Local Karate Schools

The purpose of this article is to briefly explore some of the differences between some local karate schools and self defense Jujitsu as taught at Budokai South in Aiken, South Carolina.

The Central Savanna River Area (CSRA) has not been immune to the wide spread degradation observed in martial arts in general. This degradation is most prominent in local karate schools. It is of little value to evaluate the technical merits of karate here in the CSRA against Jujitsu at Budokai South due in part to rampant commercialism and lack of quality.

In contrast to the other articles, the following differences between some local karate schools and Budokai South are focused on non-technical criteria. One reason for this is the need to highlight some definite evaluation criteria so that all readers may arrive at similar conclusions. Another reason is that these local karate schools are so entrenched in the philosophy (nearly brainwashed) that their school, style, training method, or instructor is the most awesome that ever existed, that they fail to objectively evaluate themselves and others. Thus, it is not possible to conduct a rational discussion with these individuals on the technical differences, purposes, and benefits of one thing versus another.

“We do that. What is it, again?”

It seems to be a modern trend that is rampant in the CSRA, for a local karate school to claim to teach many different styles of martial arts. It is not uncommon to hear or see that one school offers Judo, Jujitsu, Aikido, Taekwondo, Karate, Kempo, Tai Chi, Kung Fu, etc. Before someone assumes that multiple instructors are contracted to teach their expertise at this one location, it becomes obvious with little investigation that one instructor is “teaching” all these styles. Even better than this are the schools that claim to teach a system that includes a multitude of different styles. What appears to have happened is that these instructors have watched a video, attended a conference, took 6 months of classes, or simply had a student from a different style, and thus acquired a few techniques from each of these various styles. Then they claim to teach the entire style. In reality, serious and legitimate styles take 4+ years of dedicated practice to demonstrate proficiency worthy of a first degree black belt.

“We teach self defense.”

Some local karate schools offer special self defense classes or seminar nights where some attempt is made to discuss the dangers of an attack and present some basic techniques that may be useful. Some classes may be part of a national curriculum or have some special certification attached. Some local schools claim that students must perform a specified number of self defense techniques for certain belt ranks, but those techniques are often not standardized. Ignoring the validity of the techniques, at least when self defense techniques are taught from the application of one martial art style, those techniques have the potential to work together efficiently. Regardless of the claims of instructors that cobble together self defense techniques from multiple styles, it is unlikely that those techniques fit together for an efficient, practical, or legitimate use of the physics of the attack.

Some local karate instructors have claimed that practicing katas and point sparring (only allowing light contact) adequately prepare a student for self defense. One claim is often made that you simply do the kata technique harder in self defense. Another common claim is that point sparring is almost the same as self defense. Both of these claims are wrong and misleading. The only training method by which a student can prepare for attack is to practice to the point of proficiency of a technique on various sized attackers. This needs to begin in a slow and controlled manner for safety, but as proficiency increases, so does the speed and intensity of the attack. This and similar types of randori training are conspicuously absent from local karate schools. The reason for this training gap is at least partly due to insurance restrictions and fear of losing students. The fear of losing students usually centers on a business model that offers a “safe” and fun place for children and parents due to play together. The risk of hard contact and the potential for students to realize the ineffectiveness of techniques taught are commonly sufficient deterrents for an instructor to not include this type of intense and difficult training in the school.

Does this assessment somehow imply that local karate practitioners are not able to defend themselves in a real life attack?
No, but it is of our opinion that there are more efficient and practical ways of teaching self-defense.

“We are the best!”

Local karate school instructors are typically quick to espouse (to potential new and current students alike) that their school, students, or style is the best. The ego of the instructor tends to permeate the school and delude the students into believing their own greatness. This belief is reinforced by the instructor in ego boost pep talks where the qualities of his students are built up and the students of other schools are degraded.

The true test of the quality of the school can be seen in the students. Can all the students above white belt demonstrate proper stances and basic strikes? This is highly unlikely in the local karate schools because quality control is the responsibility of the instructor and is at odds with making money. For example, if the instructor enforced strict quality control, some students would have to work very hard, for a long period of time and may become discouraged and quit. To avoid this loss of revenue, local karate instructors commonly promote students on a regular and frequent basis (e.g., every couple months) regardless of the real skills and ability demonstrated by the student. To disguise this ruse, the instructor conducts belt tests where the students are to demonstrate their skills and abilities. While the instructor maintains an appearance of strict judgment, seldom will a student fail such a test, regardless of the flaws observed by other students. Some instructors may claim to know each student’s potential and only require each student to perform at their potential. This claim is often necessary to promote the “everyone can do this” sales pitch, but ignores the truth that not all have the same potential and that some may need to work harder than others. Furthermore, this claim is an admission that the instructor has failed to increase the skills and ability of the student to a standardized level. Thus, rapid promotion and lack of real quality control produces black belts in less than two years that often fail to be able to demonstrate a proper stance.