Don't you know that the karates that don't suck aren't karate, because karate sucks?
Of course, I grounded myself out! I knew I had Chi powers...I just need to levitate first!
Originally Posted by PDA
Boy, am I going to be embarrassed when I go back to the Cosmic Dojo...
Aren't the karates that suck called krotty?
Originally Posted by Rivington
I agree, more or less. If you made a bunch of guys who practice (for example) exotic kung fu styles fight each other a lot, they'd all eventually fight the same, and it would look like rudimentary bad kickboxing and nothing like their individual styles.
Originally Posted by Cuddles
Oyama's been teaching since the early 50s and founded the Kyokushinkai in '64. This is as "traditional" as most of the other lineages claiming to teach "traditional karate," so the line you're drawing doesn't make much sense when closely examined.
A great example is Karate. I doubt any of you would argue that traditional Karate does not
teach to fight with one's side facing one's opponent. Thus, if restricted to fighting with one's side facing one's opponent, the Karate user will be at a severe disadvantage when compared to another style that squares up, such as Muay Thai.
And under pressure testing, the Karate starts looking less and less like Karate and more and more like Kickboxing. Kyoukushin Karate is the perfect example of this, where you see kickboxers in karate uniforms beating each other up under slightly modified kickboxing rules and calling it "Karate".
I agree completely...Kyokushin isn't karate, according to this silly definition of karate you just invented.
This is completely different from the traditional idea of "Karate" users "killing" each other with "one punch, one kill".
If little Jimmy is a 2nd dan at the age of 10 Im sure its a great style he's learning something useful...
cough.. ATA cough...
The one punch one kill thing, wasn't that propagated mostly in the JKA, and that idea itself strongly influenced by kendo?
Yeah, my understanding is that is a Japanese thing that didn't find its way into karate until after karate came to Japan from Okinawa. OP needs to read up on his karate history.
Originally Posted by Moenstah
A side on stance is fine for long range but as the distance closes it needs to become more and more square on (think fencer - kickboxer - boxer - judoka/wrestler).
As for deep stances, I am wondering if somewhere along the way exercises done solely to develop leg strength and endurance slowly became part of the fighting side of the style when they were never meant to be?
While we're on wild theories I also suspect Wing Chun was the first pure self-defense style. And by this I mean designed to take on untrained thugs and drunks but not anyone with real fight training or experience.
Originally Posted by OwlMatt
Also, though, I've found people who do the deep-stance thing, once they start crosstraining in nage-waza, have some advantage. Tai-otoshi, for example, might be easier for those who have a lot of practice with zenkutsu-dachi, while kokutsu-dachi is a good base for knee-wheels and kiba-dachi, side-on to the opponent, is a good start to such techniques as o-goshi.
Getting used to dropping your c. of g. below your adversary's is a benefit, and those low Shotokan stances--essentially useless in pure striking--can give a good base for nage-waza from the clinch under proper crosstraining conditions.
As for one-punch-one-kill and anything else that's swordfighting-based but has no swords...**** it. It ain't Karate.
Did you really just abbreviate center of gravity to c. of g. ???
Originally Posted by Vieux Normand
I can't decide if that is hilarious or horrible.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO