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.