Shotokan Karate’s Identity Crisis

 

Website

In the latest copy of Shotokan Karate Magazine (#160) we have one author bemoaning the fact that in contemporary karate classes, people very rarely hit each other - indeed, a whole culture of ‘no-contact karate’ has developed. In a fight, he says, you’re going to be hit and knocked silly; it takes practice and experience to keep your cool, not freeze, and go on to the attack with technique intact. 

Mike Tyson's observation applies.

Another author talks about karate for children spiced with music, fun and games to keep them interested, while elsewhere marshalled ranks of adult students march up and down the dojo hall practising repetitive drills in unison on stentorious command. He thinks that the core of karate - personal development in body and character - which can be done at any age, is being forgotten.

What is karate for?

Traditional Shotokan Karate presents itself as primarily a self-defence art. It doesn’t ignore the spiritual aspects, the self-discipline and ‘correct attitude’ but it’s focused on lethality. In particular it strongly deprecates sport karate where, it thinks, too many compromises have been made to the art precisely to make competitions survivable and indeed, non-disabling.

Traditional Shotokan Karate is, however, spectacularly ineffective.

The obvious reason is that it is self-sabotaging. An effective fighting art requires endless, hyper-realistic practice so that moves are absorbed into automatic, effortless muscle-memory. Outside of elite detachments of the military, it’s hard to conduct such training: it’s just too dangerous.

TSK substitutes ‘empty-air’ drills, kata and choreographed kumite ('sparring'): it looks and sounds impressive but does not even approximate a real fight with someone who’s out to harm you and just doesn’t care about the consequences.

Most thoughtful karate exponents accept that if you really want to prepare yourself against street thugs, you should consider boxing where sparring and competition are at the centre of things. (Recent trends for no-contact boxing - no head attacks - show karate is not alone in being drained of its hard martial edge).

The magazine’s articles are good at identifying problems and even, perhaps, at celebrating the diversity and broad church of contemporary karate. The art does develop confidence, camaraderie and self-discipline. But in today’s modern societies, where fights are not common and most karate practitioners go through their whole lives without ever experiencing a real fight, it seems we just have to accept the hypocrisy of current training norms.

Bottom line: if you really want to defend yourself against seriously-violent bad people, practise an art where sparring and competition are central, and where some semblance of real-world effectiveness of technique still continues. Boxing and Judo are probably a quicker route to effectiveness although with the right club and enough time and practice, karate will get you to a good place in the end - probably.

---

Note: I am well aware that it is the aura of controlled, lethal violence surrounding karate - its glamour - which attracts most karate students to train. But I suspect that if clubs actually tried to deliver on that promise by instituting the very tough, very physical, very violent, blood-on-the-walls training methods common in the 1970s across the world then there would be a major exodus: only the hard, fit, aggressive young men would be left (with the occasional young woman who also actually liked inflicting and soaking up physical violence).