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

81–90 of 112 posts

Re: The History of Karate

#81

Post by denton-scratch »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #2

"In a Western-style sport, the aim is gaining victory at all costs,” This statement most resonated with me. I had to give up playing hockey because - at the lowest grade - people paid no respect to you. If they could kick the ball and the ref didn't see it, they would continue play. If they could hit the ball hard at you from point blank, that is fine. You see similar in elite sport, players in "football" of whatever…

/me not a soccer fan, but I watched a few matches from Euro2020.

I was rather alarmed at the number of fouls I saw, including fouls occasioning injury. Thing is, footie players practice luring their opponent into perpetrating a foul, thus gaining a free kick. Getting fouled a lot is a way of contributing to your team's success, and for some players it is their signature skill.

If you have the ball, and are being pursued, you leave what appears to be an opening for a tackle, but you bait-and-switch, so that the pursuer's boot connects with your shin, not the ball.

Re: The History of Karate

#82

Post by tradesmanhelix »

anon_tor_12345 wrote: post #14
fastball wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was always under the impression that Karate wasn't particularly useful for combat / self-defense. Krav Maga is the martial art that I've always thought of as actually useful for self-defense.

>Krav Maga is the martial art that I've always thought of as actually useful for self-defense i'm not big on martial arts or even mma but for some reason i've seen this argument in various places often enough that i've also seen the appropriate response: if that were true then all of the most successful mma fighters would be krav maga experts. in actuality not a single one practices krav maga. the proof is in the pud…

Krav is widely taught to armed/special forces and law enforcement, who absolutely need a style that works in the "real world." To me, this speaks volumes more about its practicality and real world efficacy than its use by tournament/competition fighters.

Additionally, Krav has no competitive/tournament side to it, unlike most other martial arts. According to my Krav instructor, this is because the minute you add this aspect to a style, you then need rules around what is and isn't allowed. This goes against the core philosophy of Krav, which is "win the fight and get back home alive by any means necessary." It's about survival, and when fighting for survival you can't impose rules around what is and isn't allowed.

Much of what Krav focuses on (i.e., elbows, knees, groin/face attacks, etc.) isn't allowed in competitive fighting, so why would a professional fighter spend their time learning a style that they can only use say 50% of? Much better to learn something that was created with tournaments/competition in mind, where you can use 100% of what you learn, which is what I think most (all?) of them do.

So I don't think the "very few/no professional fighters learn Krav so it's no good" argument holds up, because 1) professional fighters would be wasting a lot of time learning Krav if professional fighting is their goal and 2) its widely used by many organizations outside professional/tournament fighting who arguably have an even greater need than professional fighters do for an effective self-defense methodology.

Re: The History of Karate

#83

Post by timbit42 »

okuboheavy wrote: post #57
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…

You don’t teach kids karate so they can learn how to fight. You teach kids karate to learn self control, self confidence, discipline and the value of not fighting.

What do you teach them for self-defense?

Re: The History of Karate

#84

Post by tradesmanhelix »

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…

I'm having trouble following your reasoning. It seems predicated on the assumption that Krav makes you a less skilled/unskilled striker/grappler when compared to say MMA or others, but I don't see any reason why this would be the case?

That aside, the main thrust of your argument seems to be, "If you can't land a non-lethal blow, then there's little or no chance of your landing a lethal blow." I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I think the disconnect is that once again your argument comes down to, "Krav automatically makes you less skilled than _______ (insert style here) and thus unable/unlikely to land any attacks."

But, once again, I don't think that follows unless there's a provable weakness/deficiency with Krav itself and/or you really do have a BJJ black belt vs. a level 1 Krav student, in which case I don't think anyone is going to disagree about the outcome.

Anyone who practices Krav on a regular basis and learns the techniques well can become a skilled striker, grappler, etc., in which case they will have an advantage over a straight MMA fighter of the same level simply because the Krav practitioner will be trained in very harmful attacks that MMA disallows (i.e., groin shots, eye attacks, etc.).

Re: The History of Karate

#85

Post by 99_00 »

jbverschoor wrote: post #45
99_00 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To train to win a fight you need sparing. Full contact sparing in boxing, kickboxing, or even karate has dangers. A practitioner has to work up to full contact sparing in a controlled way. And even then there is risk of brain damage. I'm not up to date with the latest science, but I wouldn't risk my child's brain on something as unimportant as winning a fight. On the other hand, with grappling sports like wrestling,…

They don’t have to compete in full contact. Uncontrolled bjj will break your arms, elbows etc easily

Yes, I agree. By full contact, I meant in the sport sense (rules allow for physical impact) not in the sense that full force should be used.

Re: The History of Karate

#86

Post by amriksohata »

Its widely recognised that an Indian bought martial arts into China and into the world later. This mostly originated from kalaripayattu, all these arts were considered passed down from Hindu gods (devi, female goddess) the way she danced to beat demons was copied by warriors.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15480741

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9FODBb_b0c

Re: The History of Karate

#87

Post by Silhouette »

tradesmanhelix wrote: post #84
Silhouette wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm having trouble following your reasoning. It seems predicated on the assumption that Krav makes you a less skilled/unskilled striker/grappler when compared to say MMA or others, but I don't see any reason why this would be the case? That aside, the main thrust of your argument seems to be, "If you can't land a non-lethal blow, then there's little or no chance of your landing a lethal blow." I don't think anyone di…

It seems predicated on the assumption that Krav makes you a less skilled/unskilled striker/grappler when compared to say MMA or others, but I don't see any reason why this would be the case?

So where are all the successful Krav-trained strikers and grapplers in the MMA world? If the striking and grappling are as effective as other styles that have stood the test of time, it's remarkable that there are still few if any high-level MMA fighters with a Krav background.

Anyone who practices Krav on a regular basis and learns the techniques well can become a skilled striker, grappler, etc., in which case they will have an advantage over a straight MMA fighter of the same level simply because the Krav practitioner will be trained in very harmful attacks that MMA disallows (i.e., groin shots, eye attacks, etc.).

Leaving aside your questionable claim that groin shots and eye attacks are very harmful, all of this would only be true if the time the Krav fighter invested in training those other techniques was not at the expense of the basic striking and grappling skills.

However the big practical problem with techniques like joint locks and targeting soft spots isn't that they can't work, it's that training them to the level where they can work effectively often requires much more time to build up much more skill than just punching the other guy in the face as hard as you can or executing a basic takedown and hold on the ground. If you'd just spent that much time practising the simple, reliable striking and grappling techniques, you might get a lot more bang for your buck.

Re: The History of Karate

#88

Post by datameta »

boxed wrote: post #55
vnorilo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The street effectiveness of a MA is a function of time spent sparring, something that is prevalent in the arts you mention, in addition to coverage of standing and ground game. Strikers will have just a brief window of opportunity before grapplers take them down. On the other hand, even super effective grappling art like BJJ becomes pretty useless if you face two assailants.

All martial arts are pretty much worthless against multiple attackers though. If you're Mike Tyson you could probably do well against two, but then the odds go down sharply at three, four, etc. It's just math.

The odds go up dramatically if you practice sparring against multiple opponents and know how to leverage a bit of social psychology. Still, not something I would like to go through on the street. If I do manage to get out relatively unscathed I still don't want to cripple someone for not thinking with their head one night out of their life. The best solution to a fight is always to try to avoid it.

Re: The History of Karate

#89

Post by Silhouette »

harimau777 wrote: post #73
Silhouette wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, this is the sort of distinction I had in mind when I commented before that MMA is still a sport and for "real" fighting you might choose to add other types of training as well. The possible presence of weapons is one huge difference. The open environment where you don't have an octagon wall to limit your opponent's movement and a conveniently flat floor is another.

Re: The History of Karate

#90

Post by datameta »

vnorilo wrote: post #61
datameta wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Against two assailants, if there is no chance to escape the fight through words or running, the best deal is to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible to the more confident of the two. The other will usually lose the fire. Speaking as a stand-up striker. Ymmv.

Agreed - what I was trying to convey was that BJJ is a very good bet for defending yourself one on one, but if you face multiple assailants it is useless. A good striker may stand a chance against two or three aggressive drunks (untrained, not methodical) with the strategy you described.

From the small amount of grappling I know in comparison I fully agreed with you. One can't hope to effectively control two bodies at once. Focusing on person one makes you a great target for the other(s). However knowing some good ground game to supplement striking would at least help knowing how to avoid being taken down.
Post reply on HN