The History of Karate • Hacker News Board

Re: The History of Karate

#91

Post by Silhouette » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

tradesmanhelix wrote: post #82

anon_tor_12345 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Krav is widely taught to armed/special forces and law enforcement, who absolutely need a style that works in the "real world."

Law enforcement have very little need for street fighting. If things are getting physical, the job is usually to detain a suspect as safely as possible. It's unlikely that the rules of engagement will allow causing the suspect severe harm or death, and if a LEO really is in that kind of situation, their priority is probably going to be disengaging and either transitioning to a weapon or deploying some sort of protective and restraint gear as quickly as possible.

Additionally, Krav has no competitive/tournament side to it, unlike most other martial arts.

The trouble with all martial arts that don't have any focus on competitive training is that you can never be sure they actually work unless you're in the rare position of having to use them for real and finding out the hard way. If you have ever been in that position then you have my greatest sympathy because the result is usually horrible whether or not you "win".

Re: The History of Karate

#92

Post by lljk_kennedy » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

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…

Every one of your hypotheticals are going to be hard for your average Joe to hit on a trained fighter. They all involve you closing the distance enough to actually strike those vulnerable body parts - and a trained fighter will either be able to keep distance, or take advantage of you stepping into their range.

Re: The History of Karate

#93

Post by wellthisisgreat » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

After hearing from multiple sources in martial arts world (although none first hand) that the performances by Masutatsu Oyama, the founder of Kyokushin (knocking out bulls, breaking ice) were mostly staged (bull was sedated and the strikes were timed to that, ice salted, bricks structurally compromised etc) I have a hard time taking Karate seriously. Also wasn’t there a famous, widely publicized duel between Muay-Thai and karate practitioners where Thai guys dominated the karatekas so much it wasn’t even funny?

Re: The History of Karate

#94

Post by wellthisisgreat » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

jerednel wrote: post #80

watwut wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

> you can trachea crush if you want to force a submission (ezekiel).

Damn had no idea Ezekiel is possible in no-gi, something to practice now. Thanks!

Re: The History of Karate

#95

Post by tradesmanhelix » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #91

tradesmanhelix wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Krav is widely taught to armed/special forces and law enforcement, who absolutely need a style that works in the "real world." Law enforcement have very little need for street fighting. If things are getting physical, the job is usually to detain a suspect as safely as possible. It's unlikely that the rules of engagement will allow causing the suspect severe harm or death, and if a LEO really is in that kind of situa…

My Krav instructor was a sheriff's deputy for 20+ years and teaches Krav to law enforcement. From what he's said, the curriculum for them is slanted toward weapon disarms, choke hold escapes, take downs, etc., so Krav can be and most definitely is taught to law enforcement.

I like other disciplines/styles and plan to study BJJ and Muay Thai later on. I just don't think it's valid to say no tournaments = untested. After all:

- US Military using Krav >= competitions/tournaments

- IDF using Krav >= competitions/tournaments

- Law Enforcement using Krav >= competitions/tournaments

Right?

EDIT: Formatting

Re: The History of Karate

#96

Post by tradesmanhelix » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 7:45 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #87

tradesmanhelix wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

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.

Professional fighters aren't going to study a system where 50%+ of what they learn is disallowed in competitions. However, Krav _is_ used by/taught to various special forces and law enforcement groups. To me, this more than makes up for a lack of "professional fighters" using the discipline.

Leaving aside your questionable claim that groin shots and eye attacks are very harmful

Try going to any martial arts lesson while not wearing a cup and LMK what your thoughts are afterwards :)

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.

Your comment makes me wonder if either you've not actually seen proper Krav Maga or you've seen it as practiced by a McDojo type of place. I attend classes led by a Krav Maga Worldwide certified instructor. Each lesson begins with 10-15 minutes of combatives (basic kicks, palm strikes, hammer fists, etc.). It's the whole "practice 1 kick 1000x" thing. The lesson then focuses on basic skills like escape choke from the front, escape choke from the side, escape bear hug, etc. It's all very practical and focused on primal attacks/counterattacks ("punching the other guy in the face as hard as you can" like you said).

Joint locks and targeting soft spots are just tools that _can_ be used, but the mantra is "closest weapon, closest target." Hit where you can as hard as you can and don't stop until they stop. With only a couple of exceptions, no weapon disarms happen until your opponent has stopped fighting.

Bottom line is that Krav in its true form is reliable striking and grappling techniques combined with "OK let's practice how to respond in this specific scenario." It doesn't get fancy and tries not to employ techniques that require any fine motor skills.

EDIT: Formatting

Re: The History of Karate

#97

Post by skinkestek » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 8:14 PM UTC

anshorei wrote: post #76

skinkestek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Exactly.

It is unclear to me however if anything I wrote contradict it or if you just wanted to stress it.

Re: The History of Karate

#98

Post by tuatoru » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

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…

Best comment so far.

The value of "martial" art training is that it gets over the surprise factor.

Dealing with a stranger being in your personal space, grappling with you, pushing you over, and/or hitting you: you don't want an actual attack to be the first time your child experiences any of those.

If the child is somewhat used to those things, she has a chance of thinking clearly enough to make herself a chance to run away. Otherwise the third "F" reflex, freeze, will take over.

Re: The History of Karate

#99

Post by okuboheavy » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:01 PM UTC

timbit42 wrote: post #83

okuboheavy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You teach them karate for self defense. The best defense is not being in a fight. As soon as a fight starts you’ve rolled the dice. No matter how good you are at karate or any martial art you can still get your ass kicked. That is the most useful thing karate teaches you. It’s a sport and a practice. Real life isn’t like the movies.

Re: The History of Karate

#100

Post by _carbyau_ » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 11:58 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #81

_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 purs…

Similar in hockey, a trick is to simply tap the ball into your opponents feet for a foul. And similarly allowed by the rules.

This I have no issue with. The rules make the game and at elite levels you would expect every little optimisation to be made.

But soccer also has a history of players flopping too. People who are trying to get the foul you mention, but without the cause. This is a despicable act. It is blatant disrespect for the players and the game.

I don't know if it happened in the latest championship but I didn't watch it, due to such crap in the past.