and would you say that, by walking in to a karate school, at random, and taking their class, I would be likely, or unlikely, to be taught kata 'correctly', or would I be punching air with little discussion, or explanation as to what I am doing, other than I must do it well in order to pass my grading?
Would you say that bunkai, and/or taking the principles of the kata into live experimentation/application, was introduced from day 1 in most karate schools, or reserved for high ranks, meaning that the student doesnt immediately get a chance to understand and 'own' the art they are learning?

I am not bashing karate, I have trained in 2 styles, in different parts of Britain, and not found the training to have anything to do with the mechanics of being able to fight. That is not to say that what was taught did not have the potential to be used, just that getting the balance between theory and application wrong makes for a bad fighter. Thats the same on the other end of the spectrum - I would be as critical of a MMA gym that threw a new student in the cage for a beating from an experienced guy 'to toughen em up'. You need to learn skills and apply them. A lot of karate schools teach the skills, but not the application.

Read a book about aeronautics, jump in a plane, and you will crash. Just jump in a plane and hope for the best, you will crash.
Learn about flight dynamics, move on to a simulator, go up in a plane to be shown application and real control, be given a measured amount of supervised flight time, and you will not crash.

A lot of karate schools never let the students get away from the book.

If machida can change the way McDojo's and drill obsessed karate schools damage their own art, then great. If not, then a lot of people are going to continue thinking they are learning karate when, by machida's own standard, they are not.

i think we can say that this comment pertains to many schools out there, karate or not.

Well, if the discussion is between karate and MMA, the MMA schools do not typically have that problem, which I believe was what Cord was trying to point out.

Cord, although I'm from the UK (Glasgow) I've never done any martial arts there, so I can't comment on what karate schools are like there, but I can say that if you weren't learning how to fight, then you weren't doing shotokan, at least not properly. That's not been my experience at all, and I can say with confidence that I'm doing authentic shotokan.

Sparring ranges from controlled kihon style to full contact without padding or gloves. Full contact sparring comes in two types, first all techniques are allowed at full power, except punches to the face are expected to be controlled to avoid injury. The fight also stops when it reaches the ground. The second type of full contact sparring is specifically to train defending against full power face shots and is the only time we wear gloves. Point sparring is very uncommon and i've only seen it done once in the dojo before one guy was due to appear in a competition.

If you want to learn ground fighting then your expected to go to a judo or BJJ class. In my dojo most people are doing other arts, from boxing to BJJ to bo, and the sensei actively encourages this, and you can see some of the other styles come out in sparring, boxing being especially noticable. This has always been the case with martial arts in Japan and the idea of MMA being new thing is a bit of a myth. Most people are aware that no art is complete in itself.

I'm sorry to hear it sounds that karate teaching is a bit dodgy in the UK...I was thinking of moving back next year and hoping to find a decent karate school...anyway I can think of a few reasons why it may dodgy:

1: Money: I don't know if schools are run for profit in the UK, but my school here isn't, and of the 4 people who have joined this year, i'm the only one who has stayed the course. Obviously if a school is being run for profit this isn't good, so the training gets toned down dramatically. Having said that I'm sure there are some good profit run dojos and gyms out there, especially something like an MMA gym where potential customers will have a pretty good idea what they're getting in for.

2: Misunderstanding and overemphasis of Japanese culture: Japanophiles probably don't make for great karate teachers. Japanese people can't wait to drop all the formalities, and from what I've heard etiquite is stricter in western dojos than it is in Japanese dojos...one reason this might be is that full on Japanese etiquite only really kicks in when there's visitors...so if a western teacher is visiting he may pick up the wrong idea. Bowing is just a normal part of everyday life in Japan and I see no reason why it should be over emphasised in a different culture. It can only detract from training IMO.

3: Misunderstanding kata: The way kata are taught to us is that bunkai is secondary. Kata are for building muscle memory, training footwork, timing, balance, mental discipline etc. They are preparation for sparring. Kata are not fighting and the moves are not meant to be used in a real fight as they appear in the kata. Real fights are far too ugly for that. That is why I compared them to military drills before. For sure there are lots of techniques that can be taken from the kata bunkai, but that is not the focus.

Anyway...I'm no expert, I've only been doing Shotokan for 9 months, but I vastly prefer it to Shorinji Kempo which I did for a few years. It's definitely a step up in intensity, and no question I feel like I'm learning how to fight, and despite being a filthy hippy, I've actually come to enjoy fighting.

I guess my point is that proper Shotokan should be about learning how to fight effectively. If that is not achieved then it isn't authentic Shotokan....repeat 10 times...if it doesn't have proper sparring then it isn't authentic shotokan

.....and a bit more on topic....if Shotokan is trained properly and combined with other diciplines then it can give you a very effective and elusive stand up game in an MMA match...a la Machida...

Neither schools were shotokan, though, in general, Karate as an art, has a terrible reputation in the west in regards to producing fighters, as opposed to martial artists. It is that very fact that has made Machida such a big deal to the karate community.
I merely posit a theory that Machida, whilst maybe showing the possibilities in karate when trained properly, is also, equally, showing the deficiencies in a huge percentage of Karate as taught to the guy off the street in your average town.
If you look at the arts that have touched the public concious as being 'hard' or 'tough', you are looking at Muay Thai, Boxing, Judo, BJJ, and in america where there is a school culture for it, wrestling. (in the UK, wrestling is either fat men in tights performing in Rochdale town hall, or ridiculous americans shouting and taking steroids).
The thing with those styles is that their is a more uniform training philosophy of application from an early stage. Boxing/MT have shadow boxing, BJJ/wrestling have grappling dummies, but these are not tools that are the benchmark of skill in those arts. You dont get a belt in boxing for being the best shadow boxer - you have to fight a real human being, and best them, but plenty of Karate gradings are decided on performance of Kata.
Look at the difference in perception from the 70's to now. Enter the Dragon: Karate = awesome. Chuck Norris(70'/80's) = Awesome. Karate Kid: Karate = awesome. Chuck (90's/00's): Karate = post ironic joke. Napoleon Dynamite: Karate = Joke. Ross in Friends: Karate = Joke. Dwight in the Office: Karate = Joke.

That change in perception would not have happened if every Karate school taught karate in the way that Machida has learned karate.

Even more troubling is, that the majority of humour at karate's expense, is actually quite well observed, and obviously has been inspired by people the writers have met who talk in terms of having a black belt in kara - te. Hell, we have had a few of 'em like that come through this site!, and the fact that experience of these types of karateka is universal enough to touch a chord in the wider public conscious, (oh man, he is just like *insert name* - remember him? always on about all that way of thr warrior sh1t. man he was funny), is an albatros hung around the neck of Karate by itself, the way it is widely trained, and, as a direct result, a particular character of person that gets attracted to it, and may not be the majority, but certainly spoils how the art is percieved.



But if you do not move or strike in sparring, as you do in kata, you are ingraining movements you dont use in application. Its like getting a pole vaulter to practice high-jump every day, and then expecting them to vault well in competition.



Again, never seen anyone move like in kata anywhere other than in kata. How can you train timing when you have no one to react with? Balance? Fair enough, mental discipline? it will not prepare you for thinking straight having been punched in the nose, only being punched in the nose regularly will do that.



So, by your own admission, you are wiring your muscle memory with things it will not use?



Hmm, so if an element of kata that could have fighting application is actively not emphasised, then it is entirely reasonable to see kata as being so far removed from fighting in action and philosophy, as to not be a fighting tool.



Then why de-prioritise the bunkai?



and Chuck, and St.Pierre, and Schiltz, and others. Like I said, it is the Karate comminities excitement about Machida that indicates the problems in mainstream karate training - after all, with Karate in all its forms being one of the most widely available MA's in the world, surely Machida should not be such a novelty?

Cord, its not the art but who is doing it. No one is saying karate is better than everything else, but it is not worse either. The reason that the perception of karate has changed is because the people who are practicing it have changed. The "athletes" who train MMA now are the same type who trained karate in the 60's through 80's. That is one of the main reasons you don't see karate guys in MMA. The type of person who would enter such contests don't train karate anymore. The formula is simple. Hold a new and unique competition unlike anything people have seen and the tough guys will come. That's what happened to karate with the karate tournaments in the US. That's what happened to MMA. And what is even more interesting is that once you see elite athletes like all pro football level guys entering the cage the make up of who is competing in the sport will change again. You can already see it happening with Brock Lesnar. He as elite NFL level athletic ability and is dominated an experienced heavyweight field with relatively little MMA experience. I think MMA guys are on an MMA is the ultimate art high, when it is the individual and not the art. Again, karate is not what karate once was because of who is training it and not what it is. The Mas Oyamas and Joe Lewises of the world are just not interested in karate these days because they are into the new Martial Arts fad.

But I would argue that if the nature of the classes, and the focus of the art as widely taught, has changed, and that is why it has lost its appeal to 'fighters'.
Its not like there was a mass exodus from karate schools to MMA in 1995 - MMA appealed to , and drew athletes from, boxing, muay thai, and BJJ more than karate, because the intensity and application of those arts had drawn fighters away from karate long before UFC 1, or Vale Tudo had been thought of as defined entities.

Remember, I am not saying karate is bad/useless or whatever - never have, and i dont train in 'MMA' either, but having trained in 2 different kinds of karate, at different times, in different places, and worked in healthclubs that hired their studios out for karate clubs amongst others, that the attitude, focus, and priority in karate in general, does not equate with the training and atmsophere that you find in a fighting gym, like a competetive MT or boxing club.

Karate has marketed itself on different values, and thats fine, but in so doing, has managed to attract a great many people with low self esteem, issues with conflict, the meek, the paranoid, and the overly earnest.
Those arent people wanting to learn to fight, they are looking for cheap therapy.
Obviously by nurturing that membership base, the arts rep. has suffered, but thats not other arts fault, all Karate had to do was stand strong and keep appealing to the same types as it did in the 60's - 80's , and it would have many more machida's and Urquidez's.

And i know there are plenty of 'real' karate schools out there, but if you're honest, you will acknowledge that they are in the monority given the bigger western picture.

Who knows, maybe Machida will inspire a new generation to look at karate again, but i think if that is the case, that it will more likely restore the spirit of karate, than re-invent mma.

Well, let's be fair - Brock Lesnar has significant experience in a very resistant style (wrestling), which is directly applicable in MMA. We both know that many (not all) karate schools teach things so far from actual application as to be nearly useless.



And some MMA guys may think that some karate guys are being pointlessly defensive about real shortcomings in a lot of schools.



I don't think that's quite accurate, either. Limitations of the art were put on display in the original UFC's, and it is only because of widespread cross-training that parity is being acheived now. I myself do not see that as a bad thing. Ultimately, it has increased the applicability of martial arts training for many different styles.

Now that's funny Matt. Mainly because of all the marketing BS involved with the original UFC. Let's see, what would happen if I hand pick karate guys with little to no grappling experience and put them in with our golden boy who has spend his life learning how to use his grappling art against strikers? ALL arts have limitations. Its just the UFC was originally a marketing tool to make the Gracies money, make BJJ out to be the ulitmate fighting art and "expose" the weakness of other arts while protecting the weakness of BJJ. It was this aim that hindered MMA early on and to this day. Arts like karate were not explored as applicable in that environment and the vast majority of those training in MMA did not explore these arts. Due to this MMA is VERY generic now and a few fighters are exploring different avenues to great success. Hitting the thai pads hard does not a fighter make. And hopefully more fighters will stop playing it safe and explore the useful fighting techniques and principles from more of the TMAs.

well I'd have to say that not all forms are just you punching the air. Many forms out there are used to develop certain strengths, at least in Southern Praying Mantis. Many of the forms in SPM can be comparable to the Sanchin kata in karate (because that form was influenced from southern CMA). So MY experience with doing forms are completely different. Lots of dynamic tension is in play, helping to strengthen our fingers or wrists, etc etc. Learning to control strength in a certain fashion or apply the strength a certain way when you punch, etc etc.

Are these, directly fighting techniques? no, but I'm exercising my body and the mechanics needed when I do perform the techniques in a more resisting manner. So to me, it does have a purpose in training.

This is why I don't like it when people simply write off kata/forms as being useless "dancing."