|
Post by meguro on Feb 21, 2015 10:38:07 GMT -5
It just occurred to me that maybe traditional karate is not about fighting at all. We assumed it was about fighting because certain aspects of it look fight applicable. Maybe, the originators really believed that it was about character development all along; something to boost a kid's self-esteem without having him have to prove it in the school yard. Folks, we've been complaining that the turkey bacon doesn't taste like real bacon. Well duh.
|
|
GJEC
Member
LOUGHBOROUGH ENSHIN
Posts: 3,218
|
Post by GJEC on Feb 21, 2015 10:57:31 GMT -5
My impression was the original Japanese karate was a martial exercise (art).
Back to the OP. At least we should take heart that most of the karate-ka that do make a good show in the ring or cage are knockdown style based.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by meguro on Feb 22, 2015 9:37:33 GMT -5
Can't take away from folks who train knockdown when it comes to fighting.
|
|
|
Post by Tay on Feb 23, 2015 7:37:42 GMT -5
Back to the OP. At least we should take heart that most of the karate-ka that do make a good show in the ring or cage are knockdown style based. Weirdly enough there seems to be more successful traditional karate guys in the ring or cage these days than knockdown karate guys. The great period when Andy Hug, Francisco Filho, Glaube Feitosa, Semmy Schilt, etc. were at the top of the Kickboxing scene is now over, and there are not that many successful knockdown guys in either MMA or Kickboxing nowadays (apart from GSP who has now retired, and Davit Kiria in Glory). Lechi Kurbanov and Ewerton Teixeira, 2 top knockdown fighters who transitioned to Kickboxing the last few years don't seem to have as much success as their predecessors did. However you see a lot of guys with Traditional Karate background doing great especially in MMA: Lyoto Machida, Gunnar Nelson, Kyoji Horiguchi, Michael Page, Robert Whittaker, Stephen Thompson, Ryan Jimmo, etc.
|
|
GJEC
Member
LOUGHBOROUGH ENSHIN
Posts: 3,218
|
Post by GJEC on Feb 23, 2015 7:56:17 GMT -5
I must admit I've not really kept up with it.
However, as they are both combat sports these days - not the 'no rules' contests of yore - I wonder how MMA guys get on in knockdown?
Struggling to think of any. I know an MMA guy entered the Sabaki Challenge. It didn't go well.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by Tay on Feb 23, 2015 8:49:24 GMT -5
However, as they are both combat sports these days - not the 'no rules' contests of yore - I wonder how MMA guys get on in knockdown? Struggling to think of any. I know an MMA guy entered the Sabaki Challenge. It didn't go well. I remember that Cung Le fought and won the Shidokan US Open in 1998. I don't think you'll find many MMA fighters even trying to compete in Knockdown. There is money to be made in MMA but not in knockdown. Why would they "waste" time training something different and risk getting injured in a tournament that will bring no financial reward?
|
|
GJEC
Member
LOUGHBOROUGH ENSHIN
Posts: 3,218
|
Post by GJEC on Feb 23, 2015 10:05:41 GMT -5
My comment really is "Let's not put ourselves down" (See accompanying thread)
All hard questions go both ways so I for one will respect but not put other combat sports on a pedestal.
We're good at what we do, they're good at what they do. Whatever you do, be the best you can.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by Tay on Feb 23, 2015 10:11:34 GMT -5
My comment really is "Let's not put ourselves down" (See accompanying thread) All hard questions go both ways so I for one will not be putting any combat sport on a pedestal. We're good at what we do, they're good at what they do. Whatever you do, be the best you can. totally agree with you on that There are a lot of guys on forums and youtube who brag about how their martial art is the best around because of x or x famous fighter from that style and because it is a "more complete" system. Yet those people with that attitude are most probably not the most skilled in their martial art and would get badly beaten by competitive knockdown guys. Better be great at an effective martial art like Kyokushin rather than not very good at supposedly "the best martial art around".
|
|
azam
Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by azam on Aug 4, 2015 22:10:47 GMT -5
Back to the OP. At least we should take heart that most of the karate-ka that do make a good show in the ring or cage are knockdown style based. Weirdly enough there seems to be more successful traditional karate guys in the ring or cage these days than knockdown karate guys. The great period when Andy Hug, Francisco Filho, Glaube Feitosa, Semmy Schilt, etc. were at the top of the Kickboxing scene is now over, and there are not that many successful knockdown guys in either MMA or Kickboxing nowadays (apart from GSP who has now retired, and Davit Kiria in Glory). Lechi Kurbanov and Ewerton Teixeira, 2 top knockdown fighters who transitioned to Kickboxing the last few years don't seem to have as much success as their predecessors did. However you see a lot of guys with Traditional Karate background doing great especially in MMA: Lyoto Machida, Gunnar Nelson, Kyoji Horiguchi, Michael Page, Robert Whittaker, Stephen Thompson, Ryan Jimmo, etc. It's because the distancing of those styles closely resembles the distancing you find in MMA. The reason I feel we don't see many modern knockdown karate guys that are successful is because knockdown karate has evolved considerably since the time of Andy Hug/Filho - for it's detriment or better - that's entirely your own opinion. For me - I feel it has been to a detriment. The knockdown karate distancing in the 70's, 80's & 90's applied itself better to Kickboxing than it does today. I think knockdown fighters back then were overall more rounded compared to modern knockdown fighters. The distancing back than varied but most often it was fought at a distance similar to the one you'd find in kickboxing. I mean if you watch Hug vs Filho - notice the distance they fight at. They weren't alone - nearly everyone was operating at that distance: Inevitably though knockdown karate evolved so that it's competitors could become more competitive - similar to the way MMA evolved from the 90's to now. In that process the distancing changed to close range nearly all the time and with that the way everything is applied - to the point that knockdown karate has become more specialized. You don't see fighters in knockdown today fighting the way for example Howard Collins fought (a legend in my eyes) - simply evolved, maybe not for the better. The knockdown of the 70's, 80's & 90's is what I fell in love with and when I started sparring knockdown - I realized after a while it wasn't the same knockdown karate. Not to take away from guys who compete in knockdown - they are tough as nails & great fighters - anyone who says otherwise is deluded. But I think it's important to recognize flaws and accept them for what they are rather than avoid talking about them. If no-one addresses the elephant in the room - every time you walk into that room the elephant will always be there LOL.
|
|
tmd
Member
Think Fast Hit hard
Posts: 242
|
Post by tmd on Aug 6, 2015 4:16:04 GMT -5
It's a great point about our range being wrong for a transition to mma, the majority of knockdown fights do now happen at close range as it's seen as the most effective.
is this detrimental? Probably in terms of both crossover and audience appreciation. Is it better training for self protection? I'd argue yes as most fights start at close range and generally in an intensely small space, being used to being that close and trying to land powerful shots is useful.
In terms of the OP I think it has a lot more to do with numbers, most people who take up Karate arnt looking to end up doing MMA. What would be the point? especially when there are probably now more MNA gyms and kickboxing clubs than there are dojo's.
There will be some who did karate as a kid that will be hailed as ex this or that such as GSP who stopped training Kyokushin at 14, their youth style will no doubt give them a base to work from but if you want to be an MMA fighter in your teens or twenties I don't see that your thought process would be to start in karate.
|
|
azam
Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by azam on Aug 6, 2015 12:10:04 GMT -5
It's a great point about our range being wrong for a transition to mma, the majority of knockdown fights do now happen at close range as it's seen as the most effective. is this detrimental? Probably in terms of both crossover and audience appreciation. Is it better training for self protection? I'd argue yes as most fights start at close range and generally in an intensely small space, being used to being that close and trying to land powerful shots is useful. In terms of the OP I think it has a lot more to do with numbers, most people who take up Karate arnt looking to end up doing MMA. What would be the point? especially when there are probably now more MNA gyms and kickboxing clubs than there are dojo's. There will be some who did karate as a kid that will be hailed as ex this or that such as GSP who stopped training Kyokushin at 14, their youth style will no doubt give them a base to work from but if you want to be an MMA fighter in your teens or twenties I don't see that your thought process would be to start in karate. It's hard to say if most fights start at close range. I think that fights usually occur at varying ranges, some for sure might start at close range & others at different ranges. In bars/clubs I could see that most fights would probably occur at close range but outside on the street/pavement - most people stay at least an arm's length away from each other. The argument also becomes well if your that close why not grapple - as grappling at that range imho is probably a lot more effective than attempting to strike with someone at a range so close that you have very little time to react. So much easier to grab the average joe and use a standing guillotine. I think it's a huge detriment on part of knockdown karate now as it is - because you only learn/train to operate in one range - up close. Traditional styles/MMA/Kickboxing operate in multiple ranges from close like knockdown to much further out, so they learn how to operate in multiple ranges - for example up close in Muay Thai - you'd clinch/elbow/knee/uppercut. It's not like knockdown is the only style operating at close distance - you see it regularly in Muay Thai/Kickboxing/MMA & in many naha styles of Karate like Goju/Uechi ryu. The reason why I say it's a detriment is because knockdown karate unlike the others only focuses on close range (one range) - whereas all these styles focus on close & other ranges. For that reason they probably do a better job of self defense than just working one singular range - while all the others do that and more. I feel it's not only detrimental for audience/crossover but the nature of self defense/art itself. Yes you'll be able to handle yourself against the average joe (working only close range - knockdown) but shouldn't the point be to learn more apt ways of dealing with the average joe in self defense scenarios - isn't that the nature of being a student of a martial arts. I mean doesn't the martial arts ethos (especially Karate & it's variants) espouse putting your all in everything you do and not being satisfied just because it does enough . I mean let's take maths for example - the average student would use one formula/equation because it gets the job done - a student who excels/hungry to learn will learn multiple ways of dealing with the same problem - not just for the knowledge but improving their own ability to deal with problems and others like it. The difference between the two is not just the mentality but the latter 's attitude/willingness to learn more than required means he will be more likely to succeed solving those problems than someone who just does enough. Anyway suffice to say I have strong views lol.
|
|
|
Post by meguro on Aug 6, 2015 16:46:11 GMT -5
There are pretty obvious things about the close-range fighting of knockdown that are huge impediments to MMA: no grabbing rule: no face punching rule. Sure you can work the body and legs, but if you are going to fight close-in, throwing punches at the face, and learning to defend or eat them, and grabbing/wrestling/throwing are skills that we in the knockdown community generally ignore. Also, close range fighting in the knockdown community is more of a test of spirit than fighting smarts: you plant roots and trade heavy strikes until someone wears out. The better fighter knows range as well as position. Standing grill to grill is not an advantageous use of position.
|
|
tmd
Member
Think Fast Hit hard
Posts: 242
|
Post by tmd on Aug 7, 2015 4:37:36 GMT -5
By close range I mean within arms reach, not 2-8 meters apart like the amount average distancing and space available for movement in a cage fight or traditional karate match.
I don't think that at close range grappling is superior to striking in terms of self protection.
I also don't think that for self protection learning multiple ways of dealing with the same situation is advantageous, get a few ways that work for YOU and drill the hell out of them until they become instinctive and work under pressure - just as the maths students learns that once you can add 2 numbers together to make the total why complicate the equation using pi?
I disagreed that knockdown is only a war, there are plenty who move exceptionally well - it is just that with good conditioning you can stay in close and at less risk of a head kick, so it is just a sports specific anomaly.
As I stated before, why would you do karate if you wanted to compete in something else? It's not about the skills of one being non-transformable it's about why waste time learing Maths if want to study History?
|
|
|
Post by Ros on Aug 7, 2015 9:07:54 GMT -5
just as the maths students learns that once you can add 2 numbers together to make the total why complicate the equation using pi? However, the same student might come unstuck if they tried to calculate the circumference of a circle or the surface area of a sphere by just totalling two numbers and not using pi. why waste time learning Maths if want to study History It's funny actually, how different subjects can be entirely complementary if studied together. History, for example, can often give a deeper background knowledge and therefore understanding, for all sorts of subjects. Maybe that could be applied with martial arts subjects too.
|
|
tmd
Member
Think Fast Hit hard
Posts: 242
|
Post by tmd on Aug 7, 2015 9:51:57 GMT -5
I actually use pi a lot as I have to work of volumetric flows to avoid or create turbulent flow.... but the point was when it comes to fighting I don't see a need for complexity.
The reference to Maths and History is simply that I don't see why we are looking for people who've crossed over form Karate and become successful in the Ring when there is no reason for those people to exist. I'd agree that for a keen martial artist its interesting to dabble.
With the likes of Hug etc these reference the very start of K1, literal K1 was built around those fighters disappointed by the way the World Tournaments were being run and wanted to earn money as fighters.
MMA drew in fighters from all styles as the start as there were no MMA gyms - now there are, why study karate if you want to be a cage fighter?
The other aspect to me is I hear a lot of Martial snobbery about fighters not being true martial artist so if I wanted to be a fighter and heard this kind of gibberish form a bunch of people who only trained a few hours a week I'd probably keep walking.
What I find interesting is that in some Amateur MMA in the UK no head shots are allowed so I'd have thought learning to land body shots and leg kicks would be advantageous.... any instructors out there approached an MMA gym and offered their services?
|
|