Why is shotokan the most popular karate in ireland

shadowcomplex

and how does it compare to taekwondo for self defence?

FTA69

shadowcomplex wrote: »

and how does it compare to taekwondo for self defence?

Like anything it depends how it's trained and the amount of sparring you do. The art itself isn't the main factor, your level of training and sparring is. If you want to learn to fight, then fight. If you aren't fighting you aren't learning self-defence.

Go to a variety of gyms and observe the emphasis they put on sparring a fully-resisting opponent. The art is often immaterial.

SVJKarate

Shotokan is probably the most popular form of karate in the world, and that's the result mostly of the historical strength of the Japan Karate Association which was formed in the time of Gichin Funakoshi (the "father" of modern karate). Funakoshi, through his own connections and the work of the JKA managed to have his 'style' (Funakoshi was not in favour of the idea of styles) introduced into Japanese schools to be taught for health benefits.

After his death the JKA took the strategic decision to send some of its top instructors around the world to spread the teaching of karate, which by now had become known as 'Shotokan' (Funakoshi's pen name was 'Shoto' so 'Shotokan' was his school) and this lead to many JKA hubs being established under highly acclaimed instructors like Kase, Kanazawa, Enoeda, Shirai, Ochi and Tomita to name a few.

During the '70's and '80's when karate was at its peak in popularity this led to Shotokan clubs outnumbering all other styles.

Since then other styles have grown, possibly faster than Shotokan (which did not help its popularity with all the many splits and legal wranglings) to rival Shotokan in numbers.

In Ireland the energy and popularity of some of the instructors in the '70's and '80's (Tommy McGrane, Abe McCarthy, the Sargent brothers, George (forgot his surname) and others) led to the KUI and IKU organisations and clubs being very strong, and despite some political divisions since then these schools remain among the largest, helped by visits from very well-known Japanese instructors (Kanazawa family, Kawasoe, Kasuya, Yaguchi etc).

Why do you ask?

dubdamo

George Reilly I think is the name you forgot, I trained with him many moons ago.

SVJKarate

shadowcomplex wrote: »

and how does it compare to taekwondo for self defence?

I forgot to address this bit of the Op's post.

As somebody said it depends on how you train, not the system itself. Certainly sparring is slightly useful for self-defence, but point-sparring is not like a self-defence situation. Not at all like self-defence.

Point-sparring involving a lot of high kicks is almost, but not entirely unlike self-defence. No sane person would engage a high kick to the head while defending themselves - though an attacker may use such a technique as a stealth attack from behind or to the side. When you are really defending yourself from a violent attack you are relying on instinctive movements and the sort of 'toughness' that you get from actual contact in training.

But Geoff Thompson explains it better than I could. Look up his YouTube video KwF30Szln-A for a good explanation (I cannot link as I have only just joined in the last week or so)

Gobethewall

dubdamo wrote: »

George Reilly I think is the name you forgot, I trained with him many moons ago.

Brings back memories. Great to see George mentioned after all these years

FTA69

SVJKarate wrote: »

Certainly sparring is slightly useful for self-defence,

Depends on the sparring like. If you're a boxer or wrestler spending 10+ rounds a week training to an intense level I'd say you're perfectly equipped for self-defence.

Gobethewall

I answer to your question OP Shotokan & Taekwondo are fairly similar. TKD usually puts a bit more emphasis on kicking.
AFAIK the founder of TKD did Shotokan at some stage. (I'll probably be corrected on this)
You unfortunately used three words in your post guaranteed to change the thrust of this thread, ie. self-defence and Karate

session savage

I did shotokan for years and only tried tkd at two seminars however I personally disregarded tkd on the basis that the 6 deg black belt told us in the introduction that they don't use their hands!
Great kicks but to ignore half of your limbs? Madness.
In regards to shotokan. I wouldn't step into an mma ring with just shotokan but to be fair it got me out of a couple of hairy situations in my life. I'm doing Japanese jiu jitsu now and would rate that as much more effective than karate but still think karate is a very useful ma in certain situations.
But the best ma I know is my mouth. I'm a black belt in talking my way out of trouble.

SVJKarate

FTA69 wrote: »

Depends on the sparring like. If you're a boxer or wrestler spending 10+ rounds a week training to an intense level I'd say you're perfectly equipped for self-defence.

I'd say you're perfectly well equipped to fight. There's a massive difference. Self-defence in the proper meaning is not simply about the fight, since that is really only the last stage of a failed self-defence strategy. In reality once a fight breaks out you're almost certain to be injured in some way (even if it's just badly bruised knuckles).

Peetrik

SVJKarate wrote: »

I'd say you're perfectly well equipped to fight. There's a massive difference. Self-defence in the proper meaning is not simply about the fight

I'd be more in FTA's camp on this one. Being very clearly able and equipped to defend yourself is better for self defence than having done a course on reading body language.

There is a reason its cats that get thrown on bonfires but never rottweilers.

SVJKarate

Peetrik wrote: »

There is a reason its cats that get thrown on bonfires but never rottweilers.

Rottweilers avoid crowds?

Peetrik

Fine bad analogy.

Doesn't change the point. Being able to fight is a better means of defending yourself than hoping to be able to charm an attacker or read body language or any other factor.

SVJKarate

Peetrik wrote: »

Being able to fight is a better means of defending yourself than hoping to be able to charm an attacker or read body language or any other factor.

Avoiding physical confrontation is far better than entering it.

This is not simply my own opinion, it is the opinion of Geoff Thompson and others who have professionally had to deal with rowdy, drunken, aggressive people in difficult situations. Moreover, the idea that a 'fight' will break out in (for example) Temple Bar one night whereupon two people pit their skills against each other is simply Hollywood stuff. Most people who get attacked are attacked by a number of people. It's typically an assault, not a fight.

I would not fancy my chances in a fight against John Joe Nevin, Irish Olympic boxer. Yet his boxing skills did not prevent him from having both his legs broken in a domestic attack in April this year. That was not a fight, it was an assault. I doubt that karate, Krav Maga, MMA, wrestling, or BJJ would have helped him one iota in the situation he was in.

The three best words of advice I offer anybody who asks what the best technique is for self defence: "Be somewhere else"

Peetrik

SVJKarate wrote: »

Avoiding physical confrontation is far better than entering it.

Thats a strawman argument. No one is saying you should always seek out a confrontation. What was being commented on was exactly how useful heavy sparring is in preparation for defending yourself. I was saying that its more than "slightly" useful as you called it. I was saying that its more useful than any other single factor.

SVJKarate wrote: »

I would not fancy my chances in a fight against John Joe Nevin, Irish Olympic boxer.

This is my point. Neither would most people... bullies/muggers etc don't actively seek out confrontation with people who can clearly defend themselves, they pick on people who can't, who they don't think will fight back.