Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The History of Karate

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: The History of Karate

#71

Post by harimau777 »

bloniac wrote: post #8

I was a great believer in karate as a combat sport for many years. The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation. Karate has value in combat, but it’s certainly not as effective as I originally thought. I took my son to do karate training for a year and watched the classes and honestly it seemed pretty worthless to me as a way of learning to fight/defend yo…

Personally, I think that MMA has demonstrated the importance of sparring and grappling. However, I think that the value of MMA itself is less clear.

MMA has been hurt a lot by the dominance of UFC. A lot of the details of UFC's rules distort its similarity to actual combat. For example: wearing gloves, fighting on highly padded floors, lenient rules on fighters circling each other, forbidding kicks and knees on the ground, fighting shirtless, etc.

MMA also overlooks a lot of aspects of combat:

- Situational awareness and deescalation

- Responses that are appropriate for less forceful situation (e.g. control techniques)

- Use of weapons

- Defense against weapons

- Strategies against multiple attackers

Finally, I think that there is some survivor bias. Even if MMA is the ideal martial art for young fit males with an aptitude for athletics, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is ideal for people who are less physically or athletically gifted.

Re: The History of Karate

#72

Post by zepto »

watwut wrote: post #70
bloniac wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I don't know many parents whose goal is for our children to learn to fight. Try asking parents whose kids do karate. I’m guessing a large number of them will say “self defence”, especially parents of girls.

1.) You are guessing. 2.) If you need to explain yourself to strangers who demand to be explained why your kid does this or that sport, you will say something simple and socially acceptable. Neurotypical people wont start explaining in nuance. 3.) No one ever asked me why my kids do dancing or swimming. It is simply not question anyone asks normally.

You are right that ‘why’ is rarely asked directly - it seems like a blunt interrogation.

But, it’s quite common for people to ask questions like ‘how did they get into that?’.

Also, why does it have to be a ‘stranger’ asking the question? Again I agree that would be odd, but it doesn’t seem odd for a friend to be curious.

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817729

Re: The History of Karate

#73

Post by harimau777 »

Silhouette wrote: post #41
GloriousKoji wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because MMA is a sport and not an actual life or death combat? I'm sure if they allowed things like throat jabs, eye stabs, crotch shots and immediate joint dislocation upon grapple we'd see a lot more krav maga techniques.

This is a popular argument but it doesn't work if you think about it for a while. Put a good striker in a fight with someone who isn't a good striker. The skilled fighter would evade most of what the unskilled fighter threw at them. There isn't even much need for blocking and covering if most of what is coming at you isn't making significant contact in the first place. Now take out the rules. If the unskilled fighter…

A traditional martial artist who has seriously trained in sparring would also be able to deal with an unskilled fighter fairly easily.

The difficulty arises when the rules of a sport cause a fighter to ignore situations that can arise in an actual fight. For example, I train in Dog Brothers Martial Arts. Grappling is common and encouraged, but at the same time most fighters conceal training knives on their person and headbutts are common. That requires an adapted form of BJJ from that used in MMA. Overhooks become more valuable because they allow you to control a limb that is holding a weapon. When you are in the bottom of guard you need to keep your opponent away from you so that they can't headbutt you.

Re: The History of Karate

#74

Post by thomascgalvin »

harimau777 wrote: post #71
bloniac wrote: post #8

I was a great believer in karate as a combat sport for many years. The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation. Karate has value in combat, but it’s certainly not as effective as I originally thought. I took my son to do karate training for a year and watched the classes and honestly it seemed pretty worthless to me as a way of learning to fight/defend yo…

Personally, I think that MMA has demonstrated the importance of sparring and grappling. However, I think that the value of MMA itself is less clear. MMA has been hurt a lot by the dominance of UFC. A lot of the details of UFC's rules distort its similarity to actual combat. For example: wearing gloves, fighting on highly padded floors, lenient rules on fighters circling each other, forbidding kicks and knees on the g…

The early UFC, when it was owned and run by the Gracies, was probably as close as we're ever going to get to a "real" fight in a sport-based situation.

And by that, I mean it was mostly two guys rolling on the ground, one of whom might have known what he was doing. I think that's fairly comparable to most bar fights a person is likely to encounter.

Your point about weapons, situational awareness, and so on are well taken. Krav Maga claims to focus on those areas, and they generally admit that it won't make you as good at one-on-one fighting as BJJ, but will make you more likely to survive a fight where someone might stab you in the neck while you're trying to sink in your gogoplata.

I don't know it that's accurate, but it makes sense. I also appreciate that, from the videos I've seen, Krav Maga stresses that the best self defence technique is enough cardio to run away.

Re: The History of Karate

#75

Post by denton-scratch »

bloniac wrote: post #8

I was a great believer in karate as a combat sport for many years. The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation. Karate has value in combat, but it’s certainly not as effective as I originally thought. I took my son to do karate training for a year and watched the classes and honestly it seemed pretty worthless to me as a way of learning to fight/defend yo…

Katas are a way to practice movements so that they become instinctive. They are performed quite slowly and deliberately, which means that at every stage of the movement you have to maintain balance and poise. It also means that practising katas strengthens your musculature.

I tried tai chi for about 6 months. For us beginners, it was mostly katas, and I routinely came away with aching muscles. Advanced students used tai chi for sparring, and the instructor occasionally came in with swords, and did a rather alarming performance.

As a kid I learned judo. That was mostly wrestling; but to advance, you had to do some kata work. I didn't find judo katas nearly as stretching as I later found tai chi katas; but I was 10 when I learned judo. I was 50 when I tried tai chi, and not very fit; so that might explain my different experiences.

Karate was something that rough boys bragged about; it was clear to me that it was a technique for hurting people, so I stayed clear.

Re: The History of Karate

#76

Post by anshorei »

skinkestek wrote: post #29
giardini wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bioniac says >"Most martial arts training seems to me to be tangential to actually training the student to actually win a fight...If your goal is for your child to learn to fight..." But do you really* want your child to learn to "win a fight" or to "fight"? To what degree? Any fight whatsoever? Doing so would require teaching things (s)he does not fully understand and are emotionally unprepared for, e.g., maiming or…

> But do you really* want your child to learn to "win a fight" or to "fight"? To what degree? Any fight whatsoever? I teach my girls to fight. My intention is 1. to keep them out of fights 2. to make sure they can escape or win any fight someone else forces upon them. Play dumb, hide your worries, try to talk yourself out, if it doesn't work hit, grab and twist or kick with the intent to cause severe pain. Then shout…

> Then shout and run.

Everything else you do in a fight should just be in order to get to this step.

Re: The History of Karate

#77

Post by theflyinghorse »

watwut wrote: post #69
bloniac wrote: post #8

I was a great believer in karate as a combat sport for many years. The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation. Karate has value in combat, but it’s certainly not as effective as I originally thought. I took my son to do karate training for a year and watched the classes and honestly it seemed pretty worthless to me as a way of learning to fight/defend yo…

> The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation. MMA is not an actual combat situation. A lot of what makes fighting style effective in real combat is simply not allowed in MMA (for good reasons). Things like: - attacking your penis and trying to cause injury there, - attacking your throat and trying to cause injury there, - sticking fingers into eyes, - tr…

These arguments have all been beaten to death I'm afraid. General consensus is that a boxer who actually gets to punch and be punched by another human being will be far more effective at any of the eye gouges/throat attacks etc than someone who does not have sparring as a focus.

Or just try to imagine a situation where someone who doesn't constantly train sparring can kick a knee of a kickboxer who does spar a lot and gets kicked a lot.

Re: The History of Karate

#78

Post by jerednel »

weimerica wrote: post #66
bloniac wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That or boxing or kickboxing or wrestling or bjj. Those are the only truly effective combat sports. Perhaps judo too.

The only push-back I have on BJJ (as I practice both KM and BJJ) is that there is a huge sport-orientation whereas KM, assuming trained competently, is a combative system such that you'll often get a "practice this slowly and carefully because you can and will cause damage to your partner." Personally, I have a little harder of a time training BJJ for the reason that everyone thinks it is the best for real-world defe…

perhaps im misunderstanding but just pushing someones knees apart when you are in their closed guard just wouldn't work. and given the presence of the electric chair and the twister i'm not sure that any approach to passing guard would necessarily be disallowed unless you are striking.

Re: The History of Karate

#79

Post by jvvw »

codingdave wrote: post #47
bloniac wrote: post #8

I was a great believer in karate as a combat sport for many years. The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation. Karate has value in combat, but it’s certainly not as effective as I originally thought. I took my son to do karate training for a year and watched the classes and honestly it seemed pretty worthless to me as a way of learning to fight/defend yo…

I don't know many parents whose goal is for our children to learn to fight. We want them to be strong and healthy. To learn to have fun exercising, to learn control and the ability to listen to others, learn from others, and work with others. Martials arts is great for all that. So are other sports and activities. I've studied martial arts for 20 years of my life - never did I have a goal during that time of learning…

My children did karate - as well as being exercise, I liked it terms of giving them the experience of how they could get better at something with practice and discipline, especially as they aren't typically sporty. 'Being able to fight' was never a motivation.

Re: The History of Karate

#80

Post by jerednel »

watwut wrote: post #69
bloniac wrote: post #8

I was a great believer in karate as a combat sport for many years. The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation. Karate has value in combat, but it’s certainly not as effective as I originally thought. I took my son to do karate training for a year and watched the classes and honestly it seemed pretty worthless to me as a way of learning to fight/defend yo…

> The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation. MMA is not an actual combat situation. A lot of what makes fighting style effective in real combat is simply not allowed in MMA (for good reasons). Things like: - attacking your penis and trying to cause injury there, - attacking your throat and trying to cause injury there, - sticking fingers into eyes, - tr…

Just a couple of thoughts on this.

- trying to break knee by kicking where it breaks.

Oblique kicks are allowed in MMA.

- attacking your throat and trying to cause injury there,

90's UFC had no rule about this. Currently, while no direct strikes allowed you can trachea crush if you want to force a submission (ezekiel).

Post reply on HN