be gotten quickly.

--Chris
Posted by: butterfly

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 03:58 PM

Med,

Yep...the article in my opinion is spot on and gets the gist of it. One can also make a point that Oyama's Japanese karate was a formative point to bring technical use to an emphatic point in their tournaments. And from there others were/are trying to branch out to fix holes they felt needed fixing in that study.

The one thing that this brings up is that Kyokushin's requisite use of full contact, even though not as open technically or in the ranges of its combat (grabbing, head shots and grappling) it did allow for quicker access and a quicker learning curve from these Kyokushin players, apparently, to get into more open style tournaments (read full contact kick boxing with MT rules and MMAs) that did allow these things.
Posted by: CVV

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 04:27 PM

Quote:

Right, police force. Thanks for clarifying.
And yes, as I said, kata may play a role in this training, but kumite seems to play a greater one. I think this would be true of any training where results had to be gotten quickly.

--Chris




Little anekdote in history, because you mentioned Chojun Miyagi earlier and that he only experimented with a free form of fighting for one year.

He teached at Naha police station, to the police force, from the death of his teacher in 1915 (or 1917, date unclear) until his death in 1953, with the exception from 1945 till 1949. Only to teach kata ? Or not ?
Here is a video of Taira sensei of the Judokan. He is a former police man and student of Eiichi Miyazato. Eiichi Miyazato took over the position of teacher at the Naha police station after Miagy died. He was also a police officer. Many of Miyagi's student were in the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmExIWEglSo

BTW my name is Chris too.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 04:34 PM

That's good point. I know that those police officers also trained in Judo as well. I'd like to know if the training was changed for the police officers, though.

Nonetheless, all this, though interesting historically, still doesn't really play to what I was saying about that video in question. Those specific karateka aren't inherently better fighters because they are police officers, but because they have prioritised training to emphasize kumite, rather than kata/bunkai. At least this is the way it appears on the video. Further, being shotokan, I'd say it is unlikely that kata bunkai is taught at all.

What those guys were using in that video is punches, kicks and some clinch work. All high percetage stuff that is easily trainable in an alive manner. I didn't see any eyegouges.

--Chris
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 06:04 PM

Ames,

just curious, have you studied karate or kata training methods?
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 06:49 PM

I am have been watching this thread for awhile now, and to be honest I have found it somewhere between humorous and f****** annoying.

I don't really want to enter the fray, (lol yea right) but I thought I might share some thoughts I received directly from people I respect.

Once in a class with a very well known Karate Man a student asked, who would win in a fight a Karate Man or a boxer?

His answer, it depends on the men. (which really is all that need be said) but then he added, if pressed to answer I'd say on balance, the boxer. (gasp) How can you say that!

Well on balance the boxer spends more time in combat, full speed and hard contact. Most Karate men don't do that, and you should understand a person who fights everyday is gotta be one tough SOB.

He went on to say, eventually as time passes the balance will move to the Karate man, because he spends more time training in the things the boxer hasn't the time nor inclination to concern himself with...but ultimately it depends on the man.

One of my early instructors had a lot to say on the subject of cross discipline training, and which method was the best.

He would say there are many roads to a mountain top, but at the end of the day it all comes down to taking it too the mat. If you can't do it, keep climbing and if you can, keep climbing. (for those who can't extend the metaphor, he meant if you are climbing you are going up, not sideways or down)

So what is my point. Basically there are some of you who seem to think you know the best way to the mountaintop, which is fine to have the opinion. It only makes sense you would train the way you think is best, or at least best for you. But that is not enough, you must disparage the road others take, claim you can simply look at their road, evaluate then dismiss.

Then you go on and on about proof, what would Karate do against a pro boxer etc...but really it's all just you seeing the world through your paradigm.

You want facts, here are some facts. If you train in boxing I guarantee you there is a Karate man who could wipe the ring with you.

If you train Karate I guarantee you there is a Boxer who could wipe the ring with you.

So what does that prove? Nothing other then there are many roads to the mountaintop...it depends on the man..etc.

Now I know that's not enough, some of you will scream Kata is worthless until you are red in the face, even as the Kata man whips you butt around the ring,..Or the Karate man will claim the boxer needs Kata, even as he eats jab after cross and his face looks like Tex Cobb after a few rounds with Larry Holmes.

Personally I have seen this time and time again. Frankly it's exhausting. The only way to prove it to someone is to get them out on the mat or in the ring and show them and even when you do, there will be another Know it all Jacka** walking through the door the next day or next week and it starts all over.

Someone earlier said "Karate guys come in here and they get owned"...well I can tell you of 2 really good boxers who got owned by Karate Guys...saw it happen live. So what.

John likes to mention his valuable time...where exactly are you going and what is the rush? If you can't see immediate benefit you consider it useless? How very American of you.

To say you have no desire to spend your time doing Kata and believe it has no applicable value, is one thing your opinion.

But to call it useless and a complete waste of time, implies you have a certain fighting arts omnipotence that you frankly do not have, none of us do.

I have noticed that on this thread, the experienced Karate men have said very little or nothing, that doesn't surprise me. (with the exception of Dan who I think grew tired of trying to have a reasonable discourse)

This debate is like trying to show you something you have already decided you don't want to see.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/13/08 06:56 PM

Very nice post!!
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/14/08 06:37 AM

Quote:


John likes to mention his valuable time...where exactly are you going and what is the rush? If you can't see immediate benefit you consider it useless? How very American of you.

To say you have no desire to spend your time doing Kata and believe it has no applicable value, is one thing your opinion.

But to call it useless and a complete waste of time, implies you have a certain fighting arts omnipotence that you frankly do not have, none of us do.





Kimo, take a break and your "anti-condemnation, condemnation".

The opinion that kata useless for developing functional skill is valid. I've explained my reasoning here and elsewhere. It's the way I see it, and that is what internet discussions are for. If people enjoy doing kata, that's great. Whatever floats your boat. I've always said that. But you know man, there are other people want to hear a critical voice on the matter as well. Some are not content to simply drink the koolaid. But if people enjoy it, bottoms up!


Quote:


I have noticed that on this thread, the experienced Karate men have said very little or nothing, that doesn't surprise me. (with the exception of Dan who I think grew tired of trying to have a reasonable discourse)

This debate is like trying to show you something you have already decided you don't want to see.





I don't know about you, but this discourse HAS been reasonable by most standards Kimo. The fact that some people are unwilling or able to bring valid, logical points to the table doesn't make it "unreasonable".

Would it have been better if we all just agreed to agree? Or, just put the blinders on without any critical thought? That seems to be a very popular thing in some traditional martial arts!
Posted by: harlan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/14/08 06:43 AM

You have your opinion...'that kata is useless to develop functional skill.' You are also wrong because it is a blanket statement. Along a a continuum, kata does teach functional skills.

Of course, it depends on the context, the training. It's a different way of training, and no one says it is incomplete in and of its' self.
Posted by: student_of_life

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/14/08 02:08 PM

i just noticed this and thought i would reply.

"And the problem with "pretending" to train is that you're not really training. Why do I say, "pretending"?"

john, i don't pretend to train, now shut up with that condicending crap. we practice thrusting kicks on pads, and in sparring. in sparing we have to target the body or head with these kick, how much of a stretch is it simply pick another target for the kick? this way the student learns to fire the kick full force into a pad, that can move around, and they can spar with it against someone who is trying to hit them back.


"Boxers don't hit heavy bags to learn to fight. They hit bags to develop attributes like stamina, power, etc. They learn to apply those skills through alive training against resisting partners/opponents. That's key."

and karate ka don't learn solo kata to fight, they learn them to develop attributes like stamina, power, etc. They learn to apply those skills through alive training against resisting partners/opponents. That's key. oh snap, son.

"I'm not personally that concerned about the dreaded knee stomp. Any good fighter isn't going to stand there posing like a statue and allow someone to have full access to the knee. It's a low percentage technique as far as I'm concerned, unless I'm coming in, walking forward with me legs straightened out like stilts."

yeah, and as low percentage as it is, i think we can both understand how circumstance and set up/entry make or break any and all techniques. i use the knee stomp from a position similar to the major outter reap throw from judo.

"Some of the points that I've been trying to make over the course if this thread and, my entire time on this forum, has been on the matter of theory vs. practical reality; of impracticable technique vs. practicable technique. That's a very substantial point, imo."
yes it is, and thanks for being the pain in the arse voice of truth for as long as you have been. lol.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/14/08 02:25 PM

Stormy -



Quote:

An evolutionary adaption isnt necessairly good either, it may not effect the species and their ability to survive or may negatively impact their ability to survive, it's a somewhat blind process. They may evolve and not really be any "fitter" just different, and just happen to survive and outlast other forms for other reasons.




An evolutionary adaptation is better by definition. Non-successful mutations will result in extinction. I think you are confusing mutation with evolution. Things do not evolve unsuccessfully - they die.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/14/08 02:27 PM

Quote:

The opinion that Kata useless for developing functional skill is valid.




The opinion that there other ways to train the same thing, is valid. To say Kata is useless to train functional skill in not valid.

I (keeping with my theme of "only what I have seen firsthand") have an example.

Bob, I will call him came from another school and while he had decent sparring skills, he had bad footwork, in particular his rear foot was almost always turned away out of the fight, a small detail maybe, but an important one. It cost him explosion forward or offline, and whenever he moved he would have to move twice, costing him time and to a good fighter, a telegraph.

He was given a Kata to do, one that among other things required proper footwork. After a while, when he was somewhat proficient, he began sparring and was told to spar "within the Kata". He began to move quite differently and more effectively.

So that would be a direct functional skill, applied directly to fighting.

BUT THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO TRAIN FOOTWORK KIMO!!!! ( I know you are thinking)

Well, that was only one aspect of the Kata that applied to fighting. There were many others, kind of like a full body workout builds more then one muscle group at a time.

So John, we both know you will never, ever even under pain of death do a Kata...but that does not mean it does not have value...remember different roads to the mountain top

Quote:

Or, just put the blinders on without any critical thought?




Well yes, if everyone would stop back talking me and just accept my wisdom as gospel, the world be a better place...
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/14/08 02:34 PM

Quote:

Stormy -



Quote:

An evolutionary adaption isnt necessairly good either, it may not effect the species and their ability to survive or may negatively impact their ability to survive, it's a somewhat blind process. They may evolve and not really be any "fitter" just different, and just happen to survive and outlast other forms for other reasons.




An evolutionary adaptation is better by definition. Non-successful mutations will result in extinction. I think you are confusing mutation with evolution. Things do not evolve unsuccessfully - they die.




Coincidently I've been reading a lot on this lately and it turns out, contrary to what I used to think, that evolution is based almost entirely on mutations. Thats really the only thing that actually adds genetic information. It can be good, making the species better able to survive, it could be bad which generally does what you say and makes them all die (or they may live anyway for other reasons-for example now people who never would've survived in the past due to odd little mutations are surviving and passing on their genetics because other people help them, medical advances, etc.) or it may be neutral and not really change anything. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1Mutations.shtml

That is, however, how evolution works, a species mutates, and if that mutation increasesit's chances of procreation thus survival, it passes that new genetic info on, and then the next line mutates some more and either dies or procreates due to enhanced survvial, and so on till we have multiple species. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutation_and_Evolution.html
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/14/08 02:52 PM

I did mean to write "I think you are confusing mutation with adaptation," not evolution. You are correct that evolution is driven by mutation. Apologies for my lack of clarity.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/14/08 03:06 PM

No problem. How do you start out comparing strikes in Karate and Boxing and end up on evolution? lol MAJOR tangent
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/15/08 12:11 AM

I've only paid a little attention to this thread but I thought that as I have an opinion I may as well share it.

The Karate I have learned has better strikes than the boxing I have learned. The Karate has all the strikes present in boxing. Then it adds a range of others and all of them are handed down with much more versatility built into their philosophy of application. The boxing I learned was a ring sport and it's strikes were simple. I've seen nothing to convince me that boxing is anything other than a ring sport.

Boxing is much easier to learn as their is much less of it. Everything that is boxing is Karate, not everything that is Karate is boxing.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/15/08 12:40 AM

Actually, why does everyone say karate has what boxing has? Karate may have soem similar stuff, kind of, and a lot of good techniques but structurally it's very different and looks nothing like Karate. The foot work and evasive movements are vastly different from Karate. What Karate fighter looks like Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Jack Dempsey, etc.?
Shonuff-Boxing has all the hand techniques you really need, and works fine when combined with grappling, and Muay Thai or something. Karate has some great stuff that boxing doesn't but boxing can work great in a street altercation as long as you have tools for all ranges instead of just boxing. Using only boxing for your hand techniques and striking defense is perfectly ok and many people do it and can fight just fine. Obviously if you train PURELY in boxing you'll be at a disadvantage. It is what it is. The simplicity is actually not a bad thing at all, and it's deceptively simply, there are major nuances in boxing.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/15/08 04:22 AM

Quote:

just curious, have you studied karate or kata training methods?




Hey, Brian, just a very little. Certainly not in a great deal of depth. As I said earlier, I tried out some Goju Ryu (at two dojo's), some Uechi, and some Shotokan. In one of the Goju places I tried, the class seemed to be only me and about six blackbelts. I watched what they were doing, in terms of kata extraction, and didn't think much of it. All in all, my judgements on kata are more based on the results I've seen from it's study, rather than a formal study itself.

Of course, I'm assuming that we are talking about 'kata' in the karate sense of solo kata. In terms of kata in a jujutsu sense, I've done a fairly large amount of that.

I don't see kata as useless. I do think that there are much better training methods that give quicker results. I'm not completly 'anti-kata'. I think that for a certain kind of person, it's a valid way to learn self defence (assuming that sparring and applications are done with full resistence and inderminate reactions from the receiver of the technique). In the end, I don't adhere to the 'all arts are equal, it's up to user' camp though. I think that arts have diffirent things to teach, and some do somethings better than others. In the case of kata-based arts, I think self defence and sparring skill takes along time to arrive at. But someone might have diffirent training goals in mind, so more power to them. In the end, some people find boxing 'too simple' and therefore won't bother going to class or practicing...so if that person will go to karate class, then that is the obvious choice.

However, this thread was about which art has better striking, and I firmly believe that the evidence points towards boxing as being generally better in that regard. And I do think that the major reason for that is the training methods.

--Chris
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/15/08 08:08 AM

In response to what Chris said, I'll add that I am not anti-karate, or anti-kata. In fact, you may be surprised to hear my thoughts about karate for self-defense. I just come here to chat and have a healthy discourse about martial arts. I get to read the perspectives of different people and I respect everyone's views. While such talk doesn't always change my opinion on things, it always helps to see others points of view. All of those different perspectives matter because they give us sight of the bigger picture.

While discussing different topics, we often don't get a chance to speak but on a narrow choice of things (even though the threads themselves appear to meander all over the place). This is great in itself however because within each thread we hammer on, lies the seeds for countless other threads and discussions.

As I mentioned, some may find it interesting to hear my opinions on karate for self-defense. Those opinions differ somewhat on my thoughts about karate for fighting (again, that doesn't mean that I'm saying karate guys can't "fight"...these are merely general statements).

So, what's the difference between self-defense and fighting? Its just my opinion that in fighting, one engages the enemy (eliminate space) and in self-defense, one disengages the enemy (create space). For self-defense, it's my opinion that "fighting" the enemy is not always a wise thing to do. But there again, a well-rounded person should be able to do BOTH, because at times you could find yourselves within a fight whether you wanted it or not.

The thing is, this topic has rarely been broached (although I'm sure that people have mentioned it at times that I haven't been aware of). At least, no one has ever asked me what I thought about it.

Make no mistake, there is a huge difference between sudden violence and "sport" fighting. Like Matt Jansson has alluded to however, it's not a "mechanical" difference, so much as it is one of strategy and choice of tactics employed. Remember folks, I'm not against any of you nor your choice of training methods. Lets keep things in perspective and realize that this place is just a big cyber playground. Don't get frustrated...just keep playing.
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/15/08 12:55 PM

Quote:

Actually, why does everyone say karate has what boxing has?




Because it does.

Quote:

Karate may have soem similar stuff, kind of, and a lot of good techniques but structurally it's very different and looks nothing like Karate. The foot work and evasive movements are vastly different from Karate. What Karate fighter looks like Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Jack Dempsey, etc.?




Well I was always told I had resembelance to Ali when I was younger. Now I'm older they say George Foreman.
Firstly, I qualified my post by pointing out that I'm speaking of the boxing I was taught and the karate I was taught.

That subtle nuance was placed to remind everyone that this whole discussion is subjective. I feel that most of the differences you speak of are products of the rules of the two sports and the fact that to get boxing from karate you have to strip karate of most of its tools. SO of course they look different in their natural forms; Karate is boxing + xy and z. Also I simply disagree about the footwork.

Quote:

Shonuff-Boxing has all the hand techniques you really need, and works fine when combined with grappling, and Muay Thai or something.




I never said it didn't, nor did I make any comment about it's effectiveness, although if it needs all that cross training as you say it does it seems it would make more sense to find a more rounded system.
The question was which had better strikes. In some situations an elbow will be better suited than a punch. Since karate has boxings punches but boxing lacks karate's elbows etc Karate has the better strikes.

Quote:

Karate has some great stuff that boxing doesn't but boxing can work great in a street altercation as long as you have tools for all ranges instead of just boxing. Using only boxing for your hand techniques and striking defense is perfectly ok and many people do it and can fight just fine.




I made not one criticism of boxers fighting ability or boxings validity as a fighting style.

Quote:

Obviously if you train PURELY in boxing you'll be at a disadvantage. It is what it is. The simplicity is actually not a bad thing at all, and it's deceptively simply, there are major nuances in boxing.




I never said simplicity was a bad thing either, I think it's great, Karate still has better strikes.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/15/08 08:26 PM

Maybe more but not necessairly better. Compare the two fairly-just take punches. How are the punches of Karate any better? Different maybe, not necessairly better. Actually the boxing of 80 or 90 years ago was very much like old time Karate.
Now even if you maintain that boxing doesn't normally utilize as many types of strikes, you can still use them using the mechanics of boxing and that's really the important thing, which I'm finally seeing.
Karate has an advantage to a degree by having more strikes, you're right about that, however depending on the fighter this doesn't always matter. However the basic mechanics arent any betetr in Karate and boxing can facilitate jsut as many and just as effective of strikes. And liek I said, if you jsut comapre boxing to Karate for what it normally is used for (I.E jsut punching) then it's just as good.
Karate tends to require cross training as well. It's not the be all end all by any means. Perhaps the most inclusive form, Wado ryu, really isnt jsut a very complete form of Karate but one that makes use of cross training (with traditional Jujutsu). The grappling techniques of traditional Karate arent bad if you're dealing with a a brawler but against, say, a good BJJ guy it's pretty deficient I'd say. So again, cross training is necessary even for Karate.
Mattj-the following article pretty much outlines what I was trying to say about evolution at the the first few paragraphs under "common misconceptions on evolution": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/16/08 04:26 AM

Why would a Karateka grapple with a BJJist when he could just hit the guy instead.

Put a Karateka in a boxing ring with boxing rules and there would be no difference between the fighters. Boxings style is largely a function of its rules. Karateka use all the basic strikes of boxing, they should fight from a nuetral upright stance, where traditional stances are transitional functions of specific techniques. Karateka use evasion and weaving, and the use of a ring necessitates a certain type of footwork also used in karate when appropriate.

The most telling differences would be in the defence, boxing's use of blocks and defensive nuances within attacking techniques. Although I would counter that karate does much more with many of its attacks and defences than boxing ever could, so there is still balance. However the question was on striking, not defence or grappling etc.

When this question is applied to the individual the only real factors of import are who trained the hardest and with what methods.

But the question posed was not about the individual it was about the broad categories of Martial art/sport. Saying we should look only at punching is like saying we should tie one fighters right arm to his shoe. If boxers are better punchers it is because they only train punching. If Karateka only trained punching they would be just as good, but they train much more as than that because the art is much more than that.

Furthermore trying to seperate arts by training methods is just flawed. Every school trains differently, thus training methods cannot be considered definitive of a martial art and so they cannot be used to compare styles.

Karateka vs Boxer. Karateka kicks boxer in the groin as boxer leads with a jab, then knees him in the ribs, then elbows him in the face. Fight over, Karate wins.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/16/08 04:58 PM

Why grapple when you could just hit him? Are you serious? Did you watch any of the first ufc's? You know how many Karateka tried that on Royce Gracie among others and got destroyed? Same with Ken Shamrock and strikers. If you don't have a solid ground game and takedown defense you may as well not even bother or at least not hope to be a good fighter.

About just kicking a boxer in the groin, yeah that could work, or kick them in the leg, but if a boxer trains against a karate person, they learn to deal with that just by using good maneuvering. It's harder than you make it sound. Karate certainly gives some advantages like that, not arguing with you there. IF the Karate person actually trains with a lot of contact sure they could take out boxers. But a good boxer can make boxing work agaisnt a Karateka if they train against it. The hand techniques of boxing is of coruse a bit limited, but nonetheless it's amazing how many combos you can out together and how many angles you can strike from using boxing. I really think boxing has somewhat better hand techniques. Or at least as good. I suppose Karate could be better in a way, if it's trained well. Still boxing can be made to work just fine.
But try some of those famous step sparring moves on a boxer. They'll never work.
Now, where can I find a true lead hook in Karate? Or a rigth cross (by that I do not mean a reverse punch)?

I really think Karate does not have the same techniques. I've never ever seen a traditional Karate fighter using the foowork of boxing (which I think the footwork of boxing is generally better).
And again it's not that easy to just "kick them in the groin".
I think the ideal would be Karate utilizing elements of boxing/wrestling/BJJ. Kind of like Kajukenbo. Both are a bit deficient imo. Karate ungloved gives more options, but they're just that, options. Not an unstoppable attack against anyone not using those options as well.
I dont know, to me, for what it is (punching only), boxing is better, in that area. And can be made to work against Karate. Really a good fighter would make use of both (or boxing and some other art with kicks, knees, elbows, etc.).
By you saying better, it's like saying a hit from a boxer isnt as good as a hit from a Karate person which is blatantly wrong. Muay thai doesnt have as many strikes as Karate but boy they have a nasty track record of beating down Karate people. It's more about how you train. Just because you have those options open doesnt mean you can make them work. And soem aspectas of Karate, really isnt that special imo (like the fottwork, which I've never seen a boxer do).
You said that a karateka with glvoes fights and mvoes like a boxer. But with kicks. In my experience when they just fight with a very crappy form of boxing usually, or kickboxing rather. The structure is different like I said. They dont move liek boxers so when they try to act liek boxers it doesnt work.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/16/08 07:21 PM

Quote:

Because it [karate] does. [have everything that boxing has]





Unless we are talking about Karate that was heavily influenced by boxing, then, no, no it doesn't.

Tradional karate absolutely does not have the same footwork as boxing. Boxing has a diffirent strategy than karate. Boxing has diffirent setups/combinations than karate...shall I go on?

Quote:

That subtle nuance was placed to remind everyone that this whole discussion is subjective.




Please see my comment regarding your statment of "seperate arts by training methods is just flawed."

Attempting to dismiss logical points by extreme relativism is flawed; in doing so, you, by extension, are dismissing your own points, such as the one below:

Quote:

SO of course they look different in their natural forms; Karate is boxing + xy and z.




No, Karate is not 'boxing +" anything. Karate, especially in its tradional form, is very diffirent than boxing. I find your arrogance regarding the implication that karate has everything of boxing plus (+) more, to absolutely without merit.

Quote:

Also I simply disagree about the footwork




Disagree away. But that won't change the fact that boxing footwork and karate footwork (as seen in the Kata's, which, many experianced karataka have described as 'catalogues of the style) are very diffirent. Please reference a kata which displays boxing footwork. Please show any evidence that sport (ring) karate footwork wasn't influenced by boxing. Because it was.

Quote:

although if it needs all that cross training as you say it does it seems it would make more sense to find a more rounded system.





There is no system that does not benifit from crosstraining.
For instance, one of main developers of Shotokan sparring, Ohtsuka, imported methods from Kendo, Jujustu, and boxing.

Quote:

The question was which had better strikes. In some situations an elbow will be better suited than a punch. Since karate has boxings punches but boxing lacks karate's elbows etc Karate has the better strikes.





I'm wondering if you have read that thread at all, to be honest? Just because one art has a technique that another has, does not automatically mean that that art is better.
If your line of reasoning was correct, then taken to its full extension, many styles of Kung fu have 'better strikes' than karate, simply because many styles of kung fu have more strikes in their system.

Quote:

Why would a Karateka grapple with a BJJist when he could just hit the guy instead.





According to all evidence, this view is just wrong. I suggest you try this with a BJJer of moderate ablility.

Quote:

Put a Karateka in a boxing ring with boxing rules and there would be no difference between the fighters.




In what sense are we speaking here? Certainly there would be a very large difference between them. The rest of your own post speaks to this (i.e. "The most telling differences would be...").

Quote:

Karateka use evasion and weaving




Perhap's I'm ignorant to this, but could you point out where any Karate kata uses boxing style bobbing/weaving?

Quote:

use of a ring necessitates a certain type of footwork also used in karate when appropriate.




Also, please illustrate where the kata contains explicit use of 'ring' style footwork. As far as I know, tradional karate kata do not even involve the performer moving on the balls of their feet. Also, why would tradional karate even have the neccisity to place such footwork in the kata, because karate (as so many have said) was not originally designed for the ring.

I think you are forgetting the probably influence boxing footwork has had on 'sport' karate (which is why it looks similar).

Quote:

Although I would counter that karate does much more with many of its attacks and defences than boxing ever could , so there is still balance.




Then perhaps you should actually counter, rather than just saying 'I could'.
How precisely does Karate "do more" with it's attacks and defences than boxing "ever could". This statement seems so vague that it appears to mean nothing.

Quote:

However the question was on striking, not defence or grappling etc.





Okay. But then you say:

Quote:

Saying we should look only at punching is like saying we should tie one fighters right arm to his shoe.




Which is it? What are you trying to say. You are not really presenting a focused argument.

Quote:

When this question is applied to the individual the only real factors of import are who trained the hardest and with what methods.





Yes, I think we have established that is not only the hard training indivdual, the technique's , but also " the methods" that create a good fighter. How does this make a case for Karate 'methods' (training methodology) being better?

Quote:

If boxers are better punchers it is because they only train punching.




So boxers are better punchers then? Because that was the topic of this thread: "Who is the better striker."

Quote:

If Karateka only trained punching they would be just as good,




How would they only train punching? What method would they use to train it? Only when these questions are answered could be begin to discuss whether a karateka would be just as good a puncher.

'If's' don't count for much. I could just as easily state, "If a boxer trained kata he would be the same as a karateka." It doesn't mean anything.

Quote:

Furthermore trying to seperate arts by training methods is just flawed.




No, it isn't flawed at all. Boxing has the same general training methods, with small differences, from place to place. There are enough simularities, however, that one would know that they are 'training boxing' or 'training karate'.

Just because there is variation, does not mean that general statments can't be made. If what you are saying is true, it would be impossible for Sceintific diciplines, like biology or geology for example, to exist.

Quote:

Karateka kicks boxer in the groin as boxer leads with a jab, then knees him in the ribs, then elbows him in the face. Fight over, Karate wins.




Yes, in your purely hypothetical fight, Karate does indeed win. However, there are so many more varibles in such a fight as this that you haven't addresed.

For example, I could say: 'Karateka attempts to kick boxer in groin as boxer jabs, boxer sidesteps and hits Karateka right on the button, knocking him out. Fight over. Boxer wins.' See how I did that?

--Chris
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/16/08 08:09 PM

Thank you Ames for putting it much more eloquently and concise.
Shonuff-about not separating arts by training methods-I know what you eman and partially thats right but let me ask you this-would Karate be Karate without it's principle training methods of Kata and step sparring? Karate is Karate because of it's unique techniques and tactics however, it's also Karate because of it's training methods.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 01:55 AM

Quote:

Why grapple when you could just hit him? Are you serious? Did you watch any of the first ufc's?




The first ufc's is such a tired argument it really doesn't merit a response,but I'll play along.

Firstly, I feel karate is not nor was it ever designed for cagefighting. If you want to cagefight, then you are going to HAVE to integrate various training methods including groundfighting. This is the only thing the first ufc's showed. What have we learned since then? Many strikers have been very effective against grapplers by simply learning takedown defenses.

Quote:

You know how many Karateka tried that on Royce Gracie among others and got destroyed?




No, but I expect an exact number from you now along with their training regimen and previous experience.

Quote:

Same with Ken Shamrock and strikers. If you don't have a solid ground game and takedown defense you may as well not even bother or at least not hope to be a good fighter.




Yes, including boxers. I notice they didn't do so well either. What about when karate and boxing were matched up? How did that turn out? It's no secret that you have to be well rounded to be good in MMA.

Quote:

About just kicking a boxer in the groin, yeah that could work, or kick them in the leg, but if a boxer trains against a karate person, they learn to deal with that just by using good maneuvering.




How about if a karateka trains to fight a boxer? The same reasoning applies.

Quote:

It's harder than you make it sound. Karate certainly gives some advantages like that, not arguing with you there. IF the Karate person actually trains with a lot of contact sure they could take out boxers. But a good boxer can make boxing work agaisnt a Karateka if they train against it. The hand techniques of boxing is of coruse a bit limited, but nonetheless it's amazing how many combos you can out together and how many angles you can strike from using boxing. I really think boxing has somewhat better hand techniques. Or at least as good. I suppose Karate could be better in a way, if it's trained well. Still boxing can be made to work just fine.




You went all over the place there. Basically what you said is "it depends on how they each train" and I'm inclined to agree.


Quote:

But try some of those famous step sparring moves on a boxer. They'll never work.
Now, where can I find a true lead hook in Karate? Or a rigth cross (by that I do not mean a reverse punch)?




Famous step sparring? One steps are for developing a skillset. The difficulty and resistance is ramped up from the beginning. This leads me to believe your karate experience is limited. If your karate training stpooed at step sparring and kata performance then it was seriously lacking imo.

As for hooks, jabs, (uppercuts,palmheel)etc...They have always been in our karate, trained and used. Schools do vary ya know.

Quote:

I really think Karate does not have the same techniques. I've never ever seen a traditional Karate fighter using the foowork of boxing (which I think the footwork of boxing is generally better).




You've never seen karateka use jabs and hooks? I suppose you believe they punch from the hip or from a long deep stance? Depends on how it is trained. Karate is not limited to the rigidity you suggest.


Quote:

And again it's not that easy to just "kick them in the groin".




No, it's surely not.


Quote:

I think the ideal would be Karate utilizing elements of boxing/wrestling/BJJ. Kind of like Kajukenbo. Both are a bit deficient imo. Karate ungloved gives more options, but they're just that, options. Not an unstoppable attack against anyone not using those options as well.




Karate has more elements to it than you elude to. Get more training time in with a good karate instructor before trying to be the authority on the subject. You can't simply point to a given style and claim it's better. It just doesn't work that way. Many karateka train seriously, I think you are referring to McDojo's in your assumptions.


Quote:

I dont know, to me, for what it is (punching only), boxing is better, in that area. And can be made to work against Karate. Really a good fighter would make use of both (or boxing and some other art with kicks, knees, elbows, etc.).




All in all, karate is a more effective fighting style imo. Boxing is very limited. If your punches don't work, what are you left with?
Granted, boxing is a smaller skillset. Having a smaller skillset will make you better at those skills.


Quote:

By you saying better, it's like saying a hit from a boxer isnt as good as a hit from a Karate person which is blatantly wrong. Muay thai doesnt have as many strikes as Karate but boy they have a nasty track record of beating down Karate people.




Again, what karate people? What did they do and what was their training regimen? That's the key.

Quote:

It's more about how you train.





Bingo! Could have deleted your entire post and just replied with this!

Quote:

Just because you have those options open doesnt mean you can make them work. And some aspectas of Karate, really isnt that special imo (like the footwork, which I've never seen a boxer do).




But, you just said it's more about how you train.


Quote:

You said that a karateka with glvoes fights and moves like a boxer. But with kicks. In my experience when they just fight with a very crappy form of boxing usually, or kickboxing rather. The structure is different like I said. They dont move like boxers so when they try to act like boxers it doesnt work.




I've seen karateka that fight like sissies and couldn't punch their way out of a wet paper bag. I've also seen karateka that could one punch most people's lights out. Lots of overlooked variables in there.

All in all. If you want to have effective karate, you are simply going to have to fight. This means against as many people with as many skillsets as possible.

If I were to speak generally I would say that if you put an average karateka in the ring with an average boxer using boxing rules the karateka would most likely be outpunched. Why? Karate trains a larger skillset.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 03:00 AM

Hey basically I'm saying what we've always said-depends on the fighter and on how you train. Boxers could be Karateka and Karateka can beat boxers. Just because someone does Karate doesnt make them all of the sudden better necessairly which is sort of how Shonuff sounds at times. Why I'd just "kick em in the nuts!"

As for Royce Gracie beating Karateka- Keither Hackney (White Tiger Kenpo) and Ron Van Clief (Chinese Goju), Kimo (TKD supposedly), Jason Delucia (Kung fu-same difference), Gerard Gordeau (TKD), Patrick Smith (TKD).

All good TMA fighters, all trounced. I think Karate gives some good grappling options for dealing with guys who arent especially well trained. I've read extensively on the grappling methods of Karate and while they arent bad I dont think they match BJJ (well mostly anyway), Judo, or even Aikido. I think any Karate person would greatly benefit from cross training and really must do so to be a complete fighter, mma or not. Same with Boxers. You have to be well rounded for fighting in general, and Karate is somewhat but not as much as it needs to be imo.

As for the cagefighting argument, I realize what you mean but the first ufc's were pretty close to streetfighting (just look at how Hackney beat his first oppoenent) so really I think they're a good argument.

This whole thread is about my art is better than your art and it's pure BS. Does Karate have better strikes? In some ways but thats not an absolute yes and in terms of the number of strikes sure but that doesn't mean better. Depends who is using it. Personally I in some ways think boxing punches are a bit better but I'm a bit on the fence with that. And it's just me, same with the footwork.

As for my experience, I trained for around 3ish years in ITF TKD and a year in Kenpo, learned a few forms of Shorin Ryu. All the step sparring sucked. The step sparring I came up with myself was good, as well as the Kenpo ones, but the Karate methods sucked. Starting out I trained hard on those, constantly and never did make them work against same a fross, a jab, or something similar. For a complete beginner they're ok to get the fundamentals but should not maintain a big place in training for long.

When I said just because you have those great Karate options open doesnt mean you can make them work I meant because it depends on how you train. And about footwork, I honestly dont care much for Karate style footwork.

I've seen Karate people use boxing type maneuvers but they never got them from Kata or one steps, it was boxing that was included in the curriculum. And they didnt do it well. I've seen shotokan guys punch from the hip and move in the orse stance and it works for them but it's never worked for me as well as boxing/muay thai. Dont get me wrong, Karate has some good stuff to add, I use a number of techniques, especially from Kenpo and Kajukenbo, but it's not the be all end all. And like ames said just because it has more moves doesnt make it better. For what it is, boxing is just as good. And I think it's only fair to argue for what it is. And even if it's limited it can work against any other striking system. Just have to train for it. Granted it'd be easier to use other techniques. Then again some Karate techniques may actually be detrimental (for example a round house kick to the head or even midsection, easy to get knocked down when the boxing type throws a punch at the same time).

Again, depends on how you train and how you fight individually, not whether one is better, for the most part (although like I said I do have negative opinions on some aspects of both).

I'll agree though my TKD training sucked. The Kenpo was great though.

I hope this doesnt come across cotnradictory, it really isnt.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 03:59 AM

Quote:

Hey basically I'm saying what we've always said-depends on the fighter and on how you train. Boxers could beat Karateka and Karateka can beat boxers. Just because someone does Karate doesnt make them all of the sudden better necessairly which is sort of how Shonuff sounds at times. Why I'd just "kick em in the nuts!"




Very true. I can't agree with Shonuff on his assessment of karate vs. boxing, but he may just be being facetious.

Quote:

As for Royce Gracie beating Karateka- Keither Hackney (White Tiger Kenpo) and Ron Van Clief (Chinese Goju), Kimo (TKD supposedly), Jason Delucia (Kung fu-same difference), Gerard Gordeau (TKD), Patrick Smith (TKD).




Keith Hackney held his own. His training methods were flawed. He basically had the 'beat the crap out of them' strategy, even if it meant breaking his own hand,lol. BTW, he roughed up Royce pretty good before losing to an armbar. I definately think Keith was the tougher fellow in that fight.

Ron Van Clief was 51yrs old when he fought Royce. He never even got a shot off and was clueless on the ground, again it comes back to training methods. He thought he could use his striking against BJJ in the cage,wrong.

Kimo, not karate.
Jason Delucia , not karate and definitely not the same....at all!
Gerard Gordeau, not karate.
Patrick Smith, not karate.

Let's get back to the boxing so as not to derail this thread into TMA vs. MMA, again.

Quote:

All good TMA fighters, all trounced. I think Karate gives some good grappling options for dealing with guys who arent especially well trained.




Karate has alot of good striking and grappling options as well as throws,locks,chokes, etc...Some not so good imo. Any good training gives you an advantage against the untrained, obviously.

Quote:

I've read extensively on the grappling methods of Karate and while they arent bad I dont think they match BJJ (well mostly anyway), Judo, or even Aikido.




LOL! You've read huh? Don't read about it. Train it on the mat, or better yet in the yard. Again, limited experience is talking here.

Quote:

I think any Karate person would greatly benefit from cross training and really must do so to be a complete fighter, mma or not.




Sure, alot are doing so these days. But, some people aren't interested in becoming a 'complete fighter'. (different subject)

Quote:

Same with Boxers. You have to be well rounded for fighting in general, and Karate is somewhat but not as much as it needs to be imo.




What karate? The karate you 'read about'? How would you say my karate is? You have no clue, so you can't paint with such a wide stroke there bud. What you have read karate is and what I have trained karate is are two different things entirely.

Quote:

As for the cagefighting argument, I realize what you mean but the first ufc's were pretty close to streetfighting (just look at how Hackney beat his first oppoenent) so really I think they're a good argument.




I've already agreed that karate wasn't meant for cagefighting.

Quote:

This whole thread is about my art is better than your art and it's pure BS.




Your arguments seem to reflect what you disdain.

Quote:

Does Karate have better strikes? In some ways but thats not an absolute yes and in terms of the number of strikes sure but that doesn't mean better. Depends who is using it. Personally I in some ways think boxing punches are a bit better but I'm a bit on the fence with that. And it's just me, same with the footwork.




Again, it's your limited karate experience that is talking.Your opinions on karate are limited by time,style,training methods etc......

Quote:

As for my experience, I trained for around 3ish years in ITF TKD and a year in Kenpo, learned a few forms of Shorin Ryu. All the step sparring sucked. The step sparring I came up with myself was good, as well as the Kenpo ones, but the Karate methods sucked.




Dude, you weren't even there long enough to understand the basics, much less the so called 'step sparring', and certainly not long enough to see all that karate encompases.

"Learned a few forms" ? Do you mean you learned how to perform them? How long were you in Shorin-ryu? Certainly not long enough to be doing several forms I think.

I've seen 'one steps' trained robotically while the other person just lets everything happen. Not my experience though.

Quote:

Starting out I trained hard on those, constantly and never did make them work against same a fross, a jab, or something similar. For a complete beginner they're ok to get the fundamentals but should not maintain a big place in training for long.




lol......Same thing I always read here from guys bashing karate. Their short term training sucked, so ALL karate sucks,lol...

Quote:

When I said just because you have those great Karate options open doesnt mean you can make them work I meant because it depends on how you train. And about footwork, I honestly dont care much for Karate style footwork.




Karate is meant to end an attack quickly and decisively. It's not meant for a long drawn out match. Footwork is irrelevant and obviously boxing's footwork is superior in a boxing environment.

Quote:

I've seen Karate people use boxing type maneuvers but they never got them from Kata or one steps, it was boxing that was included in the curriculum. And they didnt do it well. I've seen shotokan guys punch from the hip and move in the horse stance and it works for them but it's never worked for me as well as boxing/muay thai.




I see where you get the style superiority argument now. I thought it was 'pure BS'. lol...

Quote:

Dont get me wrong, Karate has some good stuff to add, I use a number of techniques, especially from Kenpo and Kajukenbo, but it's not the be all end all. And like Ames said just because it has more moves doesnt make it better.




What about American Goju? Come to our backyard and see if we have good stuff,lol. It's not a challenge at all, but just realize how broad of a stroke you are using. I've seen some really sucky kenpo, but I don't pretend to know how ALL kenpo schools train and what is good or what isn't.

Quote:

For what it is, boxing is just as good. And I think it's only fair to argue for what it is. And even if it's limited it can work against any other striking system. Just have to train for it. Granted it'd be easier to use other techniques. Then again some Karate techniques may actually be detrimental (for example a round house kick to the head or even midsection, easy to get knocked down when the boxing type throws a punch at the same time).




American Goju doesn't have kicks above the midsection. I've seen people ko'd with those "detremental" kicks, lol. (Crocop)

Quote:

Again, depends on how you train and how you fight individually, not whether one is better, for the most part (although like I said I do have negative opinions on some aspects of both).




Your opinions are based on your experience.

Quote:

I'll agree though my TKD training sucked. The Kenpo was great though.




What aspect of it was great? What aspect of the TKD sucked?

Quote:

I hope this doesnt come across cotnradictory, it really isnt.




Yes, it really is.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 04:33 AM

How is it contradictory? I simply liek both mma/boxing, etc. and Karate and am objectively willing to point out what I see to be the strengths and weaknesses of both.

You're right I havent seen your Karate, I'm going by the Karate I have seen and experienced which happens to be a big portion of the Karate found in America, and even the world. Is it all? No but a big part, maybe even most. There's always exceptions though. As for reading extrnsively, I also tried to actually apply thsoe grappling methods found in Kata. Some of it was ok. Still not really all you need for grappling imo. Maybe against untrained people but BJJ is more complete in it's approach to grappling and I see no reason to argue with that considering thats what BJJ is all about unlike Karate (I see how this statment could actually make me sound cotnradictory to what I've said peviously, sorry about that).

Obviously some people can make it work fine even against good grapplers but really I think BJJ or Sambo or something would have more to say on grappling. I really think cross training is necessary though, even for Karateka. Or just never hope to deal with a good wrestler/BJJ guy.

Maybe not better but I'd say those arts give you more options on the ground and in the clinch just like Karate does give more options than boxing.

And when the heck did I say ALL Karate sucks? I did however say I like Karate and I think it gives a lot of good options but some of it (at least what I've seen) isnt useful. Why not be honest and admit that Karate isnt perfect? I dont claim that mma, or Krav Maga or Kenpo or anything else is complete and perfect they all miss some stuff. All I'm saying is that Karate is good but not the be all end all.

Why did my TKD training suck (for me anyway)? We sparred maybe 2 or 3 tiems a MONTH. Terrible. Oh and on the TKD side (though not the boxing side) we were taught not to tuck our chins in our fighting stance and have a low hand position. SD training was another time or 2 a month. Most of my sparring was done outside the dojang with a friend who did Kyokushinkai for awhile and on the wrestling mats.

All I'm saying here, again, is that Karate is not the be all end all for fighting, neither is boxing. But both have good stuff to offer and bad stuff. Cross training is necessary. For what it is (punching only) boxing is just as good as any Karate. For what it is imo (defence against bralwers, thugs, whatever) Karate is good if effective training methods are employed. Of coruse it is at something of a disadvantage but even that won't always matter. Training and individual prowess matter most.
Thats it, all I'm saying. That and my Karate/TKD experiences were mostly bad (except Kenpo I love that stuff ).

My issue with step sparring is that it's over done, too much is just not useful for fighting. Also, the defences take too long and are too drawn out normally. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npfceTVtcJA That kind of thing is garbage imo if you want to be a better fighter. Like I said I trained that stuff constantly and it didnt do me any good.

And it should make you wonder if it takes years to become a decent fighter with Karate. Whereas mma guys become decent fighters in a few months. The usual Karate training is not practical for the most part. Are the techniques good? Sure for the most part. Some of the training is good, I like makiwara training for instance. The kind of step sparring seen in that video, once past the first couple months of training, is pretty much worthless for becoming a better fighter.

Oh you asked what part of my Kenpo was great, well SD training was done every class and it was against realistic punches that people actually use like jabs, crosses, haymakers, etc. All done with speed and force so if your technique failed you got hit. Better flow as well imo.

I do wish I could see some of you Goju. Sounds pretty good. Does your group have any videos up? If Goju works for you then hey thats awesome!
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 05:12 AM

Quote:

How is it contradictory? I simply like both mma/boxing, etc. and Karate and am objectively willing to point out what I see to be the strengths and weaknesses of both.




It's obvious where you stand, but your experience doesn't let you be the authority. For the MOST part I agree with you.

Quote:

You're right I havent seen your Karate, I'm going by the Karate I have seen and experienced which happens to be a big portion of the Karate found in America, and even the world.




Right, kenpo and a little shorin-ryu. That leaves out just a few.

How on earth would you know what all of America or even the world is doing? You see what people put on youtube and you have your experience, that's it.

Quote:

Is it all? No but a big part, maybe even most.




Broad strokes, but I know how you draw that conclusion and I can't blame you exclusively for it.

Quote:

There's always exceptions though. As for reading extrnsively, I also tried to actually apply thsoe grappling methods found in Kata. Some of it was ok.




Which kata? What grappling specifically did you try to apply? How long did you train it? Do you think it is as simple as being shown and then being able to do,lol?

Quote:

Still not really all you need for grappling imo.




Never said it was...??

Quote:

Maybe against untrained people but BJJ is more complete in it's approach to grappling




BJJ is mostly grappling. Karate is mostly striking. What on earth brought this on? You can't compare BJJ grappling to karate grappling.

Quote:

and I see no reason to argue with that considering thats what BJJ is all about unlike Karate (I see how this statment could actually make me sound cotnradictory to what I've said peviously, sorry about that).






Quote:

Obviously some people can make it work fine even against good grapplers but really I think BJJ or Sambo or something would have more to say on grappling. I really think cross training is necessary though, even for Karateka. Or just never hope to deal with a good wrestler/BJJ guy.




What the flip??? Haven't we already been through and agreed on this?

Quote:

Maybe not better but I'd say those arts give you more options on the ground and in the clinch just like Karate does give more options than boxing.




Who said it didn't??

Quote:

And when the heck did I say ALL Karate sucks?




You didn't. You said the karate you experienced and read about sucked,lol.

Quote:

I did however say I like Karate and I think it gives a lot of good options but some of it (at least what I've seen) isnt useful.




Like what specifically? I don't think it is unuseful as much as your lack of experience and understanding of it.

Quote:

Why not be honest and admit that Karate isnt perfect?




I missed where I said that it was. I do think that how I train karate with integrated groundfighting is working well for me.

Quote:

I dont claim that mma, or Krav Maga or Kenpo or anything else is complete and perfect they all miss some stuff. All I'm saying is that Karate is good but not the be all end all.




NEVER said it was the be all end all. I really don't think you can claim ANYTHING until you have experienced its full potential.

Quote:

Why did my TKD training suck (for me anyway)? We sparred maybe 2 or 3 tiems a MONTH. Terrible. Oh and on the TKD side (though not the boxing side) we were taught not to tuck our chins in our fighting stance and have a low hand position. SD training was another time or 2 a month. Most of my sparring was done outside the dojang with a friend who did Kyokushinkai for awhile and on the wrestling mats.




Okie dokie.

Quote:

All I'm saying here, again, is that Karate is not the be all end all for fighting, neither is boxing. But both have good stuff to offer and bad stuff. Cross training is necessary. For what it is (punching only) boxing is just as good as any Karate. For what it is imo (defence against bralwers, thugs, whatever) Karate is good if effective training methods are employed. Of course it is at something of a disadvantage but even that won't always matter. Training and individual prowess matter most.




I think we have already agreed on this a couple of times.

Quote:

Thats it, all I'm saying. That and my Karate/TKD experiences were mostly bad (except Kenpo I love that stuff ).




Great.

Quote:

My issue with step sparring is that it's over done, too much is just not useful for fighting. Also, the defences take too long and are too drawn out normally.




Step sparring (as you call it) should basically be self defense techniques drawn straight from the kata and used with increasing resistance.

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npfceTVtcJA That kind of thing is garbage imo if you want to be a better fighter. Like I said I trained that stuff constantly and it didnt do me any good.




Can't see it right now, so I can't comment on it. Again, sorry your experience sucked. What are you training in right now?



Quote:

And it should make you wonder if it takes years to become a decent fighter with Karate. Whereas mma guys become decent fighters in a few months.




1. Training time
2. Training methods
This is what's at fault, not karate in general. Again,broad strokes.

Quote:

The usual Karate training is not practical for the most part.




Which part? What "usual karate training"?

Quote:

Are the techniques good? Sure for the most part.




How would you know????

Quote:

Some of the training is good, I like makiwara training for instance.




I think makiwara training is outdated..

Quote:

The kind of step sparring seen in that video, once past the first couple months of training, is pretty much worthless for becoming a better fighter.




Can't view it right now.

Quote:

Oh you asked what part of my Kenpo was great, well SD training was done every class and it was against realistic punches that people actually use like jabs, crosses, haymakers, etc. All done with speed and force so if your technique failed you got hit. Better flow as well imo.

I do wish I could see some of your Goju. Sounds pretty good. Does your group have any videos up? If Goju works for you then hey thats awesome!




We don't have any videos right now. We have some people testing for blackbelt this weekend. I'm trying to get someone to record it.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 07:02 AM

The specific types of Karate are different sure, but when I say most Karate isnt that great (even if the styles should be good) is because of the poor training methods, such as that step sparring stuff (which in my experience and the experience of a lot of people I've known is useless and from almost every video of almost every style I've seen is no different).

Step sparring for me is he throws a lunge punch, I block and then coutner with like 5 shots at will, no response from him. Or 2, 3, 4 step sdparring, whatever where it's, well, I guess I could put it this way "It's not alive". At all. Maybe you do it differently. I've seen a ton of Karate and done a fair amount and thats usually what I've seen. In TKD the responses were generally not from Kata and way overstylised. Kenpo where I took it was great because the techniques were pulled from Kata and actually practiced against realistic attacks.

Point fighting is another practice with minimal utility imo. Too much stop and go.

What Katas did I practice? the first couple Naihanchis, the 2 Fukyugatas or whatever and I started on one other, forget which though. Even Kata I dont see as all that useful although it's kind of fun.

About the grappling thing somewhere it seemd you were implying that Karate has all you'd ever need in the way of grappling. Which I dont agree with. At least not in the long run. Sorry if I misunderstood. I really dont see how the cagefighting thing matters as opposed to the street considering there were so few rules and protective gear. Today it's pretty different and comparing Karate to mma/cagefighting of these days I think is unwarranted. But the first few ufc's I'd say were close enough. Kata was designed for no rules fighting which is what the early ufc was.

I said some of Karate isnt useful. You disagreed. What makes you think it's all good and every bit is useful (as you seem to think)?

You said in response to me saying that mma makes peopel decent fighters quicker than Karate, that the training methods were at fault. Thats exactly what I'm getting at. Impractical training methods. I dont like every technique I've seen in Karate but technique really isnt the issue for the most part. Training methods. Which we agree on and yet you have issues with the issues I have with the training methods I've seen used in Karate training (sorry for the tongue twister).

The way you described how step sparring should be I totally agree with but havent seen often nor experienced much. I always ended up doing that kind of realistic training on my own with other guys from the dojang. They just dont do it.

Just to be clear I've been equating TKD with Karate and I'm sorry, thats probably not the best way to go.
Also, sorry for reiterating the same points over and over it's just a bad habit. I really do like the sound of your form of Karate.

Right now, my training is focused on mma, Krav Maga, and a little Kenpo. I dont often have access to a training partner since I moved a couple months ago but I make due. Some guys I drill with fight out of team quest and I'm hoping to do some training with them eventually.

One other thing, why cant we compare BJJ grappling to Karate grappling. As far as I can tell (I very well may be way off base) Karate style grappling seems to be an abbreviated form of traditional Jujutsu or chinese wrestling. Just enough to enable a guy to deal with a grappling situation if it ocmes up or be able to retrain somebody if necessary. Not a complete form of grapplign though (except maybe in the case of Wado ryu).
Posted by: CVV

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 07:21 AM

Quote:

Also, please illustrate where the kata contains explicit use of 'ring' style footwork. As far as I know, tradional karate kata do not even involve the performer moving on the balls of their feet. Also, why would tradional karate even have the neccisity to place such footwork in the kata, because karate (as so many have said) was not originally designed for the ring.

I think you are forgetting the probably influence boxing footwork has had on 'sport' karate (which is why it looks similar).






I have always been thaught to move on the ball of my feet.
My teacher thaught me so and I train with him for 29 years. He learned it from his teacher in the 60ies. For me, this is integral to karate kumite (fighting) and has nothing to do with ring/sport fighting. There are some movements that require heel-ball stepping but this is with the intention to step on adversaries foot.

You seem to think that karate is dictated only with what happens in kata. This asumption is wrong. Although karate training is centralized around kata, it is mostley a tool to archive the aspects of karate. The interpretation of these aspects depend formost of what the individual can make of it. A good teacher can guide you but in the end, you have to figure out yourselve what fits or what not, also depending on your body.

About bobbing and weaving. Karate makes more use of evasion through body shifting (tai sabaki) in the beginning, when learning karate. This is because imo traditional karate starts working from the assumption of a total attack, involving stepping in. The one-step (or multi step) stepping exercises focus on that, creating correct execution of technique under pressure.
Apperently your experience in karate has not gone further than that.
In the free flow exercise you work more multiple attacks where opponent will slide in. Karate searches more to either block/confront attack and respond, or to evade and attack from another angle, or to attack preemptively. In that upper body movement to 'evade and recoil' is less stressed because on short range karate uses short techniques like elbow, clinch, grab, twist, headbutt, knee etc...

But some do train more on bob and weave, but to my exsperience it is not general in karate.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 11:29 AM

what would Karate do against a PRO Boxer???

I don't think this is a proper comparison I beleive a amatuer, Gloden Glove boxer or jouneyman would be a better Comparison. Nobodies mentoned a Pro anything someone that makes their living Boxing would be better (but still limited in a real fight) but because he has mastered this range too ponetnt for a non Pro.

As for this thread being humorous and annoying it depends on what you looking for. Are U examining each post as your Truth or the poster's?

Though me a Jkogas,MattJ,Brains, Ames and Stromdragon don't see eye to on all subjects I find it enligtening, inspiring and benificail to hear another opinion so vastly different then my own. I also am enlightened by Posters liek Victor, Ed, BrianS, dragondrew, CVV, Med, MattJ and harlan that seems closer to the way I think and train (I may have left some people out but you know where you stand it wasn't done on purpose but limited time & space). There is nothing wrong IMO with coming to a different opinion from our point of training to success as long as we are successful and not folling ourselves but believe in what we are doing. I find that the only time you should question does it work is when it doesn't. I mean why question each person's success/method?

The purpose of this thread I beleive wasn't to question if Boxer or Karateka's are good strikers they are, but to state which is better as a street defense?

We have established that boxers are better in gloves and their training may give them an edge at the highest level. But are they blind by this lack of full range or trying to master only gloved hand punching?

In any result this is a informative and enjoyable thread? BC of all your inputs rather we like what's being said or not.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 11:49 AM

SD wrote - As for Royce Gracie beating Karateka- Keither Hackney (White Tiger Kenpo) and Ron Van Clief (Chinese Goju), Kimo (TKD supposedly), Jason Delucia (Kung fu-same difference), Gerard Gordeau (TKD), Patrick Smith (TKD).

Neko456 - How many Boxers were subcumbed to these same tactics? Some times by trad MA as in the Nijitsu and Goju (mountain) man from Canada. Does this mean Boxing doesn't work no it means it doen't prepare your for sweeps, throws and then being struck or locked. Thats all, if you fought their fight the Karate guys or boxers were winners.

All this really amount to is years of studying what the opponent capable of and they not knowing what you are doing. In todays training all those great hold are easily counter by even Karateka,Boxers & others that cross train for such events. I mean in your own training how hard is it now to sink a takedown, lock or choke compared to a couple of years ago?

But you know what a punch is still a punch and kick still a ... and can end a fighting even a MMA match.


I end by asking this question knowing what you know (about full range fighting) could you feel comfortable just boxing in a rael fight r serious dojo match? Personally I'd feel butt naked just boxing, maybe it's just me. I don't mean dirty boxing or hybred boxing.
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 02:10 PM

Quote:

Why grapple when you could just hit him? Are you serious? Did you watch any of the first ufc's? You know how many Karateka tried that on Royce Gracie among others and got destroyed? Same with Ken Shamrock and strikers. If you don't have a solid ground game and takedown defense you may as well not even bother or at least not hope to be a good fighter.




BrianS was right, this doesn't deserve a response, but I will anyway.

Your post states that a fighter needs a good takedown defence. Do you not think I might know this and take it as common sense that this is the case for the example I am giving. The point of the statement was that Karate being primarily (operative word) a striking art, a Karateka should avoid grappling as much as possible against someone who specialises in it.

Bringing this back to the thread topic, a boxer specialises in punching. It might be wise for the karateka to use skills he is more competent in than the boxer.

Quote:


About just kicking a boxer in the groin, yeah that could work, or kick them in the leg, but if a boxer trains against a karate person, they learn to deal with that just by using good maneuvering. It's harder than you make it sound.




The point was to show techniques and the accompanying skills which make the karateka a better striker. The boxer has no real structured defence against this attack combination and each technique represents an area in which the boxer is lacking.

Yes, he could train against Karate people, while your at it you could give him an uzi. As Brian said, make it fair. What the boxer gets the karateka must get.

It should (yet again) be noted that I make no comment as to the effectiveness of boxing or whether one group should win against the other.
The individual fighter and how they train determines who wins the fight. However this discussion is on who has the better strikes.

Quote:

But try some of those famous step sparring moves on a boxer. They'll never work.





Here-in lies the problem. This comment displays such ignorance of Karate it is astounding. I don't mean that in a hurtful way, but what you said there would be like me saying "those lunge exercises Team A are doing will never win them the soccer game".

Karate is not limited to what you think it is.

Quote:

Now, where can I find a true lead hook in Karate? Or a rigth cross (by that I do not mean a reverse punch)?




Lead hook? Opening sequence of Hiean Godan to name but one.

As for crosses and gyakuzuki's being different, no, you're wrong. Take this as an opportunity to learn about Karate instead of clinging to misguided notions.

Most Karate (in my experience) has no single formal guard position?
Also stances are just structural alignments, with much larger internal components than external? They act as components of a technique and thus are as fleeting as the techniques themselves.

The below thread will show that there is a diversity of opinion on the subject of gaurds. It will also show precisely where my opinion is and give you more insight into my understanding of Karate.
http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...part=1&vc=1

But why am I talking about guards? The cross is a reverse punch, thrown from a boxing guard (house) and stance (neutral fighting stance). No more no less.

Karate is not limited to what you think it is.

Quote:

I really think Karate does not have the same techniques. I've never ever seen a traditional Karate fighter using the foowork of boxing (which I think the footwork of boxing is generally better).




Again I disagree, but that really is another thread since this one is about striking.

Quote:

I dont know, to me, for what it is (punching only), boxing is better, in that area. And can be made to work against Karate.




Ageed.

Quote:

By you saying better, it's like saying a hit from a boxer isnt as good as a hit from a Karate person which is blatantly wrong.




Yes it is wrong. Good thing that is not what I'm saying and has no link with anything I've said at all in this or any other thread. Ever.
Quote:

It's more about how you train. Just because you have those options open doesnt mean you can make them work.




Absolutely true, I agree wholeheartedly.
Quote:

You said that a karateka with glvoes fights and mvoes like a boxer. But with kicks. In my experience when they just fight with a very crappy form of boxing usually, or kickboxing rather. The structure is different like I said. They dont move liek boxers so when they try to act liek boxers it doesnt work.




The important thing I said was that the rules dictate the structure. Hence is a boxer was put in Muay thai rules he would learn Muay thai techniques very quickly and the strategy that goes with it.

Many of the things boxers do that Karateka don't do well, they (boxers) get away with because of the rules of the game. Karate has different rules (good fighting karate has few or none) and so Karateka move differently to deal with the greater variety of threat with which they deal.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 02:33 PM

Quote:

Many of the things boxers do that Karateka don't do well, they (boxers) get away with because of the rules of the game.




I don't exactly agree with that. Much of it has to do with boxers regularly practicing against resistance, something that a fair amount of karate people don't do.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 02:34 PM

Quote:

have always been thaught to move on the ball of my feet.
My teacher thaught me so and I train with him for 29 years. He learned it from his teacher in the 60ies. For me, this is integral to karate kumite (fighting) and has nothing to do with ring/sport fighting. There are some movements that require heel-ball stepping but this is with the intention to step on adversaries foot.




Well, I certainly won't disagree with the fact that when the majority of Karateka spar, they move on the ball of their foot.
My main point was that this type of movement has more than likely been brought into Karate due to boxing/western combat sport influence.
Quote:

You seem to think that karate is dictated only with what happens in kata. This asumption is wrong. Although karate training is centralized around kata, it is mostley a tool to archive the aspects of karate. The interpretation of these aspects depend formost of what the individual can make of it. A good teacher can guide you but in the end, you have to figure out yourselve what fits or what not, also depending on your body.




I know that modern karate teaches skills that are not found in the kata.
However, again, my question is where did some of these skills come from (like ball of foot movement, and boxing style footwork)? Because certainly they are not found in the kata. If, as you say, kata is a "tool to archive the aspects of karate", then why wasn't this aspect ever archived? Karate training, after all, is "centralized around kata"--so I can't think of reason why this wouldn't be directly expressed anywhere in the kata. That was my point. I think that it is pretty clear that this type of movement came from a boxing influence. None of the photos I've seen show this kind of stepping. If I'm wrong and you have evidence to the contrary (that Karate used this kind of stepping before boxing's influence) I'll gladly take back my comment.
This goes to what you're saying regarding " good teacher can guide you but in the end, you have to figure out yourself". This is very true, but also implies that a student or teacher could bring in their past training, or even something they have only seen, into the art and call it 'karate'. In the end, the kata, being a "tool to archive the aspects of karate", should at least suggest something. If not, then one can make the assumption that certain things were not practiced.
So, as I said, it seems like, if karate does indeed have this type of movement, it was borrowed from boxing (sometimes indirectly though).
What disturbs me in this thread is a 'have your cake and eat it too' kind of thinking.

As an example, recently an attempt has been made by some to show the 'hidden groundfighing techniques of the kata'. Although I think it's great that someone is creative enough to extract groundfighting from kata, these people usually have training in either BJJ or Judo newaza. The fact is, there is no historical precedent for the kata bunkai having groundfighting. So, in many ways, this is reverse engineering. Really, BJJ and Judo newaza are influences Karate.

How does this relate? Well, it wouldn't suprise if twenty years from now someone on a forum like this says "karate is better that BJJ, because it has all the groundfighting of BJJ plus yadda yadda." This is wrong on so many levels, but the main think is it does not acknowledge the influence that BJJ had on this kind of Bunkai extraction.

I think the same is true for these discussions of boxing footwork in karate. What is the source?

Quote:

About bobbing and weaving. Karate makes more use of evasion through body shifting (tai sabaki) in the beginning, when learning karate. This is because imo traditional karate starts working from the assumption of a total attack, involving stepping in. The one-step (or multi step) stepping exercises focus on that, creating correct execution of technique under pressure.




I never said that karate doesn't have its own tai sabaki methods. Shonuff said that karate specifically has 'weaving', and in the general context of his post (that karate has everything boxing has plus more), he implied bobbing too. What I'm saying is tradional karate does not have this. Like you say, "it is not general in karate."
Boxing footwork is an integral part of what makes boxing 'boxing'.

Quote:

Apperently your experience in karate has not gone further than that.




I don't what this has to do with anything, further than what? What in my statement was incorrect. You seem to be agreeing with me. You say:

Quote:

to my exsperience [bobbing and weaving] it is not general in karate.




My point is that these points that "Karate has everything boxing has AND MORE" are very, very flawed, and come off as somewhat arrogant.

--Chris
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 02:59 PM

Quote:

BrianS was right, this doesn't deserve a response, but I will anyway.





Although I don't particularly like the why Stormdragon has phrased his argument, I don't really see why it is not worthy of a response.

Quote:

The point of the statement was that Karate being primarily (operative word) a striking art, a Karateka should avoid grappling as much as possible against someone who specialises in it.





Although I don't want to help with the thread drift regarding grappling (because as you say, that is not what this thread is about), it has been very clearly shown that you cannot just avoid grappling. The clinch will happen whether you like it or not.

Also, plese be aware, that I am not saying that boxing is better against a grappler than karate. I just want to point out that your argument is flawed. In any sport fight where the clich is allowed to occur, it does.

I know this post is addressed to Shonuff, but I think that his comments tie in with BrianS (Shonuff correct me if I'm wrong). BrianS stated:

Quote:

What have we learned since then? Many strikers have been very effective against grapplers by simply learning takedown defenses.





Yes, they have. This is true. But all of those strikers are also trained in grappling and constantly practice those techniques against trained grapplers. So, yes, takedown defence can be effective against grapplers, but in order to do so it appears that one needs to be fairly well versed in groundfighting.

Back to Shonuff:
Quote:

The point was to show techniques and the accompanying skills which make the karateka a better striker. The boxer has no real structured defence against this attack combination and each technique represents an area in which the boxer is lacking.





Yes, he does.
Again, as I stated in MY post (which you have choses to ignore) your scenerio is hypotheical. I supplied another where the boxer can indeed counter this. One way that boxing trains how to counter this is through heavy reliance on evasive footwork.

Quote:

Yes it is wrong. Good thing that is not what I'm saying and has no link with anything I've said at all in this or any other thread. Ever.





Although you didn't say that, you did imply that karate was better because it contains more techniques.

Quote:

The important thing I said was that the rules dictate the structure. Hence is a boxer was put in Muay thai rules he would learn Muay thai techniques very quickly and the strategy that goes with it.





Maybe. Maybe not. You appear to be operating on the assumption that boxing cannot standalone against another striking art. Again, this seems to be due to your preoccupation with techniques (more techniques > better art).

Here is an example of boxer using boxing against a well trained Muay Thai fighter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLDJ6GeRRh4

Just because a boxer is put under a diffirent (striking) rule set, doesn't mean he can't still box. If anything, the fact that boxing does work in these setting shows that the seemingly limited techniques are extremely adaptable (thus making them not so limited).

Regarding this whole thing about grappling that has crept into this thread, it's a useless disscussion, neither karate nor boxing adquetly trains someone to properly deal with a well trained grappler. The best way to counter grappling is to learn how to grapple (well).

That being said, I should say that this is one aspect where I personally feel boxing does (indirectly) supply the upperhand. As many have said, karate just takes longer to learn. The boxer is able to pick up hand skills relatively quickly, and therefore has more time to focus on other ranges with people who are experts on them (i.e. train grappling with a grappler).

I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion of grappling, and I hope I haven't helped that happen. But I don't see this point being brought up in response to karate covering more ranges. Yes, it covers them, but it takes (as many have said) a lot of time to learn them. The boxer has plenty of time to do so (hence MMA).

But this is topic about regarding boxing and karate STRIKING, so I think the grappling thing is another thread altogether.

--Chris
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 03:00 PM

As you say Karate having your cake and eating it too. But it doesn't take a scientist to know that ducking, weaving and bobbsing is a method that all true fighting arts practice. Also there are as many type foot movement as they are personal styles just as they are in Boxing. Movement is granted slightly different then Boxing shallow stances bc thats so easy to sweep. But alot of the Karate movement is on the balls of the feet. So you seem to think that Karate is restricted to limited robotic movement I disagree. You seem to think that Karate is all icing and no cake to eat.

I believe in and give Boxing it's due but once you have researched the possibilities and go strike for strike Karate is betetr at the different ranges imho. Mostly bc unlike you I see damage being done before the Boxer is at range and done after he entered or up-rooted the Boxer. Kararte delas with flow and combinations all the way to the ground.

The problem with some that call themselev Karate is that they don't practice full range fighting but most do. The problem with boxing is that its limited in range and don't practice limb destruction bc of the gloves and targeted areas.

So in a way Karate is like having your cake and eating it too if you practice properly.

Boxing is good stuff but training like a boxer using Karate technique is better ungloved is mo.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 03:14 PM

Quote:

But it doesn't take a scientist to know that ducking, weaving and bobbsing is a method that all true fighting arts practice.




No, they don't. Unless you are saying the tradional karate and kung fu (for example) are not "true fighting arts".

These skills were adopted FROM BOXING. There is absolutely no evidence that these skills were practiced before boxing's influence.

Quote:

But alot of the Karate movement is on the balls of the feet.




Yes, because of boxing's influence on kumite footwork.

Quote:

Karate is betetr at the different ranges imho




This isn't the topic being addressed. The topic is about striking.

Now, if you are talking about striking ranges, then there is still no evidence that a boxer doesn't have an answer for kicks, headbutts, and elbows. The video I posted above ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLDJ6GeRRh4 ) shows that.

Quote:

Mostly bc unlike you I see damage being done before the Boxer is at range and done after he entered or up-rooted the Boxer.




Again, you are not addressing what a boxer could do to NOT allow any of these things to happen.

Quote:

The problem with boxing is that its limited in range and don't practice limb destruction bc of the gloves and targeted areas.





If you guys want to bring up karate that was influenced by boxing and suggest that as the standard (rather than tradional Okinawan Karate), then I could just as easily bring up boxing systems that do deal with these things exactly. Crazy Monkey Boxing is an example. However, this would be unfair, because it doesn't speak to what we know the majority of boxing is.

Just as you stating that skills taken from boxing are in fact original to karate is wrong. If anything, it suggests the possible supremacy of boxing. In order to counter it, you need to imitate it.

Quote:

So in a way Karate is like having your cake and eating it too if you practice properly.




No. Karate (by how you and others are describing it) is like not having cake and stealing someone else's and calling it your own.

--Chris
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 03:55 PM

Quote:

But alot of the Karate movement is on the balls of the feet.



Yes, because of boxing's influence on kumite footwork.





Waaa Waaa What? How did you come to this conclusion? While sure some Karate fighters may stand more flat footed then boxers (some) the idea that nobody figured out how to move on the balls of there feet before they saw western boxing is nuts.

You need to ease up on the Crazy pills!
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 04:11 PM

Ames do you see a lead hook anywhere in this vide? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g-KOvfpXHA
By lead hook I mean this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqpgoQLyPeQ

Shonuff-all those dirty fighting moves are effective but can't be trained live and thus truly perfected, so in a way boxing beats Karate big time. Not saying you should never practice those, I've always thought it's good to keep those tactics in mind as they can really come in handy but boxing has a major advantage being able to be trained live. Hence why I said before just because you have those options that Karate gives doesnt necessairly mean you'll be able to make them work.

About step sparring and me just not understanding it (and by step sparring I mean the standard-guy a throws lung punch, guy b reacts with like 5 moves or something at will, no more give and take then that, or jsut the same couple responses repeated a few tiems in a sequence), older, much more experienced peopel agree so the age and inexperience thing doesnt hold water, though I wont claim to be an expert on Karate, I just tell it like I see it.

Eh, I'm in over my head, lol, I'll head off to a thread more on my level now. Been a goos mental workout though.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 04:13 PM

I'm not alone in this belief. It's fairly common. Dan Djurdjevic (who posted on this thread) sums it up nicely in one of his articles:
Quote:

I believe the advent of modern non-contact sport fighting (particularly karate's "ippon shobu" contests from the late 1950s and early 60s onwards) changed the manifestation of traditional martial arts completely. This is particularly relevant if you consider that few in karate, taekwondo and Chinese quan fa (kung fu) even did free-sparring in their training prior to the 1960s.






Quote:

Consider the fundamental hand positions of all Okinawan kata you see the same range (the "uchi uke" of shotokan has the same "finish" position as goju's "chudan uke", to name just one example). If you look at any footage of early karate, nothing suggests "darting in and out" of the melee; even in the basic drills (sambon kumite) participants always stay continuously "toe-to-toe". The footage below provides a good example. While the practitioners have not distanced their techniques realistically they are still in the "melee". And you will note that there is no bouncing. In fact, I can find no evidence of bouncing pre-war and immediately post-war ...




See: http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/10/faux-boxing.html

Because he gives a pretty nice analysis of how this style of footwork came into karate.

Here's the old footage that Dan uses to illustrate his point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2caRZLXuW0U

Ian Abernethy also states that modern karate training is influenced by boxing, But here is talking about the influence of boxing's teaching methodology (another, earlier point of mine):

Quote:

I would class myself as a "traditional karateka," and yet as a regular part of my training I hit a punch bag, jump rope and spar using boxing gloves - as I'm sure many of those reading this article do also. The western art of boxing has had a huge influence on all the martial arts.




Also from Abernethy:
Quote:

Whilst the original art of boxing was a complete system that covered all ranges, the skills of kicking, grappling and ground work are completely omitted from the arts modern offspring. And this situation is by no means unique to boxing. As examples, Judo and Aikido tend not to include the striking skills that were once a fundamental part of the art. And the vast majority of karateka no longer include the grappling and groundwork associated with the karate katas in their training (read my book, "Karate's Grappling Methods" for further details). This "specialisation" does have an upside however, as it has resulted in these specific skills being taken to extremely high levels. There can be little doubt that when it comes to punching, modern boxing is head and shoulders above all other arts.



http://www.practical-martial-arts.co.uk/practical_karate/iain_abernethy/ia_james_figg.html

And for the record, I'm not saying "nobody figured out how to move on the balls of there feet before they saw western boxing". I'm saying that karate DID NOT train footwork based on movement on the balls of your feet before boxing's influence.

If you don't like it, too bad. Show me reference from kata, bunkai photos (pre 1960's) or some pre 1960's film of bunkai. If you can't present contradictory evidence you're just blowing hot air.

Stormdragon: No, I don't see a boxing style lead hook in that kata.

--Chris
Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 05:55 PM

certainly our shorin ryu is trained light on the feet - weight towards the balls of the feet.

and many references are around in relation to okinawan te being up on the balls of the feet.

just wanted to add that.
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 06:17 PM

Quote:

I don't exactly agree with that. Much of it has to do with boxers regularly practicing against resistance, something that a fair amount of karate people don't do.




Matt,

None of the things I was thinking about are explained by boxers training with resistance. I was thinking of some of the weaving and stance and footwork tactics etc which work fine in a boxing match but are more risky (not unworkable though) when your opponent might knee you in the head.

You are right many Karateka don't train regularly with resistance. However many do. Hence training methods do not work as a means of defining any but the smallest most insular martial arts. Or IMA .


Ames

I was not ignoring you, infact I was in the middle of writing a response, but when the girlfriend calls karate nor boxing hold any defence.

Quote:

Boxing has a diffirent strategy than karate. Boxing has diffirent setups/combinations than karate...shall I go on?




No it doesn't.

Quote:


Attempting to dismiss logical points by extreme relativism is flawed; in doing so, you, by extension, are dismissing your own points,




Some of them perhaps. This is why I didn't get involved in this debate earlier, the question is meaningless, un-testable and totally subjective.

That said, Karate is not limited to what you think it is. Variation in training is common enough across the world that training methods cannot be used to define Karate. Identify perhaps, but not define.

Quote:


No, Karate is not 'boxing +" anything. Karate, especially in its tradional form, is very diffirent than boxing. I find your arrogance regarding the implication that karate has everything of boxing plus (+) more, to absolutely without merit.




Hands up Karate people who have practiced, seen practiced or been exposed to boxing techniques and methods in a karate class?

This was the point I had to go...

Since you seem to want historical evidence and direct kata references I shall oblige you.

First a well documented incident was of Choki Motobu knocking out a boxer who was taking on all comers in Japan. Before dropping the man with one blow, Motobu is noted to have moved around evading and dodging the blows.
Karate: My art by Choki Motobu.

Direct evidence of "boxing footwork" or "bobbing and weaving" that pre-dates Karate's exposure to the west? Maybe maybe not, but it's an unreasonable and irrelevant request. I'll explain why in a moment.

Gichin Funakoshi, after the war was accosted by a man who wished to rob him. He describes ducking under the man's punch and hitting him in the groin with his umbrella. He then felt very guilty for using karate when he could have just given the man what he asked for.

Shoshin Nagamine, (med correct me if I'm wrong here) noted in his book on Karate, that the only difference between boxing and karate was of karates use of kicks? (need to check this one).

Shotokan Kata Bassai Dai makes use of a weave and corkscrew punch into an uppercut and throw combination: application of the yama-zuki sequence.
This kata also demonstrates a jab while advancing with a lead leg step (a la boxing).

Goju-ryu makes regular use of dropping from a high stance into a low shiko-dachi, often interpreted as a duck/weave (Goju folk correct me if I'm wrong).

A number of gedan barrai movements across various shotokan kata are interpreted as slips which in application are further fascilitated by slight weaving movements.

One Shotokan variant of Hiean Nidan has a weave encorporated from manji uke to gyaku ude uke. This is most likely a modern addition, possibly taken from boxing influence, but it really doesn't matter because as Funakoshi said, Karate like anything must grow and change or die.



The thing is Ames, you misunderstand the role of Kata. The term catalogue of techniques is misleading. Nothing in the history, literature or culture of karate has ever limited the content of an style to the techniques of the kata (hence round house kick).

The word kata, means example. The bunkai is an analysis, a literal look at what each kata movement is for, but looking behind that, we see what is implied by the movements. The implication is the fighting art.
I can see exactly where your image of karate has originated from, I understand why you hold the views you do, but Karate is not limited to what you think it is.

If you take someone trained as I have been in Karate and tell them they are going to fight under boxing rules then leave them a month to train for the fight, you will find that striking wise they fight the same. Movement will be slightly different, defence will be slightly different. The strikes will be the same.

Quote:

If your line of reasoning was correct, then taken to its full extension, many styles of Kung fu have 'better strikes' than karate, simply because many styles of kung fu have more strikes in their system.




Yup, so long as it can be shown that those strikes fill a whole or are better than the tools already employed.


Quote:

I suggest you try this with a BJJer of moderate ablility.




Why do you assume I haven't? Because I'm a karateka and so don't train in resistive combat?

Quote:

How precisely does Karate "do more" with it's attacks and defences than boxing "ever could".




Well by grabbing for one thing. Kinda hard to do that in boxing gloves. Also by trapping and applying joint locks and other grappling methods. Yes there are grappling methods in Karate.

Quote:

Which is it? What are you trying to say. You are not really presenting a focused argument.




I am if you read it in context. I was saying to Stormdragon that you cannot compare only punching and call it fair because karate is more than punching. Striking does not only mean punching as far as I am aware.

Quote:

Yes, I think we have established that is not only the hard training indivdual, the technique's , but also " the methods" that create a good fighter. How does this make a case for Karate 'methods' (training methodology) being better?




It doesn't. We are not discussing training methods. However if we were, I would state again that Karate is not limited to what you think it is. What you identify as Karate methods is not nor ever was the entirety of karate training.

Why not set up another discussion on who has the best training methods.

Quote:

No, it isn't flawed at all. Boxing has the same general training methods, with small differences, from place to place. There are enough simularities, however, that one would know that they are 'training boxing' or 'training karate'.

Just because there is variation, does not mean that general statments can't be made. If what you are saying is true, it would be impossible for Sceintific diciplines, like biology or geology for example, to exist.




I never said arts could not be classified, I said training methods were not a viable way classifying them because of the amount of variation.

Incidentally, Stormdragon:

Quote:

You're right I havent seen your Karate, I'm going by the Karate I have seen and experienced which happens to be a big portion of the Karate found in America, and even the world.




Dude, get over yourself. You've seen next to nothing, certainly nothing that matters.

One thing that comes across in your posts is that oh so western trait, I can't do it after 5 minutes it must be crap. There is more to MA than what you've seen and what you can do.

Back to you Ames,

Quote:

Again, as I stated in MY post (which you have choses to ignore) your scenerio is hypotheical. I supplied another where the boxer can indeed counter this. One way that boxing trains how to counter this is through heavy reliance on evasive footwork.




I'd like to see someone sidestep while in mid forward step and jab, but that's besides the point. Your hypothetical relies on the boxer previously having trained against things that as a boxer he has no experience of and uses tactics and tools that a karateka will be familiar with. Yes it could happen and he could win, but who has better strikes? The one who covers more options IMO.

Quote:

Although you didn't say that, you did imply that karate was better because it contains more techniques.




I implied nothing. I stated directly that Karate's striking , i.e. the techniques at the disposal of the karateka, was better for specific reasons. You and Stormy are reading more into my words than is present. This is evident by the fact that between you we have talked about MMA, Muay thai, training methods and Karate history, yet neither of you have mentioned anything about the strikes of boxing that make them inherantly superior to those of Karate.

Quote:

. You appear to be operating on the assumption that boxing cannot standalone against another striking art. Again, this seems to be due to your preoccupation with techniques (more techniques > better art).

Here is an example of boxer using boxing against a well trained Muay Thai fighter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLDJ6GeRRh4

Just because a boxer is put under a diffirent (striking) rule set, doesn't mean he can't still box. If anything, the fact that boxing does work in these setting shows that the seemingly limited techniques are extremely adaptable (thus making them not so limited).





Yeah that flying push kick at 8.51 was pure boxing at its best.

I never said a boxer would not still be able to box. What you deftly manage to avoid understanding was that in an environment where other techniques were available and were a viable and imminent threat, the shape of the unfamiliar fighters art will change to accomodate this new information and techniques. The video you put up was evidence of that (see the afore mentioned kick). Just as boxers in MMA now grapple and are wary of takedowns, so Karateka in boxing rules will eventually devolve into boxers.

Incidentally that video shows only that one muay thai fighter is really not very good at dealing with being rushed. Nothing else.

Apologies all for the long post. I wouldn't want to be accused of wilfully ignoring anything.
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 06:20 PM

If you can't see the hook stormy then get off the computer and back in the gym, you have some training to do.

It's not dirty fighting, it's the 3rd movement and it is a hook punch.

How can someone without the basic ability to interpret surface applications of a kata speak with such authority on what karate is?
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 06:21 PM

That's interesting shoshinkan.

But I'm wondering if we are talking about the same thing here. Maybe I haven't been clear enough. I understand that karate can be light on its feet, but I wonder if you do things like raise up on the ball of the foot while in stance? What I mean is, that aside from the sliding step seen in much JMA (because of armour), I know that the kata does feature movements where one steps off the ball of the foot, but I'm wondering if the weight is the way these two do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD_VjlwfzME

Note the 'bouncing' before the engagement, as well as being used to facilitate entry. They are on the balls of their feet for the majority of the fight.

From what I have seen, Okinawan Karate footwork and boxing footwork, though they share some simularities, are also quite diffirent.

I'm not only talking about "weight toward the balls of feet", but actually being up on the balls of the feet for the entire technique (from stance, to techniques end)?

Would be interested to see video of the type of footwork you are talking about, if you know of any out there.

--Chris
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 06:30 PM

Quote:

But alot of the Karate movement is on the balls of the feet.



Yes, because of boxing's influence on kumite footwork.




Quote:

And for the record, I'm not saying "nobody figured out how to move on the balls of there feet before they saw western boxing". I'm saying that karate DID NOT train footwork based on movement on the balls of your feet before boxing's influence.





Well that kinda is what you said, but if that is not what you meant to say fair enough.

Also, they may not have sparred but they sure as **** fought and while they probably didn't use boxing footwork, you caan be assured (based on the techniques themselves) they worked from the balls of their feet, at least some of the time.

I won't deny boxing had an effect on Karate, of course it did and still does. If an art is remain viable, it must evolve. Personally I don't care where I get it from, if something will make me a better fighter, sure I'll adapt into my aresonal.

But back on point, I think, today especially with the boxing skills be taught in Karate, Karate has the advantage in terms of striking. There is more available options and it's takes advantage of more time and opportunities the Boxing does.

Is it harder to learn and slower, sure but then whats the rush? Take the time learn more, that way when you have to fight a boxer, you have more to throw at him then maybe he is used to seeing.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 07:48 PM

Quote:

Boxing has a diffirent strategy than karate. Boxing has diffirent setups/combinations than karate...shall I go on?
Quote:

No it doesn't.










Yes, it absolutely does. You, yourself say that karate has:

Quote:

grabbing for one thing. Kinda hard to do that in boxing gloves. Also by trapping and applying joint locks and other grappling methods.





Which is precisely why a diffirent strategy would be needed. Is that not clear? The very fact that a karateka will hold and punch will mean that they have a difffirent strategy than a boxer.

Quote:

Hands up Karate people who have practiced, seen practiced or been exposed to boxing techniques and methods in a karate class?





Yep, that's one of my points. Boxing methods are taught in karate, but they came from boxing. Why? Again, I'll quote Abernethy:

Quote:

This "specialisation" does have an upside however, as it has resulted in these specific skills being taken to extremely high levels. There can be little doubt that when it comes to punching, modern boxing is head and shoulders above all other arts.




Further, by what you suggest, the karate you practice owes a debt to boxing. Again, as that other Abernethy quote states:

Quote:

would class myself as a "traditional karateka," and yet as a regular part of my training I hit a punch bag, jump rope and spar using boxing gloves - as I'm sure many of those reading this article do also. The western art of boxing has had a huge influence on all the martial arts.




My point is, that if your karate does indeed use some boxing skill sets and training methods, it is because they were adopted from boxing. Again, the influence should be acknowledged here. Shotokan, in particular, adopted a lot of boxing tactics. I don't think many boxers train karate for better hands.

Quote:

Maybe maybe not, but it's an unreasonable and irrelevant request.




No, it isn't irrelevant at all. You have stated that karate has everything that boxing has 'plus' ("Karate is boxing + xy and z."). Boxing, when you come down to it, is more about footwork than punches. So, if karate doesn't have boxing footwork, then your statement is incorrect. Just because you call it "irrelevent" does not make it so. Footwork is an intrinsic part of boxing and, in my experiance at least, is trained and isolated equal to the hands.

I'm going to turn the tables on you for a moment and say that I think you misunderstand boxing.

Quote:

Shotokan Kata Bassai Dai makes use of a weave and corkscrew punch into an uppercut and throw combination: application of the yama-zuki sequence.
This kata also demonstrates a jab while advancing with a lead leg step (a la boxing).





Is this the kata you are refering to?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXPZFarJMh0

I'm sorry, but no. This footwork is just not the same. You'll have to point out to me where you see a bob and weave there, because I didn't see anything like one.

Now before you state that I'm not seeing the kata right, please remember my statement regarding boxing's influence on modern karate. There is nothing in that kata that even approximates a boxers bob/weave. Maybe there is a 'karate version' or something, but if your bob/weave looks like a boxers and you're telling me it comes from there...I'd say you are doing two arts: karate for the kata, and boxing for the sparring.

The fact is, that none of those kata's have footwork which looks anything like boxings. Now, I'm not saying that that is good or bad. I'm asking you to give boxing its due.

Quote:

but looking behind that, we see what is implied by the movements. The implication is the fighting art.





By your definition you could say that kali stick fighting is found in the kata...as long as the interpretor understands that implication. Sorry, I don't buy it. Yes, bobbing and weaving might be in the karate you are taught, but it is imported from boxing.

I'll remind you that this is a discussion on boxing and karate, and you'll need to show that the technique is from karate and not boxing. So far from the evidence, it looks like your calling boxing techniques 'karate'.

Quote:

Movement will be slightly different, defence will be slightly different. The strikes will be the same.





I don't understand this. If the movement is diffirent, then the strikes will be diffirent.

Quote:

Why do you assume I haven't? Because I'm a karateka and so don't train in resistive combat?





I don't know where I ever said that. But tell me, have you, or have you not, tried this strategy against a BJJ practioner?

Quote:

We are not discussing training methods.




Maybe you're not, but myself and others certainly are. The training methods are not only integral to boxing: they ARE boxing. I'm not going to go over why again. I've done that. But, in a disscussion such as this, the training methods are a very important part of the discussion. The training methods are what make boxing what it is, not the specific form of the punches.

Quote:

However if we were, I would state again that Karate is not limited to what you think it is.




What training methods am I leaving out per chance? Do you use a heavy bag, gloves, skipping rope: that proves a boxing influence.

Quote:

Well by grabbing for one thing. Kinda hard to do that in boxing gloves. Also by trapping and applying joint locks and other grappling methods. Yes there are grappling methods in Karate.





And you apply these techniques in sparring then? Tell me, do you spar bareknuckle?

Also, please go try to trap or apply a standing joint lock to a decently trained boxer. I've taken aikido, aikijujutsu, chin na for 15 years and never been able to, nor seen anyone else who could.

As a matter of fact, I've yet to see either of these done during full on kumite between two karateka!

Quote:

Your hypothetical relies on the boxer previously having trained against things that as a boxer he has no experience of and uses tactics and tools that a karateka will be familiar with.




No, it doesn't. Do you honestly beleive that a boxer needs to train karate in order to beat a karateka!
I'm not going to argue with you over how subjective and flawed this point, as well as your idealised, fantasical illustration of a karateka vs. a boxer. Sorry, it means nothing.

Also, be aware that I meant my hypothitical to be just that: hypothetical, in order to show you how flawed yours was.

Further, I can turn this logic back on you and say that if your karateka defeats the boxer it is only because his training has become saturated by boxing training methodology (heavy bag, pads, rope etc) and techniques.

Quote:

yet neither of you have mentioned anything about the strikes of boxing that make them inherantly superior to those of Karate.





I think you should read my posts again. Again, you are setting up a false polemic between 'striking' and 'training methods'. What makes a boxers striking superior are the training methods that allow him/her to use them in short amount of time with a high degree of success.

Quote:

Yeah that flying push kick at 8.51 was pure boxing at its best.





One technique out of 9 minutes! The fact that that was a champion boxer and that everything else he did was pure boxing means means nothing, huh? That fight was dominated by boxing strikes and footwork--the kick really had no effect on the outcome whatsoever...the guy was already done.

Quote:

What you deftly manage to avoid understanding was that in an environment where other techniques were available and were a viable and imminent threat, the shape of the unfamiliar fighters art will change to accomodate this new information and techniques. The video you put up was evidence of that (see the afore mentioned kick).




Again, that kick was for show. Anyone watching the video can see that. It didn't change the outcome, the MT guy was already done.

Also, you never stated anything like that in your past posts. I really don't disagree with the fact that "the shape of the unfamiliar fighters art will change to accomodate this new information and techniques". See my earlier post on a boxer being able to pull off eyegouges, and other 'deadly' techniques should he need to. I'm in agreement with you on this.

Quote:

Just as boxers in MMA now grapple and are wary of takedowns, so Karateka in boxing rules will eventually devolve into boxers.





I don't really see your point with 'karateka will devolve to boxers in a boxing ring? What are you getting at here? That boxing is the best art for throwing punches and therefore any art placed under a 'punch only' rule set will have to immitate it? I agree. So?

Quote:

Incidentally that video shows only that one muay thai fighter is really not very good at dealing with being rushed. Nothing else




Yes, it is only one fight. But it goes towards my point that a boxer does not need to kick in order to best a kicker. That one kick (which did nothing) aside, that match was won by boxing techniques. This goes towards my larger point that it is not the number of weapons in your toolbox, but how well you use the few you have.

I am well aware, that had it been two diffirent fighter, the outcome could have been diffirent.
Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/17/08 09:00 PM

Shonuff-How many gyms have you traiend at which gives you credibility to say what boxing is and how it relates to Karate in a technical sense? Do you somehow have an equal amount of training in both boxing and Karate? If you dont then you have no palce to talk either. And I've seen next to nothing? A few years of daily training and tons of videos, both isntructional and otherwise, books, and so on is next to nothing? Really? Where does a person get to the point where they can start talking with credibility, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? Who're you to say for sure and to be considered mroe credible than anyone else (maybe more than me but what about Ames or Jkogas?
Oh right they don't know enough about Karate, kidn of like how you don't know enough about boxing I bet.
And it doesnt matter about doign it in "5 minutes or it's worthless". Why would you practice in a way that takes logner to get roughly the same results? That makes NO sense.
Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 02:39 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsZVLzCCgrA

here is an example from the bugeikan in Okinawa, your right mind it is not 'the same', but they are most certainly up on the balls of the feet.

personally I see boxing (ie the modern sport) and karate (ie the modern sport....) or the martial art as having common ground but each is very specifically different in application and strategy.

granted if you look at bareknuckle fighting across the globe you will see remarkable simulairites mind.
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 04:34 AM

Quote:


Which is precisely why a diffirent strategy would be needed. Is that not clear? The very fact that a karateka will hold and punch will mean that they have a difffirent strategy than a boxer.





Actually that was in support of the idea that karate is boxing+. Yes karateka have grabbing etc, but they also can and do use the same set-ups that don't require grabbing etc. The same tools plus extra = the same strategies plus extra.

Quote:

Yep, that's one of my points. Boxing methods are taught in karate, but they came from boxing. Why? Again, I'll quote Abernethy:





Guess what, I agree. Boxing training methods have been adopted by karate. But you and I are coming from fundamentally opposing view points, i.e. I am talking about the striking not the training. I could train the same boxing punches just hitting air, or I could train them hitting people. The punches themselves would be the same. Strikes and the training to use them are seperate elemennts. Unless you can show that I cannot perform boxing techniques without boxing training then your position is untenable.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but no. This footwork is just not the same. You'll have to point out to me where you see a bob and weave there, because I didn't see anything like one.

Now before you state that I'm not seeing the kata right, please remember my statement regarding boxing's influence on modern karate. There is nothing in that kata that even approximates a boxers bob/weave. Maybe there is a 'karate version' or something, but if your bob/weave looks like a boxers and you're telling me it comes from there...I'd say you are doing two arts: karate for the kata, and boxing for the sparring.




You are trying to look at a kata without the vaguest understanding of what a kata actually is, how it is dissected and how it relates to fighting. This is why I didn't post these up with my original comment. Unless you train in Karate it is meaningless to you.

I never said Karate has boxing bob+weave, done in the same way with the same purpose. I said Karate uses weaving. The punch/weave I'm talking about is shown as a static posture at 56s. In a live situation it is slightly different as it is moving around a punch.

Boxers are not the only people to figure out that dodging is a useful skill. The way a boxer bobs and weaves in a ring is unwise outside the ring because he may just get kicked.

Quote:



By your definition you could say that kali stick fighting is found in the kata...as long as the interpretor understands that implication. Sorry, I don't buy it. Yes, bobbing and weaving might be in the karate you are taught, but it is imported from boxing.




If you really wanted to, but thats an extreme that very very few people support. You can buy it or not, it is the truth. Karate is more than you think it is. Just because you don't like the idea of something doesn't make it false.

Quote:

I'll remind you that this is a discussion on boxing and karate, and you'll need to show that the technique is from karate and not boxing. So far from the evidence, it looks like your calling boxing techniques 'karate'.




No this discussion is on striking. This misunderstanding might be why any positive toward karate is being taken as a slight against boxing.

I can't prove to you a technique is from karate if no matter what I say you say "nope its boxing". You believe that boxers invented anything that is linked to punching and worthwhile, and anything outside your experience is crap. Not much I can do about that.

Quote:

have you not, tried this strategy against a BJJ practioner?





Yes, and won most encounters. If I get taken down I loose 7 out of 10. I never win on the ground, I get up or avoid going down, often by being the aggressor and keeping the opponent on the back foot.

Quote:

What training methods am I leaving out per chance? Do you use a heavy bag, gloves, skipping rope: that proves a boxing influence.




Many of modern karate's training methods come from boxing. Happy? So if I use boxing training to develop my karate, then fight in a match with karate techniques are you saying I'm a boxer?
Training is not and has never been what I am arguing. You still have said nothing which refutes my statement that karate has better strikes because it has more variety which work effectively in more situations.

Quote:

No, it doesn't. Do you honestly beleive that a boxer needs to train karate in order to beat a karateka!




I was speaking specifically not generally. Your scenario has the boxer defending against unfamiliar techniques. Your assumption through this whole thing is that a random karateka will not be as well trained as a boxer. That is the arrogance in this debate.

Quote:

Further, I can turn this logic back on you and say that if your karateka defeats the boxer it is only because his training has become saturated by boxing training methodology (heavy bag, pads, rope etc) and techniques.




Maybe so, but since we don't really know precisely how karate was originally trained we cant say. Either way, training is training. If one boxing gym uses burpees and the other doesn't are they different styles? No. Training does not define an art.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 06:10 AM

I'm not surprised at people's misconceptions about the useage of kata or the techniques of karate. If you tried to get an idea of what karate does via the internet you will most likely be disappointed.

My experience with boxing is limited,but I think I understand it's training methods. Punching technique and footwork is essential along with fitness and a high amount of sparring.

Karate is a completely different art although it has boxing elements. I don't think karate has near the level of boxing that pure boxing does. Why would it? Karate covers such a wide area that varies from style to style and school to school. The training methods also vary just as much. All-in-all I believe karate is supposed to teach you how to use your body to the best of your abilitiy.

Boxing is better at boxing and karate is better at karate, simple as that.

As far as striking goes...apples and oranges imo.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 12:08 PM

But it doesn't take a scientist to know that ducking, weaving and bobbsing is a method that all true fighting arts practice.

Ames responce to above statement - No, they don't. Unless you are saying the tradional karate and kung fu (for example) are not "true fighting arts".

These skills were adopted FROM BOXING. There is absolutely no evidence that these skills were practiced before boxing's influence.
============================================================

Neko456 - Ames what you see in basic Kata or foam Kumite is not what Karate is. Trad Karate has Kiso kukite and bunkia that ducks under strikes, KICKS and to setup throws and get behind some one. Kururunfa and Shisoshin has bobing and weaving tactic and these are Classical Kata. You just have to Know what you are looking at. And Chunfa has many classical forms that dodge up under and avoid coming up on the other side of the attacker. It just doesn't always look like boxing because say you are bobing under a kick or weapon, in these arts. So I am saying that Karate and Chunfa are self defense arts and boxing is now just a sport.

I am saying that moving fast on the ball of the feet is done in Karate its done to kick (something boxing don't do) and strike) so boxing doesn't have the lock on this and really it doesn't looking like boxing footwork really. But at a certain range one should plant in order to avoid being sweep or thrown. Moving on the ball of feet the Karateka doesn't look like a boxer until he moves into sanchin stance arm strike range. Boxing has bof or step and slide & maybe 3 method of moving in and away (usually based on body type and indivisdual skill) from an opponent and Karate has Various methods also. So these methods vary based on how each fighter modify or want to use these tactics.

So having boxed I feel I can say what boxing isn't for me and having studied Karate and Chunfa I can say what Karate is to me. Unlike you I won't say that boxing isn't adapatble and the a boxer can't learn to add things to his arsenal and as I said before it's a good base to grow from. But I don't think its the best method to bring to a street fight bc everybody can swing. Now you are right I am pigeion holing boxing as Pure boxing as I've trained it to compete. But I know boxer can throw elbows, head butt and will kick in the balls in a street fight, but are they good at it???

Most of the time if they miss they are outof position and more vurnerable then.

Now don't think that you are putting Karate in hole saying that Karate doesn't do this and that.

Here my personal view on "Karete didn't spar in Okinawa" If you didn't want someone taking your culture and wanted people in power to go away, wouldn't you say this is just dancing we don't practice this to spar". But you ask the soliders that visited or came back with the skill (even though it was watered down) at this time. My 1st Instructor could fight kicked my a$$ and several other guys that were older and bigger then me. I jumped him in the dark bad decision. Maybe it wasn't sparring but sure did hurt and I didn't want anymore of it put on me. So I asked to learn it. Most of these guys were from Missouri (just a saying) the show me state, Marines, Army, Military guys who seen these little guys kick much a$$ and came to their class to learn. No the Okinawans told the truth they didn't spar, they fought which is two different things. I won't even address the notion that Some Chunfa didn't fight it was a War Art, so that speak for it's self.

Here is another shocker for you Karate has an overhand right and a upper cut, thrown different then a boxer but it has the same purpose. There is really nothing that boxing has that other striking arts don't have.

But giving Boxing it's due, it's better then most while in the gloves. Boxing is far from unique but it is proficent.

By the way my 1st instructor Sensei Tony could box also but in a fight he used Karate maybe this why I'm bias. Some might say thats why he could fight. But it didn't feel like boxing to me I remember being in a sit position on the ground and tennis shoe kick in my face, knocking my head to the concret ouch!! Boxing don't feel like that.
Posted by: Kravinatrix

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 12:34 PM

Just looking at punches.
Boxing strikes are quicker, i.e jab. More powerful as they make better use of body weight. Use better footwork and do not leave yourself open like Karate strikes (bringing the hanmd back to the waist). On the one downside its easier to grapple someone from the boxing stance as its slightly less stable and the punches can be more overcommited. However in my opinion the pro's heavily outwiegh the cons.
I base my answer upon assuming your are talking about classical karate such as shotokan, where the strikes are found in the katas, otherwise its not really proper Karate and just a sort of adaptation. Otherwise karate starts to become a much to broad term where certian freestyles will contain all the boxing techniques within them thus making your argument irrelevant.

Watch mixed martial arts, the majority of upper body punches are very similar to boxing although thrown more wildly in most cases. I have yet to see someone use correct karate form when punching in mma as seen in the traditional kata's.
Posted by: harlan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 12:44 PM

From the bottom of your post up:

1. No...don't watch mma for 'correct karate form.' Correct karate form is whatever works...not the mental image that the non-karateka here seem to have.

2. Perhaps the longtimers can correct me...but I don't believe that Shotokan is considered to be 'classical' karate. But that is a whole discussion in and of its' self.

3. Chambering punches, especially to the waist, isn't something we do. You punch from where ever you happen to be.

Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 12:49 PM

Otherwise karate starts to become a much to broad term where certian freestyles will contain all the boxing techniques within them thus making your argument irrelevant.


But Classical Kenpo/Shorin-ryu and Goju-ryu do have upper cuts and over hand rights they do have foot movement that require ball of the foot movement (like in most cross over side kick and pick up roundhouse kick) moves. You have to admit that can't be founded in boxing and it can be bof movement which makes it quicker. I'm saying that the bobinng and weaving looks doesn't like the close compact way boxing does it, but its still moving the head and upper body out range yet staying close enough to counter. Most of the time ducking under or weaving like techniques are dohe to strike the back or get to the back to blind strike the guy (which is illegal the way I learned to box).

So lets not get to thiking that all the good things came from boxing, boxing is Good but does it train and teach how to get to someone back to strike the BACK/Spine and what part of the hand or elbow to use to strike the hard head. Good is Ok granted but better is better.

You made my point and I elaborated on it. Karate does have aboarder range of striking movements/tools.

I wouldn't say boxer's strikes are faster (gloves slow you down and unglove movement they just seem to flash open hand gestures) but I agree that they are more committed. And constantly thinking combinations but so is a Good Karate man.

If you take only MMA results and methods as your Truth. If it you don't know what works for you thats great. But no matter what they do thats not me. What has worked for me is my truth not GPS or Randy C thats their truth based on their skill level. Because they can do don't mean U can, unless you put the same work in.

U gotta know what works for U.

I know what works for me. Gloved that may work for me though I'd hope my boxing would be more refined. But I think I'd get DQ'd for groin kicks and blows to the back of head. if i didn't get careless and KO, wild crazy punches hurt too.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 03:02 PM

Quote:

I never said Karate has boxing bob+weave, done in the same way with the same purpose. I said Karate uses weaving. The punch/weave I'm talking about is shown as a static posture at 56s. In a live situation it is slightly different as it is moving around a punch.





Maybe not directly, but when you that (as you've just re-phrased it), Karate has "the same tools plus extra = the same strategies plus extra," it surely seems like you are implying that the EXACT same techniques are found in boxing and karate.

You seem to be going back and forth between saying that karate has all the techniques of boxing, and saying that karate has techniques which are SIMILAR to boxing. Which is it? Certainly, I would agree with some karate techniques being SIMILAR to boxing techniques. But as for them being wordperfect the same, I don't agree with that.

So, again, just as karate has things that boxing does it, I'll repeat, karate also does not have those same techniques that boxing does.

Further, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that you are isolating the arm movements of a punch from the rest of the body skills that the punch requires. Just as the karate 'bob and weave' is, as you say, isn't "done in the same way with the same purpose" so too for the punches.

The footwork and the weight shifting IS diffirent in boxing than karate (unless the karateka is doing boxing punching) and this has a direct effect on the actual punch, both in form and delivery. Again, I don't have to be an expert in karate to see this. It is a fact, it can easily be seen by anyone who watches any karate sparring in which a heavy influence from boxing has not been felt.

This type of thinking is evident in your last post as well:

Quote:

If you take someone trained as I have been in Karate and tell them they are going to fight under boxing rules then leave them a month to train for the fight, you will find that striking wise they fight the same . Movement will be slightly different, defence will be slightly different.




'Movement' is a fundemental part of what makes a boxing punch a boxing punch and a karate punch a karate punch.

Quote:

I am talking about the striking not the training. I could train the same boxing punches just hitting air, or I could train them hitting people. The punches themselves would be the same.




There is a lot more to a punch than arm movement, footwork, weight change, and overall strategy of the style play a role in how much a punch will resemble another. Karate punches may look SIMILAR to boxing punches, but they are not the SAME (again, unless the karateka has adopted boxing punches).

Here is what I mean:
This is two Shotokan students (and I agree with Harlan that I wouldn't consider Shotokan to be tradional karate, but that is another thread. I'm using this because this is the style the Shonuff practices.) Anyway, here are two Shotokan guys practicing ippon kumite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xOAYDmNpOU

Now here are two boxer's sparring from the same range

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s07aIbLs2hE

Also here are some boxing techniques in better isolation against a focus mits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXxXOG9w_x0

Now, I'm sorry, but for you to tell me that these punches are the same is just wrong. I have just picked a shotokan vid at random, but any number are the same.

It is not the arm movement, it is how the entire body moves. The difference in footwork (as in the bob/weave which you admit is diffirent) creates a diffirent punch.

Quote:

You are trying to look at a kata without the vaguest understanding of what a kata actually is, how it is dissected and how it relates to fighting.




First, it is obvious that I could say the same to you regarding boxing. But let's not go there, okay?

Here's the thing Shonuff, in the kata, the footwork and punching looks nothing like boxing. Now, if you tell me that in application it's diffirent and is like boxing then, okay. But why is that when I look at the techniques apparently extracted from the kata (like in the video I posted above) it bears very little resemblence to boxing? At what point will I see ONE boxing punch?

Quote:

If you really wanted to, but thats an extreme that very very few people support.




Yes, and it's meant to be extreme. What I'm saying is that the kind of kata extraction you are proposing seems very arbitrary--to the point where one could read anything they want into the kata and call it 'karate'. Aside from potential issues of diluting the original art, at what point does what you are doing become something else completely?
If,
Quote:

Boxing training methods have been adopted by karate.




and you are telling me that:

Quote:

I use boxing training to develop my karate, then fight in a match with karate techniques are you saying I'm a boxer?





It's not my attempt to prove to you a "nope, it's boxing" thesis. What am I doing. The reason I have proved that boxing training methodology has had an effect on certain karate styles (like your own) is to suggest that there is already a proven influence. This should give one pause, because there also is, more than likely, a technical influence as well.

Further, although I wouldn't go so far as to say you are a 'boxer', I think it would do you well to consider the following.

1. The majority of your training methodology comes from boxing.

2. The majority of your condiontioning (heavy bag, focus mitts etc.) comes from boxing.

Therefore, I wouldn't go so far as to say you are a traditional karateka either. This is why, if you look through my posts, I was using the term 'tradional' karateka.

Quote:

Boxers are not the only people to figure out that dodging is a useful skill.




I never said that. Coming from an Aikido background, that would be a rather foolish thing to say, wouldn't it? Boxing evasion and karate tai sabaki are diffirent, though and that's all I have ever been saying. Don't try to put words in my mouth please.

Quote:

The way a boxer bobs and weaves in a ring is unwise outside the ring because he may just get kicked.





He may, or he may not. This point is useless. I could also say that 'A karate practioner would be unwise to use kicks outside the dojo, as a grappler would just take them down."

And before you attempt to disprove this, understand, I know how faulty the logic is here. It's the same logic you are using, and it's drivel.

Quote:

You still have said nothing which refutes my statement that karate has better strikes because it has more variety which work effectively in more situations.




I think I have done just that.

YOU have yet to show what why more techniques automatically translates into being more effective.

Quote:

Maybe so, but since we don't really know precisely how karate was originally trained we cant say.




Perhaps not precisely, but we can certainly make an educated guess based on the evidence. There is alot of evidence, photographic, video, written, and oral to support my stance that Okinawan karate did not spar, hit a heavy bag, use focus fits etc. There is nothing to support your argument that it did. Sorry, but this is how intelligent analysis vs. extreme relativism works, we weigh potential truths based on a logical apraisal of the facts at hand.

Quote:

Either way, training is training. If one boxing gym uses burpees and the other doesn't are they different styles? No. Training does not define an art.




On what grounds do you base this on? Of course training helps to define an art. Would Muay Thai be Muay Thai if it didn't have the kind of training it does? I think not.

Also, your use of the 'burpee' analogy is flawed. Of course it doesn't matter if one gym does burpee's and another does, say free squats followed by hanging leg raises. What matters is that both gyms have a program that is heavy on condiontioning, as this is the common denominator in boxing. Not the specific technique.


Quote:

That is the arrogance in this debate.





No, it is not. The arrogance in this debate is your clinging to the belief that karate has everything that boxing does, without providing one shred of evidence beyond the old 'you don't get the secrets of kata' line. Sorry, it's not a valid refutation of anything I'm saying. So far, you have not presented any actual evidence to support your claims that the kata contains all the techniques of boxing, aside from vague references to an incredibly abstract reading of kata through the bias of pre-known boxing techniques.

You reply to Stormdragon, suggests this arrogant view of things:
Quote:

it's the 3rd movement and it is a hook punch.





Yes, it may be a 'hook punch', but it certainly is NOT a boxing style lead hook punch. Apparently this is, as you say, a " surface application of a kata". If so, then shouldn't that punch at least resemble the boxing lead hook punch? Because it certainly does not, not on any level besides it being a hooking strike. EVERYTHING else is diffirent. I suggest you rewatch the videos that Stormdragon posted.

Neko :
Quote:

Unlike you I won't say that boxing isn't adapatble




When did I say this? I never said anything like this!

Quote:

If you didn't want someone taking your culture and wanted people in power to go away, wouldn't you say this is just dancing we don't practice this to spar".




This, and the paragraph that follows it, is just wrong. There are many, many sources to verify that karate did not originally spar. The fact that someone posted a video of Uechi ryu trying to come up with free sparring methods in the 40's is a clear example of this.

Quote:

Here is another shocker for you Karate has an overhand right and a upper cut, thrown different then a boxer but it has the same purpose.




That's great. But if they are 'thrown different" then they aren't the same punch are they.

Quote:

Boxing is far from unique




Funny. What specifically about boxing makes it "far from unique". Apparently is unique enough to have it's own style of punching, footwork, and training methods, many of which have been adopted by a variety of styles today. Again, show me how boxing is "far from unique". That statement is ridiculous.

Harlan :
Quote:

1. No...don't watch mma for 'correct karate form.' Correct karate form is whatever works...not the mental image that the non-karateka here seem to have.





If karate is 'whatever works' then it is everything and nothing at the same time. Why call it karate? Why anchor it to less than perfect, outdated training methods (like horse stance to develop leg strength for example)? If correct form is "whatever works", then why is form so intrinsic to its study (kata)? What makes karate, karate if it is "whatever works"--why study it over anything else? No, karate does, it must, have a form that makes it karate.

And no, I don't think it is the rigid, caricature of 'karate' that many seem to assume I do.

--Chris
Posted by: harlan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 03:17 PM

I call it karate because that is what my teacher calls it. As for why study it over everything else? Lots of reasons to study it...but that is obviously a rhetorical question and a seperate thread altogether.
Posted by: Kravinatrix

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 05:16 PM

Quote:

From the bottom of your post up:

1. No...don't watch mma for 'correct karate form.' Correct karate form is whatever works...not the mental image that the non-karateka here seem to have

3. Chambering punches, especially to the waist, isn't something we do. You punch from where ever you happen to be.





If its whatever works then it has no formal style and cannot be considered a style since it uses, "anything that works" this is excuse for trying to say Karate doesn't suck by saying things like no thats just for training, we dont do it that way, then why the hell train like that?

Chambering punches is done in most Karate classes, I used to attend one. Its a pointless way of training if you dont fight that way, thats why boxing is alot better for punches.

If you fail to define what Karate actually is then this argument is completely pointless. If you look at karate as unrestricted then you could put boxing techniques in there and still call it Karate.
This thread is pointless and completely stupid.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 05:29 PM

Quote:

Quote:

From the bottom of your post up:

1. No...don't watch mma for 'correct karate form.' Correct karate form is whatever works...not the mental image that the non-karateka here seem to have

3. Chambering punches, especially to the waist, isn't something we do. You punch from where ever you happen to be.





If its whatever works then it has no formal style and cannot be considered a style since it uses, "anything that works" this is excuse for trying to say Karate doesn't suck by saying things like no thats just for training, we dont do it that way, then why the hell train like that?

Chambering punches is done in most Karate classes, I used to attend one. Its a pointless way of training if you dont fight that way, thats why boxing is alot better for punches.

If you fail to define what Karate actually is then this argument is completely pointless. If you look at karate as unrestricted then you could put boxing techniques in there and still call it Karate.
This thread is pointless and completely stupid.




Actually I like to watch MMA because I feel it is a better comparison to karate than boxing. Karate prepares one for all manner of attack. Boxing is hands only. And, depending on the range and situation a fully chambered strike can and is used. Here is an example of what a "fully chambered" strike can do. In karate its not about attributes, but timing and movement to set up techniques, not just blinding speed. Telegraphing techniques is actually a strategy utilized in karate. The key is what I am telegraphing is not necessarily what I am going to hit you with. Check out the vid around :40 and look for the fully chambered strike. Just think if he trained to strike like that. And if he did then maybe he is crosstraining in karate to develop better hands. He even chambers with his off hand as he connects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeI6UlB9N9A
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 08:25 PM

Quote:

Just looking at punches.
Boxing strikes are quicker, i.e jab. More powerful as they make better use of body weight.




Karate has a jab and a person would make punches quicker, not the art. Karate also uses bodyweight very efficiently for punching.

Quote:

Use better footwork




Karate is not for ringfighting, boxing's footwork obviously is.

Quote:

and do not leave yourself open like Karate strikes (bringing the hand back to the waist).




This just showcases your ignorance of karate. The 'chambered' hand is a two way action (push/pull). In other words, you have a hold of someone and are pulling them inward. Or, it could be an elbow to a person grabbing you from behind. Depends on the kata or bunkai, but mainly how you train it.

Quote:

On the one downside its easier to grapple someone from the boxing stance as its slightly less stable and the punches can be more overcommited. However in my opinion the pro's heavily outwiegh the cons.
I base my answer upon assuming your are talking about classical karate such as shotokan, where the strikes are found in the katas, otherwise its not really proper Karate and just a sort of adaptation. Otherwise karate starts to become a much to broad term where certian freestyles will contain all the boxing techniques within them thus making your argument irrelevant.




Shotokan is classical karate? lol. Have you ever actually done karate? Your post comes off like someone who was in a mcdojo, has minimal or no karate experience, or just go by what you see on the internet.



Quote:

Watch mixed martial arts, the majority of upper body punches are very similar to boxing although thrown more wildly in most cases. I have yet to see someone use correct karate form when punching in mma as seen in the traditional kata's.




I see straight punches in mma all the time....???

Your post would be like someone saying BJJ guys just lay on eachother. It would be like me saying that mma is just a "barbaric,blood and guts, free-for-all", like I've heard the ignorant say before.

You can't speak with any kind of authority of that which you have little, bad, or no experience.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 08:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeI6UlB9N9A

What do you know? He punched from the waist? He clearly has no clue,lol.

Quote:

Karate prepares one for all manner of attack. Boxing is hands only.




Exactly.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 08:37 PM

Quote:

If its whatever works then it has no formal style and cannot be considered a style since it uses, "anything that works" this is excuse for trying to say Karate doesn't suck by saying things like no thats just for training, we dont do it that way, then why the hell train like that?




Ever heard the quote, "at first practice stances with utmost diligence, then rely on your own posture." ? You might want to think about that before making assumptions like you have made.

How would you know how anyone here trains?

Quote:

Chambering punches is done in most Karate classes, I used to attend one. Its a pointless way of training if you dont fight that way, thats why boxing is alot better for punches.




I would say that chambering is done at all karate classes. It's the bunkai that you have no clue about. Just because you "used" to attend a karate class doesn't give you any authority on the subject. Chambering has grappling applications. Everyone that has attended more than a few classes at a good karate school knows that.

Quote:

If you fail to define what Karate actually is then this argument is completely pointless. If you look at karate as unrestricted then you could put boxing techniques in there and still call it Karate.
This thread is pointless and completely stupid.




The thread wasn't bad until ignorance and assumptions stepped in from non-karate folks trying to speak with authority on what karate is, or isn't.

It would be stupid for anyone to try and define in words what karate encomppasses to you. Go and "DO" karate for a few years, then come back and look at your posts.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 08:41 PM

Quote:

If karate is 'whatever works' then it is everything and nothing at the same time. Why call it karate? Why anchor it to less than perfect, outdated training methods (like horse stance to develop leg strength for example)? If correct form is "whatever works", then why is form so intrinsic to its study (kata)? What makes karate, karate if it is "whatever works"--why study it over anything else? No, karate does, it must, have a form that makes it karate.

And no, I don't think it is the rigid, caricature of 'karate' that many seem to assume I do.




Karate teaches you how to use your body. It's like kimo said, "there is more than one way up the mountain."
The 'horse stance' isn't for developing leg muscles imo. It has tripping, throwing, grappling applications and imo should be quite higher that most forms of karate practice.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/18/08 08:58 PM

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeI6UlB9N9A

What do you know? He punched from the waist? He clearly has no clue,lol.




Well Brian, I guess karate guys aren't the only ones who don't know how to generate power in an alive fighting environment. I mean, its not like you can actually knock a guy out who knows what he's doing punching from a chambered hand position like that.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 12:28 AM

Quote:

Karate is not for ringfighting, boxing's footwork obviously is.





Actually boxing's footwork descends from mostly non-ring sources, as do many of the hand techniques. This isn't to say that the ring aspect hasn't influenced modern boxing's shape, but that, like karate in this regard, there is more than meets the eye.

As JKogas said earlier, one influence on modern boxing footwork is panuntukan (not a ring sport). The other is western sword arts.

As for hand techniques, one theory regarding the jab/cross combo is that it comes down to us from Greek hoplites. Basically, the jab was them ramming their sheild forward, while the cross was the spear. This was picked up by the Romans, who used it with sheild/sword. This is most likely the oldest combination in boxing.

Again, like when JKogas reminded us that many boxing gyms do teach 'dirty boxing' tactics, it's important to remember that there is more to boxing than what the uninitiated might be aware of.

--Chris
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 03:10 AM

Quote:

As for hand techniques, one theory regarding the jab/cross combo is that it comes down to us from Greek hoplites. Basically, the jab was them ramming their sheild forward, while the cross was the spear. This was picked up by the Romans, who used it with sheild/sword. This is most likely the oldest combination in boxing.






Hmmm, that's pretty interesting. Thanks!

Quote:

Again, like when JKogas reminded us that many boxing gyms do teach 'dirty boxing' tactics, it's important to remember that there is more to boxing than what the uninitiated might be aware of.






Very true. My boxing experience is very limited. I have a coworker friend who trained in boxing, had his own for several years, and now is retired. I get some good info from him.
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 03:34 AM

Ames,
your mind seems to be closed to anything that doesn't fit with your pre-conceptions. I've trained in Karate and in boxing (among other things), I know very well where the two are similar and where they differ. I can only tell you about my understanding of Karate as we live too far apart for me to train with you. If you choose not to believe it that's up to you.

The simple fact is that the surface of Karate is the vaguest fraction of the art.

The form is just a way of conditioning the body to efficiently move and generate power, much of which is later discarded as structures and movements are internalised and techniques become more natural and fluid. As this happens one starts to see where seemingly different movements are actually the same. At this stage Kata act as a guide for strategy, offering examples that the individual is supposed to understand how to apply and build upon and as an understanding of combat grows the Karateka learns to combine and recombine movements to fit his own personal way and the situation he finds himself in. Beyond this is understanding the potential of parts of movements and applying power in different angles and using varying degrees of tension or relaxedness in movements, all of which starts in simple macroscopic movements of the kihon and kata and at each stage requires a total re-examination of the art you have in front of you.

Shotokan as an entity had it's growth stunted by a number of factors. It is going to be very hard to find a video on the net of Shotokan karateka who have taken their training beyond the very basic in terms of combative application.

I've stated why I feel karate has better strikes and the grounds I've used to come to that conclusion. You have still not managed to give a reason why it is incorrect other than to say that boxing has better training methods than karate, as if you know how all Karate schools train or how effective non-boxing based methods actually are.

You are blindly insistent that you know and understand Karate movement and techniques and that you have a full grasp of karate training such that you are comfortable defining Karate and stating that it does or does not do X Y and Z.

It is clear that you do not know at all, but you are unwilling to even accept that Karate may be slightly different to how you perceive it. You make claims about what evidence there is or is not as if you've read all the books and interviews and articles that have ever been published. Yet if you had read a faractiob of the books in my modest collection (such as the one's from which I gave accounts of boxing-similar movements earlier) your opinion would be different, or at least not so closed.

You feel unable to discuss a punch without considering the training that goes into developing it as well as the strategies and footwork that go into applying it. On this point we are fundamentally opposed. In addition you are fixed on the notion that training defines an art, which while one cold conceivably apply this to boxing simply dosn't work for any other MA because the moment someone decides to vary the training practice the art would be something else, a point you neatly sidestepped.

If we cannot agree on what we are discussing we can't really debate it.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 11:43 AM

Neko : Quote: ------- Unlike you I won't say that boxing isn't adapatble


456 - I was saying that you are doing this to Karate and I wasn't doing this in my understanding of Boxing. As we agree it can be trained dirty.


------------------------------------------------------------
Ames - When did I say this? I never said anything like this!

456- You never did, remember you think everything came from gloved Western Boxing.

Quote: ----------------------------------------------------

456 -If you didn't want someone taking your culture and wanted people in power to go away, wouldn't you say this is just dancing we don't practice this to spar".


--------------------------------------------------------
Ames - This, and the paragraph that follows it, is just wrong. There are many, many sources to verify that karate did not originally SPAR. The fact that someone posted a video of Uechi ryu trying to come up with free sparring methods in the 40's is a clear example of this.
Quote:

456 - Thats a common assumption but I don't know really.
You are right Traditonal Karate men didn't Spar often (meaning play fight) they FOUGHT even in practice drills at a certain level you can still get a bloody mouth in striking drills at a certain level. It doesn't matter what is written it matters what the real warriors story was.
Hell its written we don't kill women anc children but remember Hiroshima and Osaka it depends who telling the his - stroy.

These guys were warriors they were Marines, Army men from all over the world ect.. that fought in wars and killed people so you believe they wanted to learn how to dance??How can U trick a person that seen effective fighting on the real? Now this is only an assuption maybe Marines/warriors like dancing.
Take your tap out MMA, these guys fought and knew you couldn't tap out. Karate has changed but some still train for real. So believe what you will but I believe the guys thats seen death. Maybe I don't read enough, i think exepreince mean something, I could be wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------

456 - Here is another shocker for you Karate has an overhand right and a upper cut, thrown different then a boxer but it has the same purpose.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ames - That's great. But if they are 'thrown different" then they aren't the same punch are they.


456 - You are right again they aren't delievered the same way, boxing isn't the only way is it, we are learning. I didn't say it was the same I said it served the same purpose to come over or under the guards or hit opening over or under. Of course its not the same when have you seen a boxer sweep a guy off feet and throw a upper cut while the guys falling or trying to catch his balance. Or use these punches while the guys covering from being stomped on the ground. Of course its not the same. One is taught to really fight and the other spars alot.

Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------

456 - Boxing is far from unique

-------------------------------------------------------

Funny. What specifically about boxing makes it "far from unique". Apparently is unique enough to have it's own style of punching, footwork, and training methods, many of which have been adopted by a variety of styles today. Again, show me how boxing is "far from unique". That statement is ridiculous.


456 - Ridiculous maybe to you but really boxing is so simple (which is it's strength) that almost every art that I have studied have simlar basic skill sets, punches and some movement.

How many other arts have you studied?

Now I admit most of the gloved ring Sprots like Savate, Thai, Kicking boxing, SanShou, MMA and BJJ have all adapted western boxing (bc theres other boxing other then Kung fu or western) like movement but it's not Pure boxing because ducking and reckless bob and weaving bring you closer to knees and elbows or takedowns. So boxing is not unique it is simple and easy to apply. It's only apart of most of the above mentioned ring sports bc it's limited by range. So what else have we learned that ridiculous only seems that way when we are closed minded.

For your overall lack of knowledge (you seem to know well what boxing is to you) you also debate well, you should change your career to Law. But I think BS argues a more open minded and better case. And wonder among wonders BS and Meds agrees on something. Shonuff is Shonuff and Shisoshin is right on. harlan are you sure you are not a Master, going by conise well thought out replies.

Man this is some good sh%%, I applaud you all. I'm enjoying this even Ames occassional kick in the butt, are you a Lawyer the dreaded L word.
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 12:13 PM

Quote:

Shonuff is Shonuff




LOL, What's that supposed to mean?
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 12:22 PM

Shonuff from my part of the woods means you are right. As in Shonuff right.

You Brits don't know nothing about broken English do you. Jolly good show mate.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 01:00 PM

Quote:

your mind seems to be closed to anything that doesn't fit with your pre-conceptions.




I'm sorry you feel that way. I wouldn't participate in these forums if I didn't want to learn.

Quote:

The simple fact is that the surface of Karate is the vaguest fraction of the art.





Fair enough. But I'm not only looking at the surface. I'm looking at the actual 'product' of the training. Although I can't say, and haven't, what the actual process of kata learning is in the upper levels of karate, I can make an informed judgement on the result of that training when viewed through the lens of my prior experiance in other TMA, video evidence, my sparring experiance with Karateka and so on. If being a master was needed to adquetly judge an art then I dare say that this forum would cease to exist.

Quote:

The form is just a way of conditioning the body to efficiently move and generate power, much of which is later discarded as structures and movements are internalised and techniques become more natural and fluid. As this happens one starts to see where seemingly different movements are actually the same. At this stage Kata act as a guide for strategy, offering examples that the individual is supposed to understand how to apply and build upon and as an understanding of combat grows the Karateka learns to combine and recombine movements to fit his own personal way and the situation he finds himself in. Beyond this is understanding the potential of parts of movements and applying power in different angles and using varying degrees of tension or relaxedness in movements, all of which starts in simple macroscopic movements of the kihon and kata and at each stage requires a total re-examination of the art you have in front of you.





Yes, I understand this. It is similar to other JMA. Forinstance in Aikijujutsu there is the actual technique and then there is henka based on that technique.

That being said, I still don't think you have made a case that the entire art of boxing is intrinsically hidden within the kata, nor that it is present within the art of karate. That is my main point of disagreement with you. Not on the overall validity of kata.

Quote:

Shotokan as an entity had it's growth stunted by a number of factors. It is going to be very hard to find a video on the net of Shotokan karateka who have taken their training beyond the very basic in terms of combative application.





My question then, is did those who took their "training beyond the very basic in terms of combative application" do so only by studying Shotokan?

I often hear the argument that 'this is isn't the real xyz'. And that might be true. That is why I watched every single Shotokan video on youtube, rather than just culling those videos that might be a poor representation of your art. The fact is that most of the videos looked like the one I posted, and therefore one can make an informed judgement that the majority of Shotokan is trained like that. Now if you are saying that there is some that is not, I encourage you to post such video. I would be (and I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm being honest) interested in how those kata I saw contain the entire art of boxing.

The reason why I posted that Shotokan video in the first place was because it seemed that I was having a difficult time getting across in words alone, what I was saying about a fundemental difference in boxing technique and Shotokan.

Quote:

I've stated why I feel karate has better strikes and the grounds I've used to come to that conclusion.




Yes, because, according to you, "karate is boxing + xyz". Essientially, you're argument comes down to your belief that:

a) karate (namely Shotokan) contains all the techniques and footwork of boxing.

b) Plus (+) more striking technique (such as kicks).

Is that right?

Quote:

You have still not managed to give a reason why it is incorrect other than to say that boxing has better training methods than karate, as if you know how all Karate schools train or how effective non-boxing based methods actually are.





First, do you, or does anyone else on earth know how "all Karate schools train". Must one know this in order to discuss karate, or any other art for that matter. One can only weigh the evidence. You are doing to same. This is what I meant by your extreme relatavism. If we were to think of, say, any scienctific field in your terms, then there would be no science today.

Next, your point regarding my unknowingness of the "effectiveness of non-boxing based methods". I don't know what this means exactly. But, let me say that the vast amount of my martial life has been in the TMA's. I have practiced aikido, karate, aikijujutsu,koryu jujutsu, private lessons in mainland wing chun. Have I studied all these arts in significant depth. Absolutely not. I'm not arrogant to make that claim. But I can make the claim regarding how these arts are trained. How many times does the sun need to rise before we can guess that sun will rise again tommorow?

And I have given a reason as to why I beleive (in general!) boxing is better suited to acquistion of striking ability than karate. More on that as I go through your post.

Quote:

You are blindly insistent that you know and understand Karate movement and techniques and that you have a full grasp of karate training such that you are comfortable defining Karate and stating that it does or does not do X Y and Z.





'Blindly insistent" implies that I am making uneducated guesses, when I think, if you read my posts, you'll find that it would be difficult to accuse me of such.

Next, I would be interested to know how long you trained boxing? Because is my eyes, as someone who has practiced boxing for ten years, it strikes me as odd that someone who has practiced both boxing and karate would claim, time and again, that karate has EVERYTHING that boxing has.

The only "x y z" I am saying karate does not have is those techniques which have thier origins in boxing. Again, I'll say, that boxing should be given it's due. Rather than accuse me of "blindly insisting", perhaps you would do well to show at least one instance of boxing technique within karate (again, uninfluenced by boxing). I took your point seriously enough to watch several videos of the kata you said had these techniques and I saw nothing that, beyond the slightest connotation, resembled the boxing techniques you claimed they represented.

Your counterpoint to this has been that I do not have enough of an understanding to realize that nature of kata decoding. The issue I have with this is that the abstract, arbitrary scheme you suggest for the interpretation of kata renders the possiblities implied techniques limitless. In other words, you could see whatever you wanted to see.

The issue with this, is that I could turn around and say that boxing also contains the implication of all karate kata. Of course, this point seems ridiculous. Yet, the interpretation methods you seem to propose could, in effect, be used to show this. I could say that the footwork of a boxers jab, implies a front kick, for example. Or a low guard implies grappling. Now, although this seems an assinine statment, actually boxing did at one time contain all these techniques, so perhaps it is not so far from the truth.

But again, such a statement, that boxing implies all the kata of karate, is ridiculous. Perhaps you should think as to why that is, and by doing so you will better understand why I find your point in this regard equally not valid.

Quote:

It is clear that you do not know at all, but you are unwilling to even accept that Karate may be slightly different to how you perceive it.




I am absolutely willing to beleive that it may be diffirent than I am suggesting. I only ask for evidence in this regard. You have yet to provide anything more than vague responses that I don't know the karate enough to make a comment. Yet, the very fact that you can provide no other counterpoint to my statements, suggests that neither do you.

Quote:

You make claims about what evidence there is or is not as if you've read all the books and interviews and articles that have ever been published.




Now you seem to be purposly constructing strawman arguments. Would it suprise you to know that in fact I have read every book on East Asian martial arts, and karate in particular availible in the library system at the largest university in Canada?

Quote:

Yet if you had read a faractiob of the books in my modest collection (such as the one's from which I gave accounts of boxing-similar movements earlier) your opinion would be different, or at least not so closed.





Again, your extreme relatavism rears its head. First, you are a making an assumption that I have not throughly researched this topic (wrong). And, no my opinion probably wouldn't be diffirent, as my argument is an educated one, based on my own research in this field.

As for the accounts you gave, they did nothing to provide evidence that "karate is boxing + x yz" (karate contains the entire art of boxing). I'm sorry but a source that says Funakoshi ducked a punch, or Shoshin Nagamine declaring that "the only difference between boxing and karate was of karates use of kicks", does in no way, shape, or form, even help proving your argument. With what depth did Shoshin Nagamine train boxing to make such a statement? Did he train it at all. Often times, when comments like this are made, they are based on a complete lack of experiance. Which is the very thing you are attempting to use to devalidate my points.

Regarding Funakoshi ducking a punch: certainly I'm not stupid enough to think that one has to train boxing in order to duck a punch. However, this doesn't help your argument that karate contains boxing style bobing and weaving, as ducking a punch is a very natural response to punch coming your way. Again, karata has its own methods of tai sabaki. Why isn't that enough for you? Why do you feel the need to take away the unique features of other arts in an attempt to prove yours in the best?

Quote:

You feel unable to discuss a punch without considering the training that goes into developing it as well as the strategies and footwork that go into applying it.




I could certainly discuss a punch without the training. My point all along has been that to divorce boxing from its training is to not really be talking about boxing at all.

In terms of the strategy and footwork, yes, absolutely these things must be discussed when we are talking about a punch, at least when we are talking about a boxing punch. The footwork and the punch are one. Your attempt to reduce a boxing punch to arm movement alone is simply wrong. The arm movement is, obviously, only a fraction of a proper boxing punch. If I was to just stand in front of a heavy bag throwing hooking arm movements at it, my boxing coach would tell me to use footwork, so that my waist in involved in the strike, and I am able to generate more power. A boxing punch cannot, in any way, or by any stretch of the imagination, by divorced from the accompanying footwork. To do so would make it not a 'boxing punch'. Again, the arm movement is really, in boxing terms, the last thing you need to worry about. It should be clear to anyone who has boxed for any length of time that the form and the physics of the boxing punch is dictated by the footwork, at least as much, perhaps more, than the arm.

So, I have a very good reason to be unwilling to disscuss a BOXING PUNCH without the "training that goes into developing it as well as the strategies and footwork that go into applying it."

To be honest, I can't comprehend how, or why, one would not. Especially when they have implied that they already know all there is to know of boxing, because it is already contained in the art they study.

Quote:

On this point we are fundamentally opposed.




If you are opposed to looking at a punch in its totality rather then by its (dependent) factors, then, yes, I guess we are oppossed.

Quote:

In addition you are fixed on the notion that training defines an art, which while one cold conceivably apply this to boxing simply dosn't work for any other MA because the moment someone decides to vary the training practice the art would be something else, a point you neatly sidestepped.





The point you are sidestepping here, my friend, is that training methodogy defining an art is pretty much a given when it comes to boxing. Ask any boxer, if you take away
1. The condioning
2. The sport specific exercises (heavy bag, focus mitts)
3. The light, and full sparring
Ask them if that could possibly be considered 'boxing'. No, it absolutely could not. These things are intrinsic to boxing. If you feel they are not as intrinsic to karate, then that's great. But this is discussion of karate AND BOXING striking methods. So, excuse me if I want boxing to be accurately portrayed for what it is, rather than the biased way you want to portray it.

Regarding, "the moment someone decides to vary the training practice the art would be something else", the issue is more complex than that. For example, in terms of karate, condioning practices may vary, but the majority of karateka feel that in order to study karate, kata, bunkai are needed. To take away these aspects of the training methodology would, for many, mean that the art of karate has lost itself. For a more specific example, look at Goju Ryu, it contains not only these aspects, but also hojo undo,and perhaps kakie, now I'm sure some don't practice this aspect of the art, but again, the majority would say that it is a key part of what makes Goju Ryu, Goju Ryu. Take away kata, bunkai, hojo undo from Goju Ryu, and what are you left with? Surely something diffirent. Kata, bunkai,hojo undo are therefore the training methodology that defines the art. This line of think is actually true for most arts that I can think of. Chi sao, wing chun; 'knee walking', aikido; push hands, tai chi; pummeling, wrestling; sword suburi; kendo etc, etc, all of these are fundemental pieces of the art, and all are a part of the overall training methodology.

--Chris
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 01:27 PM

Ames, you will see very few karateka on youtube training their art to the level of boxing that guys like Roy Jones Jr. have. To make such comparisions is silly. Maybe guys like Higoanna of Goju, Kise of Matsumura Seito, or Oyata or Okinawan Kenpo. However, these are old men and few train today like these men did. Did you research the full contact matches held in Chosin Chibana's dojo with no gear and no holds barred? What about modern weight lifting methods? What about usage of striking pads utilized in addition to makiwara training? How about free form kata utilized much the same way a boxer's shadow boxing is? What if I start a McDojo version of boxing and it becomes the most popular form of boxing in the world. Can I then make claims that what I teach is norm for boxing so others can disparage boxing as a fighting art due to the ineffective practices I created? In essense it seems like your comparison of karate you have seen is like saying kick boxing is ineffective because of all of the soccer moms and children who practice tae bo. And even though others say that tae bo is not real kick boxing, because things such as cardio kick boxing are so widespread their statements are obviously untrue. There are so many pages I don't have the time to look through all of the posts. My question to you Ames is what training practices or techniques do you feel karate lacks which makes its striking less effective then boxing. And if you simply post a world class boxer against a part timer karate guy then I already know your answer.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 02:00 PM

Quote:

Ames, you will see very few karateka on youtube training their art to the level of boxing that guys like Roy Jones Jr. have. To make such comparisions is silly.




That is true. Let me also say that Roy Jones Jr. was also not meant to speak for the level of the average boxer, obviously he has gone above and beyond. I used that clip to illustrate what I was talking about regarding footwork, because it is a good example of boxing footwork.

Quote:

However, these are old men and few train today like these men did. Did you research the full contact matches held in Chosin Chibana's dojo with no gear and no holds barred?




I know a little about this, yes. But as you say, this type of training is in the minority, not the majority, and, therefore, doesn't speak for karate as generally practiced. It certainly suggests the potential for the art though (if more resistence was added, and more sparring).

Quote:

What about modern weight lifting methods? What about usage of striking pads utilized in addition to makiwara training? How about free form kata utilized much the same way a boxer's shadow boxing is?




I don't get where you are going with this, really. Yes, personally, I think those are good things to introduce into any TMA to make it more functional. Certainly, though, all of these things (except perhaps 'free form kata', which to me just sounds like shadow boxing, but I don't really know anything about that) were do to an influence of boxing, and were not present in tradional karate.

Quote:

What if I start a McDojo version of boxing and it becomes the most popular form of boxing in the world. Can I then make claims that what I teach is norm for boxing so others can disparage boxing as a fighting art due to the ineffective practices I created?




Absolutely. If the majority of boxers trained in the way you suggest, then that would be, for better or worse, what boxing 'is'.

Boxing at one time had grappling, kicking, knife fighting and fighting with clubs as part of it's early ring fighting. Surely though, these aspects don't stand for boxing as it is practiced today.

Quote:

In essense it seems like your comparison of karate you have seen is like saying kick boxing is ineffective because of all of the soccer moms and children who practice tae bo.




No. 'Kickboxing' and 'tae bo' are two obviously seperate things.

Quote:

And even though others say that tae bo is not real kick boxing, because things such as cardio kick boxing are so widespread their statements are obviously untrue.




Again, I don't understand how this speaks to anything I've been saying. Tae bo, cardio kickboxing, are all diffirent than 'kickboxing' and as such are known by a diffirent name.

Quote:

There are so many pages I don't have the time to look through all of the posts. My question to you Ames is what training practices or techniques do you feel karate lacks which makes its striking less effective then boxing. And if you simply post a world class boxer against a part timer karate guy then I already know your answer.




Although I feel for your lack of time situation, I can't be expected to constantly rewrite posts in answer to things I have already stated.

But to quickly restate, it depends on what 'karate' we are talking about. I've been, until my last few posts, talking about tradional Okinawan karate.

Tradional Okinawan karate lacked (and in many cases the more conservative dojos still lack) the following: heavy bag training, focus mitt training, modern weight training, interval training, skipping rope, heavy reliance on sparring to 'test' skill, boxing style footwork (not that it is necessarily better, just that it wasn't there), gloves, and I think that is about it.

More modern karate has, to a greater or lesser degree, seen the value of boxing training methodology and begun to incorporate it into the systems.

Which is why I said, in one of the past posts, that something like Enshin or Ashihara karate would maybe be a better standing style to study than boxing, simply because it 'functionally' teaches a greater variety of strikes, and have largely adopted boxing hands into their curriculum. Unfortunately, karate taught like this is in the minority. Personally, I hope that that changes, not just for karate, but all TMA's, so that when we speak of them in the future a more functional art will be the general rule.
--Chris
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 03:36 PM

Neko, I missed your post.

Quote:

You never did, remember you think everything came from gloved Western Boxing




Nope never said that. I did say that alot of arts currently pracice boxing hands. You, yourself, list a few examples:

Quote:

Savate, Thai, Kicking boxing, SanShou, MMA and BJJ




Quote:

These guys were warriors they were Marines, Army men from all over the world ect.. that fought in wars and killed people so you believe they wanted to learn how to dance??How can U trick a person that seen effective fighting on the real? Now this is only an assuption maybe Marines/warriors like dancing.




No, we can be pretty sure that sparring wasn't a part of Okinawan karate based on the physical evidence that exists. Aside from kooky conspiracy theories (not only that they didn't teach Marines the real karate, but also all of their texts are purposely misleading, and TO THIS DAY they continue to midlead Westerners) the evidence is all we have to go on.

Your opinion is your own. But if you want to state a hypothesis, it should have SOME evidence to back it up.

I agree that probably many Okinawans didn't teach the Marines a full karate curriculum (for a variety of reasons), this doesn't change the fact that the Okinawans didn't practice sparring as part of karate.

Quote:

You are right again they aren't delievered the same way, boxing isn't the only way is it, we are learning. I didn't say it was the same I said it served the same purpose to come over or under the guards or hit opening over or under.




That's great. But in the general context of my prior posts, it's meaningless. The form of the punches are diffirent. That was my point.

Different = not the same

Now if you say that karate and boxing share SOME similar principles, fine. But as you say, karate uses these techniques diffirently:

Quote:

Of course its not the same when have you seen a boxer sweep a guy off feet and throw a upper cut while the guys falling or trying to catch his balance. Or use these punches while the guys covering from being stomped on the ground. Of course its not the same.




Quote:

One is taught to really fight and the other spars alot.





Funny. Go tell a professional boxer he "can't fight". Film it. I could use a good laugh.

Go look at video of streetfights. Take a notebook and mark down how often they end with kick or a joint lock or an eyegouge. You'll find not so often. What you will find is that they usually begin and end with a punch.

Here are two examples that prove that boxing, and boxing only, can be useful in a street situation, versue multiple attackers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iDlzL7zrNU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGAzeYM9G-0

Now show me two with karate being used.

Quote:

Ridiculous maybe to you but really boxing is so simple (which is it's strength) that almost every art that I have studied have simlar basic skill sets, punches and some movement.





Well that's one thing that makes it unique then, isn't it?

Quote:

How many other arts have you studied?





Enough to make informed opinions, thank you.

Quote:

like movement but it's not Pure boxing because ducking and reckless bob and weaving bring you closer to knees and elbows or takedowns.




So let me get this straight. You are telling me that its fine to say that kata contains all these techniques (that may or may not ever be practiced) and that karate constantly adapts to changing cicumstances but the minute boxing is done in a diffirent context it's not "Pure boxing". Give me a break!

Why would a boxer use "reckless" bobbing and weaving anyway?

You are assuming that a boxer can't adapt to diffirent situations. WRONG!

The very fact that it can be used in so many diffirent venues speaks to the adaptive nature of boxing.

Quote:

So boxing is not unique it is simple and easy to apply.




This statement literally hurts my brain. If boxing is not 'unique' then why the hell is it chosen, time and time again, for a variety of diffirent arts to improve both teachning methodology and hand skill?

Quote:

It's only apart of most of the above mentioned ring sports bc it's limited by range.




If by this comment you mean 'It's only a part of most of the above mentioned right sports because it's been limited by range and therefore more time has been spent refining handskills to the point where no other art can match it (in terms of hands) then, sure, I agree.

Quote:

So what else have we learned that ridiculous only seems that way when we are closed minded.





Tell me who is more closed minded. Myself, who has giving karate it's due, or you who say:
Quote:

"So boxing is not unique" or (my favorite)

"One is taught to really fight and the other spars alot."





Give me a break!

Quote:

For your overall lack of knowledge (you seem to know well what boxing is to you) you also debate well,




Neko, do me a favor and don't insult me, okay? Tell me, where am I so "lacking in knowledge" that I can't make an informed decision.

How about you make a point that isn't completly subjective and 'proven' only be hearsay and personal anecdote and insult?
--Chris
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 04:38 PM

Chris the problem with your statements are that the okinawans did utilize different types of focus mitt/kick shield, conditioning drills, and sparring training independent of boxing's influence. The only boxing influence was the advent of protective equipment.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 05:46 PM

Interesting. What is your source for all this? It's not that I don't believe you, but everything I've read and been told by practioners of Okinawan karate directly cotradicts that.

--Chris
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 06:23 PM

Quote:

If being a master was needed to adquetly judge an art then I dare say that this forum would cease to exist.




Why do you need to judge an art at all? Judge a class that you are thinking of training in but leave generalisations at the door.

Quote:

That being said, I still don't think you have made a case that the entire art of boxing is intrinsically hidden within the kata, nor that it is present within the art of karate.




Remember the thing I wrote about putting the various strategies and techniques from different parts of the art together.

If you take the all of the purely percussive elements, those parts that deal only with punching and associated strategy you will find enough boxing that the differences between the boxer and the "stripped down" karate fighter are nearly negligible. Yes there are technical details and perhaps even some strategic details which are not going to be present in the karateka's arsenal, but to me this is a triviality more than anything else.

The reason that the strategies are so spread out is simply that Karate evolved very differently and using different rules as it's guide.

Quote:

My question then, is did those who took their "training beyond the very basic in terms of combative application" do so only by studying Shotokan?




No I don't think they did.

Some of the best Karateka I have trained with are on Youtube. Not one of them displays anything more than the most basic traditional elements or tournament sparring, and yet they know so much more. Your arguments are mostly good, well constructed arguments, but unless you get out there and train with people and do the work yourself you won't see where I'm coming from.

I cannot argue the numbers, no matter how anecdotal. By all accounts the majority of Karate training is lacking a lot of effective developmental fighting training. If you are happy defining karate by the Youtube majority then fine. I define Karate by my training in it and my study of it. It is worth restating here that my original contention were about "the karate I have learned and the boxing I have learned".

Quote:

I took your point seriously enough to watch several videos of the kata you said had these techniques and I saw nothing that, beyond the slightest connotation, resembled the boxing techniques you claimed they represented.




And yet you accepted that the surface of the art is not the whole art, and also that there is a developmental process involved in moving from performance of the movements of karate to actually fighting that has the surface structure discarded.
If you can accept these two points then you must be able to see that no movement you ever see in a kata will look like anything other than kata.

Quote:

The issue I have with this is that the abstract, arbitrary scheme you suggest for the interpretation of kata renders the possiblities implied techniques limitless. In other words, you could see whatever you wanted to see.




Yes, absolutely!

You may not like the idea but this is karate. A great many karateka have decided exactly this and come up with all sorts of rubbish as kata applications. And yet this is a fundamental part of karate. Explaining this to any real depth is a whole 'nother thread, but what I will say is that there are many sides to this discussion. Personally I fall on the side of strictly limiting interpretations into systematic fighting styles derived from individual or groups of kata. Then once that level is attained further study lets you take the movements wherever they will go. Victor describes it as training potential releases of energy, or something similar.

Spend some time trawling the archives of these forums for discussions about kata and application.

We are touching on why I feel your position is insufficiently researched. There are many big questions that long time Karateka have battled with for years in this debate. Most of them you plonk down an answer because it seems logical to you and that's it as far as you're concerned, when those whose physical, historical and theoretical studies of karate have lasted many years don't find the answers nearly so simple.

You want evidence for things. The closest I can give you to evidence at this time is a detailed structured and logical analysis likely to have textual supporting references. Ask something specific and if I have time I may PM you. This I know is not real evidence, but it is what I have.

Quote:

If I was to just stand in front of a heavy bag throwing hooking arm movements at it, my boxing coach would tell me to use footwork, so that my waist in involved in the strike, and I am able to generate more power. A boxing punch cannot, in any way, or by any stretch of the imagination, by divorced from the accompanying footwork.




Here I think we have a simple miscommunication.

When I speak of footwork I think of movement. Movement falls for me under strategy. The component of a punch that involves the feet and the rest of the body to me falls under technique, specifically the mechanics of a punch.
I agree you can't talk about a punch without a discussion of the accompanying mechanics, unless you are talking about it in a purely strategic sense.

Mechanically there are some small differences between boxing technique and karate, but for me small differences are like the eccentricities of an individual. What matters is speed damage accuracy and strategy. Different varieties of technique while favoured by individuals all usually seem to work just fine, suggesting to me that minutia in technique is often more hot air than real fight relevant discussion.

My point about karate containing boxing was on a strategic not mechanical level, although again I see little of significance in the differences.

Quote:

look at Goju Ryu, it contains not only these aspects, but also hojo undo,and perhaps kakie, now I'm sure some don't practice this aspect of the art, but again, the majority would say that it is a key part of what makes Goju Ryu, Goju Ryu. Take away kata, bunkai, hojo undo from Goju Ryu, and what are you left with? Surely something diffirent. Kata, bunkai,hojo undo are therefore the training methodology that defines the art.




A very good argument.

However, I stated earlier that I agree training can Identify an art, but not define it.

To me what you describe in your example is identifying Goju. To define goju by those practices you limit goju to just those practices IMO. Goju is those things, but it can also be much more.

I would ask what training methods you feel define Karate, maybe even just Shotokan?

Lastly (GF is about to kick my ass), what I have read leads me to believe that there was much fighting practice of Karate but only at higher levels than any Japanese reached in Funakoshi's time, and most of the other things that you don't think were present in original Okinawan training were from what I have gathered, very much present in one form or another.
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/19/08 06:24 PM

Bravo old chap!
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/20/08 12:27 PM

---------------------------------------------------------

Neko456 wrote - For your overall lack of knowledge (you seem to know well what boxing is to you) you also debate well,
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ames wrote - Neko, do me a favor and don't insult me, okay? Tell me, where am I so "lacking in knowledge" that I can't make an informed decision.

How about you make a point that isn't completly subjective and 'proven' only be hearsay and personal anecdote and insult?
__________________________________________________________


I apologizes if you feel I insulted you but we do seem to see things differently, you seem to believe everything you READ and I take experience as a factor. You got to learn how to give and take and remember your comments guides the views that others have of you. As u say its just my opinon.

Now I've seen boxers in actual street fight some have done well others have got there lunch brought to them, (this is true of MAs also). I can't tell you the Golden gloves and street boxers who have challanged me and been taken into deep water and drowned. I know how to box a little can't beat my semi-pro brother but when I swicht to Karate technique he doesn't fight well in the air or on the ground.

So I don't have to tell a boxer that they can't fight I know they can in their fish bowl, but take them in another dept and they are not good at it. Like anyone else.

I will say that a boxers conditioning and abilty to react quickly because of his sparring makes him forminable within his range. But the boxer is bound by his experience (sorta like you, just my opinon don't take it personal) or lack of experience at other ranges. If I know (bc I've trained to box too) what he capable of and he thinks he knows what I can do (going by what he read or movies), who do you think has the advantage?

As for whats been written if you believe that then I see where you get your opinion. But I warn you can't beleive what you read or see on Tv all the time. I guess you beleive we went into Iqra as liberators not for control of the oil supply, you beleive that we were not fore warned about Pearl habor or the Twin towers. Anyway despite that I did see the Twin towers fall. Seeing is believing and other then that its his story.

I've seen Karate in the 60s-70s it was quite different then now, and we have better athletics nowdays but intent and training purpose was totally different. Seeing is believing.
I felt it when I thought I could box.


Fighting is different then Sparring is what we really don't see eye to eye about. Boxers spar and they train to spar, this can be used to fight, bc condition and sharp reflexes.

A serious Karate person trains to fight, they spar to sharpen their fight spirit and techniques and bc of this it can be used to fight.

I see a different and though I can box, when I've been attacked I use Karate, (really whatever) but I call it Karate bc you train in a certain style but Karate is whatever works. Even if I use a boxers hook, I'm thinking Kaarte now I can grab his throat and ba%5s and throw him. Another strike boxer don't have sure they could learn it but I do it intinctly.

Besides whats you have read and you did read it correctly what have you experience to guide your well debated decision?

I agree with Med and Shonuff look like everybody but you Ames. Jkogas, Stromdragon give Ames some support from your EXPERIENCE is what I like a Jkgas not only from what he has read. And Ames me Jkogas disagree alot.
Posted by: harlan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/20/08 12:38 PM

What an interesting quote!

Quote:

Fighting is different then Sparring is what we really don't see eye to eye about.

Boxers spar and they train to spar, this can be used to fight, bc condition and sharp reflexes.

A serious Karate person trains to fight, they spar to sharpen their fight spirit and techniques and bc of this it can be used to fight.





and this as well:

Quote:



I see a different and though I can box, when I've been attacked I use Karate, (really whatever) but I call it Karate bc you train in a certain style but Karate is whatever works. Even if I use a boxers hook, I'm thinking Karate



Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/20/08 12:50 PM

Kind of an aside based on several posts I have seen and to build on what Neko has said.

All this talk about chamber hands, guard etc, to me is odd. Real fights outside the ring are very dynamic for the most part. If I have seen 100 fights, maybe 1-2 did anyone take a stance and look like a boxer, almost every other one was explosive and contstant movement.

The guard is great for sparring or ring fighting but doesn't really apply outside of that for the most part.(not that it can't, it just doesn't usually go down in a way that it can)

Also the statement that boxers hit harder because they learn to hit with body is laughable, I have trained in more then a handful of Dojo's and I have never been to one that didn't deal extensively with using full body strikes.

If a boxer hits harder it's because he is a better athlete, not anything specific to the art not found in Karate.
Posted by: harlan

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/20/08 12:54 PM

'Use the body'...'It's in the body.'

Heck...the way my teacher and his trains...a light BLOCK 'kills' the arm. Everything is/can be a 'strike'
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/20/08 07:48 PM

I'm really busy right now with the end of my semester, so I will have to write a more in depth post later to Shonuff. But I couldn't let Neko's post ride.

Quote:

you seem to believe everything you READ and I take experience as a factor.




No I don't believe everything I read. I do take experiance to a be a big factor. However, when talking about historical issues (like you did regarding American solidiers not getting full transmission of Karate from Okinawans) then, unless you were there, YOU HAVE NO EXPERIANCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. They are purely conjecture, and worthless. This is a basic idea, ok? So don't lecture me on 'not having experiance and only reading', okay? If you don't want me to talk about sources, don't conjecture about history, okay?

Quote:

Now I've seen boxers in actual street fight some have done well others have got there lunch brought to them, (this is true of MAs also). I can't tell you the Golden gloves and street boxers who have challanged me and been taken into deep water and drowned.




That's good for you. But it means nothing. Hree's a little about my experiance: I worked as a bouncer. During that time I had run-ins with karate blackbelts ( I know they were for a fact). I dealt with them, either there, or in the parking lot after the bar was closed. I did just fine against everyone of them. What does this prove? NOTHING. I've also done well sparring against karateka. I haven't brought this up, because I'm not so arrogant as to think my encounters translate into some overarching truth about the effectiveness of karate as a whole.

If you think I have no realworld experiance then you are very, very wrong. So get over yourself.

Quote:

So I don't have to tell a boxer that they can't fight I know they can in their fish bowl, but take them in another dept and they are not good at it. Like anyone else.





Some boxers can fight in a variety of situations others can't. So what?

Quote:

But the boxer is bound by his experience (sorta like you, just my opinon don't take it personal) or lack of experience at other ranges




First, what 'experiance' do you think I have? I'm interested to know how you could know my experiance in anything?

Second, do you not think a karateka is bound by his experiance. Again, your points are so subjective that they mean squat.

Quote:

If I know (bc I've trained to box too) what he capable of and he thinks he knows what I can do (going by what he read or movies), who do you think has the advantage?





The better fighter will have the advantage.

Quote:

Seeing is believing and other then that its his story.





Wrong. Personal experiance always effects the way we see things. Therefore, a single person's experiane, though relevent to them, shouldn't be objective enough to convince another person of much of anything, especially historical events. There is a difference between a 'story' and an educated guess based on availible data. If you don't get that, I suggest you go and read a book about critical thinking.

Quote:

I've seen Karate in the 60s-70s it was quite different then now, and we have better athletics nowdays but intent and training purpose was totally different.




Yes, and that is one of my points. Tell me Neko, why do you think karate has changed so drastically from the 60's and 70's? What about the training changed? Where do you think that influence came from?

Quote:

Boxers spar and they train to spar, this can be used to fight, bc condition and sharp reflexes.

A serious Karate person trains to fight, they spar to sharpen their fight spirit and techniques and bc of this it can be used to fight.





What nonsense! Boxers train to fight, too. I posted two videos of boxers fighting in a real world scenerio. Had I only posted one it would be enough to disprove your overly general claim.

Also, the claim could be made the majority of karateka only practice to fight against other karateka. Certainly, in terms of the bunkai, this is a relevent point.

Quote:

Besides whats you have read and you did read it correctly what have you experience to guide your well debated decision?





Some training in karate and my experiance sparring and fighting karateka is one aspect that guides my views.

Quote:

Jkogas, Stromdragon give Ames some support from your EXPERIENCE is what I like a Jkgas not only from what he has read.




This statement makes little sense. But I'll try to puzzle it out. Again, you seem to think I have no experiance. Again, you are mistaken.

--Chris
Posted by: Christy

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/20/08 08:56 PM

Lots of fighting here.

The answere to the question is rather simple: Boxers. Striking is what they do.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/21/08 10:43 AM

Ames wrote - Yes, and that is one of my points. Tell me Neko, why do you think karate has changed so drastically from the 60's and 70's? What about the training changed? Where do you think that influence came from?

456 - Why do I think that Karate has changed??? We'll now where do I start now we play Karate and we wear foam rubber gloves and purpose is to score points and bring home trophies almost like a boxer or train for fittness the main concern is not self defense. Though we have better athlets now that can do flashier techniques at lower levels the purpose has changed. When I was training and before Karate training was done BAREFISTED the techniqes taught were serious very few times did you leave the dojo without blood drawing, often competitors pee'd blood the next day after a kidney strike. Defense and Combinations were trained and taught differently I often saw KOs or Claws to the face in tournament I myself was struck in thorat (with a fore knucle strike) thats how I know it works and I've been using it ever since (not in tourneys on the street).
And that was just sparring when techniques were taught it was 1st for street applictaions then you learn what not to do in tourneys. Instep and lower body attacks were taught, getting to someone back to strike was taught not jump in back touch. Man I can go on for days on how things are different, but I won't.

You think its bragging to state you have experience at something. A word of truth it ain't bragging if its true. And if you are lying so what a lie won't help u in a fight, it ain't hurting nobody but you. Any way I use to bounce also at night clubs, work security at apartment complexs, done a little bodyguard work, fought in dojo envisions, worked as a policeman all in the worst part of town. Been shot at and shot back at. I've been in (as a kid) traif fights and race fights been told I was gonna die more times then I can count. I don't mind sharing my experience you can believe it or not. Alot people think they can box in my neighborhood it was thought as a way out but few really made it big time. All that to say I know boxing and I know fighting they are two different things. Just like you can use wrestling in a fight it doesn't prepare you for fighting at the different ranges. That's all I'm saying not that you cna't add to wrestling or boxing but as they are taught they lack dept. (I use to wrestle High school and college) continuing to share.

As for having soliders tell me how they use to trained is one thing but when they show you it becomes real. I'm not one that believes everything I see. Like I said after seeing this little guy out box a bigger buddy, I thought if I got close I could take him. He whipped my boxing a$4 so fast that I didn't know what happened, and then kicked me in face while I was trying to get up. I never seen that in boxing I was use to the mount and pound I was planning on doing that to him, BUT a shoe don't taste good.

Anyway boxing good stuff but its just the begin and nowhere close to the end, niether is Karate that why after 30 years I'm still learning. But I do know what works best for Me.

Besides you being able to fend off drunk Karate guys did you use boxing? I asked because when I bounced and work as a peace officer I use detention/come alongs techniques after slowing them down with sweeps or strikes. Did your boxing help you handcuff or detain these ruffins??

I'm glad you found my post irresitable to let ride.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/21/08 12:46 PM

Neko :
Quote:
Besides you being able to fend off drunk Karate guys did you use boxing? I asked because when I bounced and work as a peace officer I use detention/come alongs techniques after slowing them down with sweeps or strikes. Did your boxing help you handcuff or detain these ruffins??


First, they weren't all drunk. Some were, though.

Next: no when I was actually in the bar, I generally would use my aikijujutsu training with boxing footwork (if that makes sense) to lock them up and drag them out, or throw them so we could grab the guy and drag him. At all times I've fought out of a modified boxing stance.

This goes to Kimo's point as well (regarding not putting a guard up in a real fight). Actually, I've found just the opposite. Whenever I am suprised I usually immediatly throw up my guard/strike. Remember too that boxing doesn't only have a high guard. They also have a low guard and that video that was posted, to me, just looks like someone striking from a low guard. I looked it up and, from what I can see, neither of those guys have karate training. Both have trained boxing.

In several extended (more than one punch) fights that I've seen, both in person and on video, someone will put up a guard at some point--it just makes sense to protect your head.

--Chris
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/21/08 01:03 PM

Ok you have Aikijujit training along with your boxing that makes you legit, see what you mean most ranges are covered. But you should see the gap that was left if you didn't have the street inflience training. Anyway I beg your pardon on lack of experience issuse but you ain't no normal Boxer.

No problem good discussion from your point of view but like you, your success won't change mines. Thats what life is about differences and points of views. Lets hear more.

Thats one thing we agree on guards/fence/stance are and can be important in a fight. The less solid contact is made to the head or body the best. Foot works helps but better safe then black eyed or broken nosed. Hell it could happen guards up anyway but don't give it away.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/21/08 03:37 PM

Neko : You said:
Quote:

No problem good discussion from your point of view but like you, your success won't change mines. Thats what life is about differences and points of views.




Fair enough. I didn't (and don't) expect it to. I just wanted to remind you that everyone has different experiances, and that's why we need to step outside our own experiance sometimes in order to see the larger picture.

Shonuff:

Quote:

Why do you need to judge an art at all? Judge a class that you are thinking of training in but leave generalisations at the door.





I agree tha generalisations can only go so far. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, and I have met karateka that certainly have my respect for their functional fighting abilities.

The reason why I have to "judge an art" is because that was the thread topic. I most likely would have said nothing to begin with, had I not seen a gross misunderstanding of boxing, its principles, and the quality of its fighting ability outside the ring. In order to make case for anything, we can really only speak to the general state of things. If we were to disscuss every exception, then it would be impossible to clarify any topic, ever. I've made it clear several times, that there are exceptions out there. However, as many have said, there is no denying that my comments on the current state of karate is accurate for the majority of dojo's. There are, and always will be exceptions. But the majority of dojo's are representitive of karate, I'm sorry to say. Just like the majority of contemporary boxing practice is representive of boxing as a whole. Let me remind you once again, that there are many exceptions for boxing, and many gyms that practice are more inclusive, well rounded fighting art (like the Crazy Monkey gyms for example). And in manny ways, I feel at least, that these gyms are really just going back to boxing's roots. But they don't speak for the majority of gyms.

Quote:

Remember the thing I wrote about putting the various strategies and techniques from different parts of the art together.

If you take the all of the purely percussive elements, those parts that deal only with punching and associated strategy you will find enough boxing that the differences between the boxer and the "stripped down" karate fighter are nearly negligible. Yes there are technical details and perhaps even some strategic details which are not going to be present in the karateka's arsenal, but to me this is a triviality more than anything else.

The reason that the strategies are so spread out is simply that Karate evolved very differently and using different rules as it's guide.




There's really very little for me to disagree with here.

However, I'd like to point out that this is precisely why karate does not contain all of boxing.

The "stripped down karate fighter" who is training like boxer, punching like a boxer and then fighting in a boxing rule set, is, for all intents and purposes, a boxer. Now this isn't me trying to lower this disscussions to mere semantics. What I'm saying is that this is boxing, and the day a karateka starts only training boxing techniques, training like a boxer, fighting in a boxing match, he is boxing.

However, as you say youself, karate has evolved diffirently, it has diffirent aims. Generally speaking, there is no reason for a karateka to train like boxer, or only practice boxing techniques. If he doesn't ever train like boxer, use techniques and footwork like a boxer, in isolation like a boxer, then he never really practices boxing. That's why boxing isn't really in karate--only techniques that look similar. This is not a value judgement. It's just seems like the most logical way of looking at it.

Karate does its own thing, same for boxing. Can we let it rest there?

Quote:

Some of the best Karateka I have trained with are on Youtube. Not one of them displays anything more than the most basic traditional elements or tournament sparring, and yet they know so much more. Your arguments are mostly good, well constructed arguments, but unless you get out there and train with people and do the work yourself you won't see where I'm coming from.





I can only repeat to you that I have done just that. I do see where you are coming from. I just don't agree with everything you say. Call me Thomas, but I just need to see some evidence of the kind of karate you are speaking of. It's not that I disbelieve that you or your dojo may train the way you say, it's just that I don't think it is representatiol for karate. But then again, as you say, you made it clear that you were only speaking from your experiance, which is fine.

Again, just like you and others are only speaking to of the majority of boxing gyms and leaving out the exceptions, so can I only do the same for karate. That doesn't etch my points in stone as the only 'truth' of karate, but neither does the minority of exceptional dojos invalidate my statements regarding the general state of karate.

Quote:

And yet you accepted that the surface of the art is not the whole art, and also that there is a developmental process involved in moving from performance of the movements of karate to actually fighting that has the surface structure discarded.
If you can accept these two points then you must be able to see that no movement you ever see in a kata will look like anything other than kata.





I accept that the actual functional technique can look very diffirent than what the kata shows, if that's what your getting at here.

My issue is why if, as you say, "Karate evolved very differently and using different rules as it's guide" would boxing be 'inserted' originally into the kata? Which is why I believe that,if you are throwing a boxing jab (not a karate 'jab'--and they are diffirent), that somewhere down the road some boxing influence has crept in.

The fact that the hand techniques of boxing are becoming so prevalent in some karate speaks, in my mind, to their effectiveness.

Quote:

You may not like the idea but this is karate. A great many karateka have decided exactly this and come up with all sorts of rubbish as kata applications. And yet this is a fundamental part of karate. Explaining this to any real depth is a whole 'nother thread, but what I will say is that there are many sides to this discussion. Personally I fall on the side of strictly limiting interpretations into systematic fighting styles derived from individual or groups of kata. Then once that level is attained further study lets you take the movements wherever they will go. Victor describes it as training potential releases of energy, or something similar.





That's fine. I haven't gone far enough in kata to disagree with you and others about what kata 'is'. If it appeared like I was, then I must have not phrased my argument correctly. For that I apologize. Certainly I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can speak to the intricacy of kata extraction like someone with a decade or more in the art could. Thanks for clarifying it's role.

But I still think (like my above statments) that if someone 'finds' boxing in the kata, then they are 'reading' the kata with a pre-knowledge of boxing.

To be honest, this is something I might be worried about, if I cared about authentic transmission of the art. Because this could certainly lead to forgetting what the kata initially taught. Your method of first acheiving knowledge of the original intent before branching off, seems to be a good way to prevent this, though.

I still think that kata though did not have boxing originally inserted into it. But anyone is free to read it as they want.

Quote:

You want evidence for things.




I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not looking for evidence that kata can be read like this. I'm looking for evidence that two or three hundred years ago the Chinese, and hundred and fifty or so years ago for the Okinawans, a full boxing curruculum was inserted into the kata. I don't think it was.

Quote:

My point about karate containing boxing was on a strategic not mechanical level, although again I see little of significance in the differences.





I beg to differ, and say that you can't isolate technique from strategy like that. Technique is the manifestation of the principles of an art. The principles and strategy of karate are very diffirent than boxing. Many other karateka on this very thread have shown how diffirent those strategies are. The fact that a kick enters into the equation, alone, will alter the strategy.

Quote:

However, I stated earlier that I agree training can Identify an art, but not define it.

To me what you describe in your example is identifying Goju. To define goju by those practices you limit goju to just those practices IMO. Goju is those things, but it can also be much more.





Goju can certainly be more, but it also must be those things. That's why I say they define it. Without those key components, you would have a hard time defining it as Goju and not something else. But I actually don't think we see this point very diffrently, and there is no need (from my perspective) to get caught up in the difference between 'identify' and 'define'.

Quote:

what I have read leads me to believe that there was much fighting practice of Karate but only at higher levels than any Japanese reached in Funakoshi's time, and most of the other things that you don't think were present in original Okinawan training were from what I have gathered, very much present in one form or another.




Did karate have its own kind of sparring? Yes. Was it free sparring to knockdown? I'll need to see some evidence there before I change my views. Here is the evidence to support my claim.

1. In Higaonna's book about the history of Goju, he meantions that Miyagi attempted to insert free sparring into the Goju curriculum. The fact that he even had to do this pretty much proves that this kind of sparring was not taught by his teacher, Kanryo Higashionna. Miyagi felt that too many students injured themselves, and he removed from the curriculum. To this day, To'on Ryu does not spar.

Shorin Ryu seems to have practiced only point sparring for the most part, and this is still seen in dojos today.

We have already seen video of Uechi Ryu coming up with sparring methods in the 40's. That pretty much proves it wasn't there before.

So we can be pretty sure that the three major schools of Okinawan karate did not practice free (knockdown) sparring.

As for the other "things". I'm not a hundred percent what you are refering to here (probably due to your rush to finish, and, hey, who could blame you, when the lady calls, best to answer). But if you are talking about heavy bags, gloves, focus pads, etc. Well I'd need to see the evidence of that. Medaulent has said the same, and I'm still waiting for the proof that these things were there before boxing's influence. It's possible, but it directly contradicts what I have read.

The main thing is the sparring anyway.

--Chris
Posted by: Mr_Moogle

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/22/08 09:29 AM

Ames: "1. In Higaonna's book about the history of Goju, he meantions that Miyagi attempted to insert free sparring into the Goju curriculum. The fact that he even had to do this pretty much proves that this kind of sparring was not taught by his teacher, Kanryo Higashionna. Miyagi felt that too many students injured themselves, and he removed from the curriculum."

Quoting from this link, http://www.gojuryu.cz/?p=203&lang=cs

"1. What is your feeling about tournament karate & cross training in other martial arts?
EM For the past several years I have read magazine articles about tournament (Shiai) karate. Miyagi Sensei and I both predicted that in order to promote karate we must hold tournaments. I have been doing karate for over 60 years. When I began karate there was no protective gear. The protective gear will allow a student to further his kumite techniques. Miyagi Chojun also recommend hojo-undo to strengthen our bodies and all other arts and sports to improve our health. He told us that we should not just train in karate but to try other arts such as Judo and Kendo. If your body is strong from training in other arts and hojo- undo you will be able to withstand any strikes or kicks to your body. In the same respect you will be able to stop an attacker with one punch or kick."

This entire interview may be controversial among IOGKF members. There is a possibility that Morio Higaonna's book may not necessarily be entirely correct.

This quote suggests that Miyagi's class did in fact have sparring for a good amount of time and remained that way. If not, at the very least it was highly recommended for an addition if it ever became safer. So yes, karate (referring to goju) did have its own sparring and yes, it was most probably free.

From this website, http://www.karyimskaratedo.com/aboutgoju.htm

There is a quote stating:
"Higashionna's sparring was described as 'light with extraordinary footwork and low, fast kicks."

Also take into account that crime rate in Okinawa and globally in general was higher in the past, and streetfighting/self defense was needed in larger quantities. Also the events of Tegumi would've also covered some sparring prospects.

Now as for the "other" things, according to http://www.thepunchingbags.com/ they state the following:
"Since the beginning of written military history punching bags have been used for training in the martial arts. Other than punching bags – Asian martial arts used other padded training equipment like punching bags called the Chinese mook jong and the Okinawan makiwara."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punching_bag also mentions something similar:
"Punching bags have been used in martial arts and swordplay for as long as there has been a written history of military training.[1] Similar apparatus in Asian martial arts include the Okinawan makiwara and the Chinese mook jong, which may have padded striking surfaces attached to them."

The heavy bag has been in existence since there has been written history of military training. Karate did have a lot of influence from China, as well as its own military history.

So earlier forms of padded training equipment, and more specifically the heavy bag was used. There should be anecdotal evidence among karateka here and their own information. I mean, even in kung fu and karate movies (with an "old day" storyline) as well, they show earlier forms of the heavy bag.

So chances are, at the very least the heavy bag (if you do not consider focus mitts, kicking shields and impact pads as a "child" or "successor" of some kind to the makiwara pads and mook jong) was a part of the Chinese and okinawan arts outside of boxing influence.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/22/08 04:30 PM

Quote:

This quote suggests that Miyagi's class did in fact have sparring for a good amount of time and remained that way. If not, at the very least it was highly recommended for an addition if it ever became safer. So yes, karate (referring to goju) did have its own sparring and yes, it was most probably free.





I don't get that at all from the quote you posted, nor from the interview you linked to. I've read that interview before, and read IOGKF's reply to it. I'm not interested in the politics, though, so I won't even touch that.

The simple fact is that the Jundokan under Miyazato did not practice Jiyu Waza, although some dojo's linked to the orgainization did/do. Based on that, it would be rather strange for Miyazato to suggest that there is historical precedent for something they do not do.

In the quote you post I see only that Miyazato suggesting that there was not adquetate protective gear to engage in free sparring at the time. I'm aware that Miyagi encouraged his students to crosstrain in Kendo and Judo, largely because they are arts where full contact with less chance of injury remains possible.

I don't see anything here that contradicts Higaonna's statment that free sparring was practiced, but do to injuries, the practice was stopped. Neither do I see Miyazato directly state that Jiyu Waza was a major part of the Goju curriculum. Again, it wouldn't make sense for him to say this, because the Jundokan didn't practice it.

So, I don't really see how you are coming up with the thesis that:

Quote:

yes, karate (referring to goju) did have its own sparring and yes, it was most probably free .





I agree with the first part. That karate had it's own sparring methods there can be no doubt. But I see no reason, and no evidence in any of the article you linked to, to suggest that Higaonna's statement was not factual. The fact is, is that what Miyazato DOES say is that:

Quote:

When I began karate there was no protective gear. The protective gear will allow a student to further his kumite techniques.




This seems to imply that Miyazato feels that at one time full contact free sparring was simply not possible, given the lack of proper protective equipment.

Quote:

There is a quote stating:
"Higashionna's sparring was described as 'light with extraordinary footwork and low, fast kicks."





Again, I see nothing, either in that quote, or the page you have linked to, to suggest that this was free/knockdown sparring. As a matter of fact, the quote specifically says it was "light" sparring. Certainly this, too, is not enough evidence to prove that Higaonna was wrong in his statements.

Quote:

Also take into account that crime rate in Okinawa and globally in general was higher in the past, and streetfighting/self defense was needed in larger quantities.




That's true (that the crime rate was higher). But medical care in Okinawa at this time was almost nonexistent. One would be taking a major risk by practicing free sparring without protective equipment.

In Europe at this time, most likely the only reason why boxers sparred/ fought full contact was because they were prize fights, and they were getting paid to fight in this way. If it wasn't for the money, the physical risk just wouldn't be worth it.

Again, I don't really see a reason as to why full contact practice would have naturally evolved under the conditions you speak of.

Quote:

Also the events of Tegumi would've also covered some sparring prospects.





Tegumi was native Okinaway grappling/wrestling. Yes, prationers of Tegumi would have been involved in free grappling. We can say from the evidence availible that there was no striking during these matches.

Further, equating Tegumi free grappling with Karate is tenuous at best. Yes, Tegumi had an impact on the kata (most likely), but that is largely irrelevent to the percussive elements of karate (what this thread is about).

Many samurai in pre-Meiji Japan practiced Sumo. Yet their jujutsu was (mostly) not taught or practiced by free sparring methods. This is roughly analagous to the situation of Tegumi and Karate.

Quote:

Now as for the "other" things, according to http://www.thepunchingbags.com/ they state the following:
"Since the beginning of written military history punching bags have been used for training in the martial arts. Other than punching bags – Asian martial arts used other padded training equipment like punching bags called the Chinese mook jong and the Okinawan makiwara."





Again, you'll need to provide a more relevent source. I see nothing here that says that Okinawan Karate tradionally practiced with heavy bags. I am aware that they used makiwara. Makiwara and a boxing heavy bag are two diffirent objects, used for two diffirent purposes. The quote you used makes no mention of Okinawan Karate using heavy bags.

Perhaps you did not read my post (and the one that started this discussion on equipment). But in it, I referenced Iaian Aberthey, who said:

Quote:

I would class myself as a "traditional karateka," and yet as a regular part of my training I hit a punch bag, jump rope and spar using boxing gloves - as I'm sure many of those reading this article do also. The western art of boxing has had a huge influence on all the martial arts.




That was the context of my statment regarding heavy bags. Not whether or not Okinawans had their own striking objects or not. It is irrelevent to my main concern; that being boxing has had a large influence on Karate practice, and, as evidence of this, we need look no further than the heavy bag that hangs in most tradional dojo, and isn't given a second thought.

Quote:

Punching bags have been used in martial arts and swordplay for as long as there has been a written history of military training.[1] Similar apparatus in Asian martial arts include the Okinawan makiwara and the Chinese mook jong, which may have padded striking surfaces attached to them."





Again, I see nothing there that suggests that Okinawan's used a heavy bag before a boxing influence. Both the makiwara, and the mook jung are only similar in that they objects that the trainee is meant to hit. They are diffirent devices, and provide diffirent skill devolpment. If this were not true, then why would karate dojo even bother with a heavy bag if a makiwara is present? A makiwara and heavy are about as similar as a heavy bag and speed bag. Not very.

One can easily see that these devices are each used to develop diffirent skill sets:

Heavy bag:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYwGAlmPJMU
Maikwara:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YCMS1bkIwg
Mook Jung:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjqL9MdLj0k

Quote:

The heavy bag has been in existence since there has been written history of military training. Karate did have a lot of influence from China, as well as its own military history.





You have yet to provide evidence that Chinese fighters did use a heavy bag. Further, if they did, there is still zero evidence that Okinawans used them. Chinese fighters engaged in many practices which are not present in Okinawan Karate.

Quote:

So earlier forms of padded training equipment, and more specifically the heavy bag was used.




Yes, the heavy bag was used in Western martial arts. You have yet to show that the heavy bag was used in Okinawa.

Quote:

There should be anecdotal evidence among karateka here and their own information.




I doubt there are many karateka here who practiced pre WWII, on Okinawa.

Quote:

I mean, even in kung fu and karate movies (with an "old day" storyline) as well, they show earlier forms of the heavy bag.





And that's precisely why you shouldn't use a historical movie to validate any historical claim. They are often wrong, or presenting poor information. For example, many of the 'kung fu' fighters in those movies are actually practising hapkido. They are from accurate representations of anything.

Quote:

So chances are, at the very least the heavy bag (if you do not consider focus mitts, kicking shields and impact pads as a "child" or "successor" of some kind to the makiwara pads and mook jong) was a part of the Chinese and okinawan arts outside of boxing influence.




No, not at all. You'll have to actually provide some evidence of a heavy bag being used in Okinawa prior to a time when boxing influence may have been felt before we could say this. So far, I see none.

Please note the reference provided for the statement "Punching bags have been used in martial arts and swordplay for as long as there has been a written history of military training," comes from a book about boxing, not Chinese martial arts.

--Chris
Posted by: Mr_Moogle

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/22/08 10:52 PM

The question states: "Who has the best STRIKES Karate or Boxing?"

The keyword here is strikes, i.e. striking techniques.

Footwork isn't/aren't strikes.
Shadow boxing isn't/aren't strikes.
Training methods isn't/aren't strikes.

If you want to discuss footwork and so on and relate it back to strikes, the question most appropriate would be something like: "Who has the best APPROACH or STYLE to/for striking?" Then you can add in factors such as footwork, training methods, sparring, supplementary training, etc.

However from the original question: "Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing?" we must look at the keyword, i.e. strikes. Just plain striking techniques.

In this case, versatility of strikes and the form of these strikes (not usage, as that is approach/style) are the main factors to compare.

Therefore, I believe Karate has the best strikes due to their sheer versatility, and that some of the strikes in Karate do overlap with Boxing (and yes, in this way, Kung Fu would have better strikes than Karate).

If you want a fair comparison, simply get a Karate practitioner who trains, spars and develops like a Boxer, only that the striking techniques are from a Karate curriculum, then chances are the Karate practitioner would have the better strikes.
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/22/08 11:56 PM

On the equipment debate, it should be noted that funakoshi writes in karatedo kyohan, that any affordable striking target could be used and makiwara are only recommended because of the availability of the materials.

There is no magic or behind the use of either makiwara (of which there are hanging varieties) or heavy bags, and while I'm sure modern companies may put work into the design of their bags, the aim behind them was just to have something to hit. In that respect there is no difference in the choice of tool being used as the important fact is that there was a tool being used.
That the heavy bag is used differently speaks to the style of fighting that developed around it, i,e, boxing.

For the most part Ames we agree, but boxing really isn't the progenitor of all things logical in MA. A leaf out of your book. It only makes sense for there to have been free sparring in karate originally as karate is a fighting art and you can't learn fighting without fighting. In an interview Hohan Soken noted that karate training was risky in the old days because a broken leg or arm could cost someone their livelyhood, implying that such things could occur from karate practice. I've never known someone to break a leg doing a kata.

Also no one mentioned knockdown sparring, don't go moving the goal posts. knockdown sparring without gloves is a fight. Since karateka of old belived their strikes could kill it is highly unlikely they engaged in full contact matches for training.

If karate did not spar on Okinawa it most certainly did on Japan, and there is no reason to believe that boxing played any part. Far more likely youthful exuberance and testosterone, perhaps even Judo, but not likely boxing.
Posted by: CVV

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/23/08 08:17 AM

As for goju and sparring. Miyagi described in his gaisetsu that karate training consists out off: warm-up, basic kata training (sanchin/naifanchin/tensho), supplementary training (breathing exercises, weight lifting okinawan style, stretching), classical kata, kumite renshu (putting in practice of kata technique, sparring drills). There is no mention of free sparring. Morio Higaonna talks about his experiment around 1934-1935 and alo Eiichi Miyazato has made reference to it but they also mention he stopped it because of too many injuries. Gogen Yamaguchi was the first to incorporate it as a karate training exercise and he called it jiyu kumite. It would eventually lead to the first competition formats at universities in the 1940ies and 1950ies. Due to the tactics of goju, trying to drop, throw, disbalance in short range fighting, the goju-fighters were top at these contests at that time. The format later changed to ippon kumite of the JKA where most of these tactics were abandoned.
For as far as I know, the term iri kumi was not known before 1986.

But there are also testimonies about private fighting practice where senior students would engage in free form of fighting, with various levels of contact. And there was always Naha-city where there was no problem picking a fight.
But these practices were not common to most karate practitioners.

As for heavy bag training or makiwara etc..;. The Chinese and Okinawans use any tool available. Bags with sand were used in the old days to hit in combinations. Even nowadays they kick and hit tires, use inner tires to build strength in pulling exercises. Hit or kick poles hanging on ropes etc... They use whats around. Nowadays heavy bag is incorporated by some as training tool. We do not use it regulary, I rather have students use holding big pads to work combinations while moving.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/23/08 01:29 PM

Quote:

However from the original question: "Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing?" we must look at the keyword, i.e. strikes. Just plain striking techniques.





You'll have to define what you mean precisely by "Just plain striking techniques."

Because it seems that you are suggesting that we need to isolate the actual technique away from its intended use. The question clearly asks who has the 'better' strikes, not who has 'more' of them. 'Better' implies more of an ability to actually use the strikes for their intended purpose. The very definition of striking states:
Quote:

to aim and usually deliver a blow , stroke, or thrust (as with the hand, a weapon, or a tool)




Quote:

If you want to discuss footwork and so on and relate it back to strikes, the question most appropriate would be something like: "Who has the best APPROACH or STYLE to/for striking?" Then you can add in factors such as footwork, training methods, sparring, supplementary training, etc.





I disagree. The original poster qualified his question, and made it clear that he wasn't only talking about amount of strikes. Going back to that original post, it is clear that he is indeed talking about who has the ability to best deliver the strike to the target (which, after all, is the purpose of striking to begin with). So, it is really quite clear that we have to look at striking inclusive of the training method that each style uses. It is through the training method and sparring that we can best ascertain who actually has the ability to perform 'striking'; not as a abstract gesture of hitting air, or a myriad of hypothetical techniques, but rather as 'who has the best ability to strike', i.e. who can actually perform the strikes best in the way intended.

Quote:

In this case, versatility of strikes and the form of these strikes (not usage, as that is approach/style) are the main factors to compare.




To suggest that the question would best be answered by strikes being abstracted from their purpose, is faulty. As I've said before, the best method of striking is the one that teaches the student to deliver the most amount of strikes the most amount of times to the intended target.

Reducing strikes to abstract 'versitility', gets us no closer to answering the original question.

Again, a strike is (see definition) is not the abstract movement of the arm, leg, etc., but the actual delivering of blows. So, the "main factors to compare" is not mere versitility, but the ability to actually pragmatically use this perceived versitility.

Quote:


If you want a fair comparison, simply get a Karate practitioner who trains, spars and develops like a Boxer, only that the striking techniques are from a Karate curriculum, then chances are the Karate practitioner would have the better strikes.




But then you are only arbitraily calling it 'karate' aren't you? The art you speak of has just as much boxing as karate in it. As a matter of fact, something like what you suggest has already been done, and the art which resulted is called kickBOXING.

Shonuff:
Quote:

On the equipment debate, it should be noted that funakoshi writes in karatedo kyohan, that any affordable striking target could be used and makiwara are only recommended because of the availability of the materials.

There is no magic or behind the use of either makiwara (of which there are hanging varieties) or heavy bags, and while [...]the aim behind them was just to have something to hit.






As I've said, I agree that karate uses it's own objects to practice striking. But, as I've said, there is a definite difference in the intended learning outcome between, say, a makiwara and a heavy bag, just as there is difference in the hoped for learning outcome of the boxers heavy bag training and his speed bag practice. Each 'striking object' gives way to a different manner of practice, and thus a different skill set developed.

Quote:

For the most part Ames we agree, but boxing really isn't the progenitor of all things logical in MA




I certainly agree with you. Indeed the modern ruleset of boxing has made some aspects illogical for the purpose of self defence; the rules regarding the clinch being an example.

Quote:

It only makes sense for there to have been free sparring in karate originally as karate is a fighting art and you can't learn fighting without fighting




I agree very much with the last part of this statement ("you can't learn fighting without fighting"). But I don't think that it "only makes sense for there to have been free sparring" in karate. The evidence for this assumption just isn't there. Given the time period, it makes a lot more sense for there NOT to be sparring, due to the inavailibility of medical services and protective gear. If you look at mainland Japan, you'll see a similar situation with Koryu jujutsu: an art intended for real combat, but, largely for the reasons I've stated, didn't spar.

Quote:

In an interview Hohan Soken noted that karate training was risky in the old days because a broken leg or arm could cost someone their livelyhood, implying that such things could occur from karate practice. I've never known someone to break a leg doing a kata.





This is interesting, and does certainly imply that there was more than just kata going on, of which I am certain. But, again, I see no evidence that it was free sparring being practiced. I'm sure injuries did happen, but that doesn't necessarily mean that free sparring was involved. As an example, I've seen people sustain pretty major injury during compliant Aikido practice.

Quote:

Also no one mentioned knockdown sparring, don't go moving the goal posts.




I did. If you look back at my prior posts I made it clear that this is the only type of sparring I was talking about, as this is the type of sparring that is practiced in boxing.

Quote:

knockdown sparring without gloves is a fight.




Definately! That's why I doubt that it was practiced on Okinawa before proper gear could be had. Again, I feel that the only reason this type of sparring was practiced in boxing before decent gear became availible, was due to the monetary gain possible in such practice. That was really the only reason to risk the major, often fatal, injuries that could occur.

Quote:

Since karateka of old belived their strikes could kill it is highly unlikely they engaged in full contact matches for training.





Exactly!

As I've said, that karate had its own sparring methods, there can be no doubt...but as to that being full contact free sparring, I'm doubtful, mostly for the reasons you gave. If you look back at my posts, you'll see that that is precisely all I have been saying.

Quote:

If karate did not spar on Okinawa it most certainly did on Japan, and there is no reason to believe that boxing played any part.




Well, now we really aren't talking about tradional karate. Which is fine of course, but remember that this was all I was initially speaking to in my early posts on this thread.

Also, Ohtsuka, an early Shotokan practioner, and one of the pioneers of the free sparring, was influenced partially by boxing.

Quote:

Far more likely youthful exuberance and testosterone, perhaps even Judo, but not likely boxing.





I agree that Judo and Kendo most likely had a significantly larger effect on the kumite methods that were developed for Japanese karate, which is one of the reasons that it is so diffirent.

Do keep in mind though, that in a roundabout way a Western influence can still be established. The pedagogy of Judo was developed with a strong Western combat sport influence, and this influece was felt on most subsequent modern Japanese arts. This pedagogy was the major change Kano made to tradional Japanese arts.

--Chris
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/25/08 06:40 AM

Gradually as common ground is found the posts get shorter.

Quote:

'Better' implies more of an ability to actually use the strikes for their intended purpose.




No, because this can only ever be down to the fighter. You cannot logically claim an art is better at using strikes as it is not a conscious being. I can quite accept that in general boxing produces a lot more people who are comfortable fighting for real than karate (even though I say this I realise it is anecdotal and may not be true), and that this is due to the training methods. But as I said, training methods change and vary from place to place and so cannot be used as any kind of accurate judge of an art.

Even if we agree that karate's best training methods were stolen from boxing, that still doesn't answer the question who has the better strikes, all it means is we are able to consider the striking techniques on a more even playing field as both are being trained in the same way (think scientific method, eliminating variables for a true comparison..).

Example: who has better kicks, Taekwondo school A who train for show, or B who train for fighting? IMO their kicks are the same, B has more combative (so better for this dicsussion) training, but their techniques are the same. I wouldn't be surprised if the extra athleticism, speed and flexibility of school A's students had them winning half the fights against school B in a knockdown match. The fight is down to the fighter.

Quote:


Do keep in mind though, that in a roundabout way a Western influence can still be established. The pedagogy of Judo was developed with a strong Western combat sport influence, and this influece was felt on most subsequent modern Japanese arts. This pedagogy was the major change Kano made to tradional Japanese arts.




Interesting. I don't know a whole lot about Judo's origins, but nothing I've read suggests this. What influences are you talking about and how did they affect Kano's developments? What's your source?
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/25/08 10:17 AM

Quote:

If its whatever works then it has no formal style and cannot be considered a style since it uses, "anything that works" this is excuse for trying to say Karate doesn't suck by saying things like no thats just for training, we dont do it that way, then why the hell train like that?

Chambering punches is done in most Karate classes, I used to attend one. Its a pointless way of training if you dont fight that way, thats why boxing is alot better for punches.

If you fail to define what Karate actually is then this argument is completely pointless. If you look at karate as unrestricted then you could put boxing techniques in there and still call it Karate.
This thread is pointless and completely stupid.




Gotta say, easily one of the worst, most mis informed posts I've seen in a long time.

Your comments betray your ignorance of Karate, how it is trained and how it's applied.

Do yourself a favor and stop now.

Dan has taken the time, and decades of training and study, posted numerous articles and videos on different aspects of Karate and how it is trained and applied.

Your reponse..."Karate Sucks, if they don't chamber when they punch then it's not Karate, I know I have taken a few classes."

You have a nickel brain and a five dollars attitude.

I love your "that's why Boxing has better punches"....really that's the reason? How? Why? Because Boxing doesn't chamber? They Chamber all the time! They chamber, they load sometimes they spin their arm like popeye!

Maybe that's why they have better punches, they always eat their spinich....that's must be the secret.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/25/08 01:43 PM

Quote:

Quote:

'Better' implies more of an ability to actually use the strikes for their intended purpose.





No, because this can only ever be down to the fighter. You cannot logically claim an art is better at using strikes as it is not a conscious being.





Actually in this case I was speaking to Mr.Moyer's ascertion that the original question had nothing to with training methods, sparring etc. My point was that saying 'better striking' is different than 'more striking techniques'. In other words, in order to even begin to answer the question we have to look at strike in thier totality, not just air punching, or hypothetical strikes that are never 'proven' in setting which approximates actual street combat.

Quote:

You cannot logically claim an art is better at using strikes as it is not a conscious being.




I am in full agreement that a lot of it comes down to the practioner on many levels (will, dicipline, understanding of the art, etc.). But what I've been trying to do is deal with those things that aren't as subjective.

Quote:

I can quite accept that in general boxing produces a lot more people who are comfortable fighting for real than karate (even though I say this I realise it is anecdotal and may not be true), and that this is due to the training methods.




This has been my argument from the beginning. The reason why I think boxing, on average, produces better strikers is due to the training methods. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with karate, only something wrong with the way so many dojo's train it. Karate can be a highly functional art, but it must be trained towards that goal.

Quote:

Even if we agree that karate's best training methods were stolen from boxing, that still doesn't answer the question who has the better strikes, all it means is we are able to consider the striking techniques on a more even playing field as both are being trained in the same way (think scientific method, eliminating variables for a true comparison..).





Again, as I've said, if karate is trained toward functional skill (think Ashihara), then the kind of karate would be, on average, the better striking system because it has more possibilities. The key to this, however, is that the training in the other 'weapons' is functional, alive training.

Quote:

Example: who has better kicks, Taekwondo school A who train for show, or B who train for fighting? IMO their kicks are the same, B has more combative (so better for this dicsussion) training, but their techniques are the same. I wouldn't be surprised if the extra athleticism, speed and flexibility of school A's students had them winning half the fights against school B in a knockdown match. The fight is down to the fighter.





Personally, I don't think so. Often once these people who train for 'show' actually get hit hard for the first time, they tend to 'seize up'.

Quote:

Interesting. I don't know a whole lot about Judo's origins, but nothing I've read suggests this. What influences are you talking about and how did they affect Kano's developments? What's your source?




I've read this in a variety of different places, I recall Draeger writing about it, and reading about it in Journal of Asian Martial Arts (sadly, I lost them all during a move). Here is an okay article on the subject:

http://www.bstkd.com/JudoHistory/HistorySix.htm
And some quotes from that article:

"The goal of education, in general, was different under Western concepts than it had been under the Shogun. Under the Shogun, education was a method of control and indoctrination; rather to prevent than to promote discovery."


"Kano, becoming an educator, saw the sport element, and knew that it suggested something far more important for martial arts, and for the people in general, than mere self-defense."

"This was a revolution because the Japanese had no concept of sport.(6) At the same time that Kano brought British sport concepts to Japan, he sought to combine these concepts with distinctly Japanese elements."

* * *

I would also like to reiterate here, that the only reason I feel that boxing is currently the better system for learning how to strike, is because of its more 'alive' training methods. This is a general statement, and certainly there are exceptions where karate is trained in just an alive manner as boxing is. However, the question was a general one, and so my answer too is general.

--Chris
Posted by: Zombie Zero

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/25/08 02:34 PM

Everyone:

This thread has gone on for a long time, and has been fairly constructive. That's why it's still here. For now.

Let's not have it devolve into petty insults or art-bashing. Thank you.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/25/08 03:12 PM

Quote:

Karate can be a highly functional art, but it must be trained towards that goal.




I think this is the point. The way I see it, boxing sticks to the basics very well. No point in complicating things when the basics work so well, then they get in the ring and fight, a lot.

Karate has said, basics are great, now lets add some layer, lets see what else we can do. Fill in empty beats of time, increase angels and weapons etc.

Both viable approaches, problem Karate has, as I see it. Is they drift away from basics as they add layers, can't do that, you must always make sure your basics are solid or nothing else will work. In other words you must have effective training methods. Seems obvious, but yet there are many out there that gloss over basics and never attain much functional skill.

Boxing does not have that problem, due to it's simplicity you never get far away from the basics, and due to it's "alive" training, if you do stray, you will be quickly reminded. That's a real strength in Boxing in general.

It's interesting Paradox for both Karate and Boxing. What makes it strong, also makes it weak.

Quote:

I wouldn't be surprised if the extra athleticism, speed and flexibility of school A's students had them winning half the fights against school B in a knockdown match.




I would think not. Having the same kick technique is one thing. Hitting a Savy fighter is another.

Athleticism and speed are great things, but if you can make them think, they slow way down and if they are not used to fighting it doesn't take much.
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/25/08 03:27 PM

Quote:

It's an interesting Paradox for both Karate and Boxing. What makes it strong, also makes it weak.





Well said, Kimo!

--Chris
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 11/25/08 06:58 PM

Quote:

Again, as I've said, if karate is trained toward functional skill (think Ashihara), then the kind of karate would be, on average, the better striking system because it has more possibilities.




Agreement at last!

Excellent debate all.
Posted by: TroTro

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 12/09/08 03:53 PM

Excellent and informative posts!

In my opinion, the debate would be less confusion if let say: compare Goju with Boxing, compare Shotokan with Boxing, etc.
Posted by: karate_dude

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 12/10/08 10:42 PM

karate, but thats my opion
Posted by: Ames

Re: Who has the best strikes Karate or Boxing? - 12/11/08 01:29 AM

Well coming from a guy named "Karate_dude" that's hardly a suprise, now is it!

Seriously though, it was a good debate everyone!

--Chris