(Approx 2 minute 40 second read)

Over the years, karate has been modified to fit a non-combative formula such as competition, athleticism, style, and aesthetics. However, traditionally, karate – and its kata – were designed as records of practical fighting methods for civilian self-defense.
.
Now, I understand that not everyone trains for self-defense or combative reasons. Some just want to have fun, get fit (or so I gather), or enjoy friendly competition. And that’s fine.
.
But context matters. Students need to understand what they are doing and why.
.
Recently, someone sent me several messages – relentlessly – about the use of stances, particularly in response to an article I wrote. He insisted that I “look at stances from a different viewpoint”, arguing that they help build strength, patience (?), and technique. He even compared them to push-ups, saying, “You’re not going to do a push-up in a real fight!”
.
I think he was trying to say that stances don’t have to be functional.
.
This is where a key distinction needs to be made. Strength-building and other physical benefits might occur through training, but they don’t justify inefficient practice. It doesn’t matter what the technique is.
.
For me, and in the context of my practice, if something doesn’t translate effectively to application, then it’s worth re-evaluating why it’s being practiced that way. Practicality should always take priority over tradition or any theoretical (or theatrical) benefits.
.
Context is everything, I say this all the time. Many of the techniques and practice we adopt have an extra quality to them. In regard to some stances they can provide an element of strength building, but they are not primarily trained for this purpose – any strength gained is just a byproduct of their proper use.
.
The issue arises when these secondary benefits are mistaken for the primary function. A training method shouldn’t be justified solely by its additional benefits if it doesn’t serve a realistic and functional purpose.
.
Here’s an analogy for you. Writing with a pen. If you don’t write this way regularly you hand may ache, but over time, your hand muscles may develop endurance. But the goal isn’t to strengthen your grip – it’s to communicate ideas. If you started gripping the pen as hard as possible just to build strength, your writing would suffer. The same goes for karate training. Strength may come as a byproduct, but the focus should always be on proper function.
.
The same person then claimed, “Stances are not always done because they work… they may serve a bigger purpose.” He insisted I couldn’t see that purpose….. Crikey!
.
Maybe I missed that memo – or maybe it’s just one of those traditions that got carried along without question. I remember training in the 1970s and 1980s, instructors would have us hold deep stances to ‘build leg muscles’. By the end of the class, we could barely move.
.
See the problem? I think you get the idea! Perhaps he too was taught this way by his sensei and this method cannot be changed because of respect to him. There’s that cognitive dissonance again (see previous article).
.
Every technique derived from a principle has a purpose. If that purpose is ignored or mistaken for a secondary benefit, then its role in training needs to be reconsidered. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a stance, a punch, or a receiving technique – the primary function should always be understood and deliberately trained.
.
And just to be clear – my page, my social media, my website, all state Shuri Dojo Practical Karate in the header. So arguing with me about non-practical, non-combative movements seems a bit futile.
.
Context, common-sense, logic, come on – some people need to get past their ego, we live in a time where there is information everywhere, make use of it.
.
If you want to build leg strength, just take the stairs. At least that gets you somewhere.
.
.
Written by Adam Carter.