# I find it is common for people to say "karate is not meant for fighting."



## Ironbear24 (Jan 2, 2017)

My immediate response is "so then what the hell is it for?" That's usually met with some fortune cookie answer like " it is about the journey." Or it is about "personal development."

Why can't it be about both? I never understand the whole fighting is not what it is about mentality not only with karate but with martial arts in general.

Why do we spend hours and hours on practicing punching and kicking, blocking and other things directly related to fighting if it is not about fighting? To me it just sounds ridiculous, that's like saying studying psychology isn't about learning about how people behave and why, it's all about the journey.

Literally no other field has this midnset about it, you go flight school to learn to fly, no one with their is going to tell you pfffft flying lessons aren't about flying. What's wrong with you are you out of your mind?

Do you understand where I am coming from here? It doesn't bother me or anything but is something that has always perplexed me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 2, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> My immediate response is "so then what the hell is it for?" That's usually met with some fortune cookie answer like " it is about the journey." Or it is about "personal development."
> 
> Why can't it be about both? I never understand the whole fighting is not what it is about mentality not only with karate but with martial arts in general.
> 
> ...



*Karate is meant for fighting.*

I think the issue is that people fail to say it correctly.  Karate is *not only* meant for fighting.

You may find, in time, that there are other things that karate is 'for'.  Some of them are not about fighting, but are indeed about the journey.  What journey?  The journey of one's life.

In Okinawan and Japan, Karate is often known as 'karate do'.  That is 'Empty Hand Way'.  A 'do' in Japan refers to a manner in which we live our lives in addition to a thing which we do. 

In Japan, flower arranging is a 'do'.   Calligraphy is a 'do'.  Tea-making is a 'do'.  And believe it or not, learning tea-making is not about making tea as much as it is about many other things.

No one has to embrace that part of the art.  The art doesn't care if you wish to learn only to kick, hit, and block, or if you want to discover important truths about your own life as you learn to kick, hit, and block.  It is entirely up to you what you wish to do, or not do, with regard to your martial arts training.

Some styles of karate have divorced themselves entirely from any form of inner life regarding the art they teach.  No problem.  Nothing wrong with that.

Other styles of martial art are concerned far more with the inner life than with the actual art itself.  Also no problem.

Kyūdō - Wikipedia

Karate, like the archery style known as 'Kyudo' (link above), can contain teachings that are practical, spiritual, and moral (dealing with how to honorably live our lives).  If these things do not concern you, do not be worried about them.  Not that many people who train care about such things, or they find their inner life and development elsewhere, and this is just fine.

But karate is not only meant for fighting.  When human beings meet on a field of battle, when strife can mean serious injury or death, when two people stare into each other's eyes and recognize themselves, while still recognizing that one of them may not rise from the ground, a certain amount of introspection may be engendered.

We live.  We strive.  We struggle.  We fight.  We die.  We recognize the warrior in each other, as well as the peacemaker.  The way we move through life can reflect the way we move through our martial arts training, and vice-versa.

You don't have to consider these things.  Some people do.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Jan 2, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> My immediate response is "so then what the hell is it for?" That's usually met with some fortune cookie answer like " it is about the journey." Or it is about "personal development."
> 
> Why can't it be about both? I never understand the whole fighting is not what it is about mentality not only with karate but with martial arts in general.
> 
> ...


You do learn to fight but you also learn how to not fight and absolutely it's a journey. If it was just about fighting then kids wouldn't do it. Parents put their kids in karate not so they can beat up people but so they can learn discipline and respect and self control


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 2, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> My immediate response is "so then what the hell is it for?" That's usually met with some fortune cookie answer like " it is about the journey." Or it is about "personal development."
> 
> Why can't it be about both? I never understand the whole fighting is not what it is about mentality not only with karate but with martial arts in general.
> 
> ...


I think some of this comes from people wanting to paint a philosophy. I use the word "paint", because some folks seem to need that philosophy to be artistic. The "Karate isn't for fighting", to me, is just their way of saying that we should be better at avoiding fights than at winning them. And that should, in fact, be a goal of Karate-do or any other martial pursuit that's about surviving and self-defense. But the approach and description can be less...oblique.


----------



## Tames D (Jan 2, 2017)

*"Karate is not meant for fighting"
*
I always felt that people who say this are Karate people that can't fight.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 2, 2017)

Wow you guys are really kind.
I guess I'll keep my mouth shut because I really can't stand when people say that "it is about the journey." Or it is about "personal development."
Westerners like to try and remove the hardwork and just pick out what they want.

"About the journey" and "personal development" are by products of hard and honest training regardless of what a person is training be it a martial art or not.  These aren't things that a person can just pick out and separate from hard work.  

Martial Arts is often seen as a cure for weaklings, victims, people with no self-esteem, and other personal development issues.  Training martial arts as it was originally meant is tough, so if a person shows up for class on week one, week2, month 1, month 2. etc.  Then they aren't as weak and helpless as they think they are.  I've see people who don't have self-esteem because it shows up during class and then they wash out, because they think they can't do something.

Martial arts can't bring out what isn't already there.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 2, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think the issue is that people fail to say it correctly. Karate is *not only* meant for fighting.


Karate is meant for fighting *but comes with* *additional benefits*. Is what they should say.  People think all fighting is bad, but it's not.  Some of the nicest people I know study how to hurt humans through martial arts.  Many of the thugs and criminals that I used to know didn't study how to hurt people, they just did it.  

Martial demands commitment, dedications, health, and emotional stability from the practitioner.  Cruelty demands nothing but cruelty so there's no training required.


----------



## Dudi Nisan (Jan 3, 2017)

I think that when it comes to dealing with violent people martial arts in themselves are not enough.



Ironbear24 said:


> Why do we spend hours and hours on practicing punching and kicking, blocking and other things directly related to fighting if it is not about fighting?



You might spend hours and hours but those people have been trained in violence while still in their mother wombs( research has shown that the baby feels violence even in the womb). As infants, toddlers, young  children they were constantly beaten. They were trained 24/7 for years. 

You might beat them with kicks and punches, but they tend to belong to a group, and they'll come looking for you. They have nothing better to do. And they'd be armed ( with clubs and bats and who knows what else).

There some people today who teach how to* avoid* fighting with such violent people. And I think that some karate masters of the past had such knowledge. Those masters knew, I guess, that fighting alone would end in theirs, or their students, trauma(even if they "won"). Thus, "karate is not for fighting".

And furthermore, in East Asia people were very sensitive of the corrupting effects fighting (and the thinking about fighting, as in designing fighting techniques etc.) on the mind. They wanted to balance their practice of fighting. They needed to balance it. Instead in focusing on "outer" enemies  they shifted the focus to one's "inner" enemy; instead of fighting with others they emphasized fighting one's own moral weaknesses. Thus, again, "karate is not for fighting".

However, fighting one's own moral weaknesses requires intense training. Karate should be intense. But karate is not for fighting.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Jan 3, 2017)

Dudi Nisan said:


> I think that when it comes to dealing with violent people martial arts in themselves are not enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sounds to me you should take up track and field with that mindset. If you put so much value into avoiding the fight then why fight at all? Learn to run and run fast, thing with that though is you can't run from everyone and everything.

I will continue to train to fight better, I do not feel there is anything ugly or wrong with that.


----------



## Dudi Nisan (Jan 3, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> Sounds to me you should take up track and field with that mindset


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 3, 2017)

Dudi Nisan said:


> There some people today who teach how to* avoid* fighting with such violent people. And I think that some karate masters of the past had such knowledge. Those masters knew, I guess, that fighting alone would end in theirs, or their students, trauma(even if they "won"). Thus, "karate is not for fighting".


 Nope. actually when you go back to karate master of the past, you will see that some of them killed the person they were fighting.  It's no different than someone coming into my home and I kill them out of self-defense.   In general "martial art masters" were a lot meaner than what we see today.  Today's masters have the threat of lawyers and lawsuits that keep them from just fighting anyone at any time.



Dudi Nisan said:


> East Asia people were very sensitive of the corrupting effects fighting (and the thinking about fighting, as in designing fighting techniques etc.) on the mind. They wanted to balance their practice of fighting. They needed to balance it. Instead in focusing on "outer" enemies they shifted the focus to one's "inner" enemy; instead of fighting with others they emphasized fighting one's own moral weaknesses.


This is also not true.  Japanese were known for being brutal and Chinese were known for warring for hundreds of years.  As far as moral weakness.  Power rules everything, just like it does today.  People make karate to be honorable but just take a look at the history of karate and you'll see that honorable is not what you think it means.  Honorable to them was not the same definition that westerners place on being honorable.

The perspective that you have about karate now is from commercialization.


----------



## Dudi Nisan (Jan 3, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Japanese were known for being brutal and Chinese were known for warring for hundreds of years.



Warring and martial arts are not the same. Brutal? only when they had the power. They were not simply walking the streets being brutal.

The law in China and Japan was very strict and it was especially so when it came to inflicting injuries on others. That is one reason people tried to avoid fighting and why Asian masters had to be very circumspect when accepting students--they would be held responsible for their students misbehavior too. 



JowGaWolf said:


> Nope. actually when you go back to karate master of the past, you will see that some of them killed the person they were fighting.



Here for you is a story about Choshin Chibana, supposedly one of those mean masters of the past who fought anyone at any time. From min 32:


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2017)

mr myagi said it. So it has to be true


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 3, 2017)

Dudi Nisan said:


> Warring and martial arts are not the same. Brutal? only when they had the power. They were not simply walking the streets being brutal.


"Until the early 20th century the Okinawan masters trained in secret, spending three years on each kata and training extensively on a makiwara board; sparring as we know it today was not practiced though karateka would often challenge each other to fights to test their skills."  Source: History of Fighting

"
The Okinawans once practiced both unarmed and armed combat openly. This was in the time of conflict between the provinces of Ryūkyū, prior to 1429. Military capability had developed through tribal developments and from the Japanese of the Heian Period, travelling to Ryūkyū and returning with the knowledge of swordsmanship and archery.

In 1509, it was King Shō Shin who put an end to the feudalistic period of the Ryūkyū Kingdom through the Act of Eleven Distinctions, which prohibited the stockpiling and possession of weapons. As a result, unarmed combat began to be cultivated more vigorously." 

"Rather than ceasing practice, martial artists began to study at night in darkness to continue to preserve their fighting arts without easily allowing others to see them practising. Only Okinawans knew that the art was practised."

"In 1609, the Satsuma clan of Kyūshū, Japan, invaded and seized control of Ryūkyū. The clan held power over the Ryūkyūan kings for 270 years. When the Satsuma took power, they prohibited the practice of all martial arts by the Okinawans. It is said that the Okinawans fought fiercely before the Satsuma samurai over-powered them."
Source: Historical Origins of Karate


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 3, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Wow you guys are really kind.
> I guess I'll keep my mouth shut because I really can't stand when people say that "it is about the journey." Or it is about "personal development."
> Westerners like to try and remove the hardwork and just pick out what they want.
> 
> ...


Self-esteem can be developed. And martial arts (like any activity that requires dedication and develops skill) can be a method of developing that. The same goes for discipline.

I think many people who talk about "the journey" are really just trying to point up the internal benefits of martial arts, perhaps because they got some push-back at some point about "teaching kids to fight".


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 3, 2017)

Karate and Kung Fu are not void of bad people.  For some reason western societies think that Kung Fu and Karate = pure of heart.  I'm willing to bet that there are karate and kung fu schools today that have jerks that train in the school.. They may not be a jerk inside the school but outside the school is a different story.   I'm also willing to bet there there are kung fu and karate students who believe that skills should be used to oppress others.   So to think that all teachers who teach martial arts were nice, is not very realistic when you factor in human's ability to do bad.

As for the samurai spirit.  Did you know that Samurai considered taking the heads of their enemies in battle as being honorable?  Did you know that if they didn't kill anyone in battle that they would sometimes chop the heads off fellow soldiers and lie about it being an enemies head just to rise in social status?  Suicide was considered a part of Samurai spirit.  Did you know that Samurai would sometimes cut prisoners in half for the sake of testing the quality of a sword, sometimes they would just cut an arm or a leg.

No one creates techniques that injure, kill, and maim people for the sake of finding peace and self-development.

Self-development is a by product of training hard and it's not limited martial arts.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think many people who talk about "the journey" are really just trying to point up the internal benefits of martial arts, perhaps because they got some push-back at some point about "teaching kids to fight".


I think so too.  I let parents know right away that we teach their kids how to fight and defend themselves.  I also explain that knowing how to fight does not mean that someone will all of a sudden just go out and start fights.  If their child is violent before martial arts then they will be violent after learning martial arts.  This is where instructors get picky about who they teach and how much they teach to a particular student.
I know that I wouldn't teach a child if I thought that child was violent or could clearly see that he or she is violent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 3, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Karate and Kung Fu are not void of bad people.  For some reason western societies think that Kung Fu and Karate = pure of heart.  I'm willing to bet that there are karate and kung fu schools today that have jerks that train in the school.. They may not be a jerk inside the school but outside the school is a different story.   I'm also willing to bet there there are kung fu and karate students who believe that skills should be used to oppress others.   So to think that all teachers who teach martial arts were nice, is not very realistic when you factor in human's ability to do bad.
> 
> As for the samurai spirit.  Did you know that Samurai considered taking the heads of their enemies in battle as being honorable?  Did you know that if they didn't kill anyone in battle that they would sometimes chop the heads off fellow soldiers and lie about it being an enemies head just to rise in social status?  Suicide was considered a part of Samurai spirit.  Did you know that Samurai would sometimes cut prisoners in half for the sake of testing the quality of a sword, sometimes they would just cut an arm or a leg.
> 
> ...


Heck, I dealt with a black belt who was a bit of an *** inside the school, too. Sometimes they get in, and the instructor doesn't realize it for a long time, or sees them differently than students do. This particular guy would likely never have gotten past his second student rank with me - too arrogant by half.


----------



## Tortoise (Jan 3, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> My immediate response is "so then what the hell is it for?" That's usually met with some fortune cookie answer like " it is about the journey." Or it is about "personal development."
> 
> Why can't it be about both? I never understand the whole fighting is not what it is about mentality not only with karate but with martial arts in general.
> 
> ...



Karate is about self defense, not fighting.  I believe there is a difference.  If you are fighting, you are looking to inflict pain.  If I can defend myself without inflicting pain, that would be preferable.  If I can defend myself by using a lockflow technique and restraining someone until police arrive, I would prefer that to breaking the opponent's arms, if possible, if my goal  is self defense.  If I am in a real fight, I would try to break his arm.  I may have to break his arm just to defend myself, but I would avoid it if possible.

Why fight?  Because you may need to defend yourself from someone who wants to fight whether you do or not, so you have to at least not crumple up into a ball and cry if someone hits you.  You need to learn that you can take a hit and keep going.  Not the end of the world (hopefully).

Most of us do not believe that we should take karate so we can start and win bar fights, for example.  We take karate so if someone starts a fight with us in a bar, we can get hurt as little as possible. 

If someone has a weapon and I don't, or if I KNOW they are looking to inflict real harm, I will try to inflict pain and feel no remorse for severe injuries to an attacker.  If the attacker is a drunk idiot, possible even an acquaintance, I will try to inflict only the amount of pain necessary to prevent myself from getting hurt.

Maybe this is all semantics, but I think that is the difference between a street fighter and a martial artist.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Jan 3, 2017)

And you say it doesn't bother you but it obviously does I can just tell your angry about and we know you don't like people insulting things you do


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 3, 2017)

Tortoise said:


> Karate is about self defense, not fighting. I believe there is a difference. If you are fighting, you are looking to inflict pain. If I can defend myself without inflicting pain, that would be preferable. If I can defend myself by using a lockflow technique and restraining someone until police arrive, I would prefer that to breaking the opponent's arms, if possible, if my goal is self defense. If I am in a real fight, I would try to break his arm. I may have to break his arm just to defend myself, but I would avoid it if possible.


You can defend yourself without inflicting pain - by avoiding the confrontation in the first place. If things have gotten to the point of an unavoidable physical confrontation with someone who is genuinely trying to do you harm, then it's not very likely you are going to be able to subdue your attacker without inflicting pain. You're doing well if your joint lock restraints manage to work with only pain inflicted rather than having to actually break a limb.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Jan 3, 2017)

Kickboxer101 said:


> And you say it doesn't bother you but it obviously does I can just tell your angry about and we know you don't like people insulting things you do



Nobody is insulting anything. It's just a difference of how the art is viewed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think some of this comes from people wanting to paint a philosophy. I use the word "paint", because some folks seem to need that philosophy to be artistic. The "Karate isn't for fighting", to me, is just their way of saying that we should be better at avoiding fights than at winning them. And that should, in fact, be a goal of Karate-do or any other martial pursuit that's about surviving and self-defense. But the approach and description can be less...oblique.



I don't think I am 'painting a philosophy' as much as recognizing that there is a philosophy in there.  But again, people who don't want to view karate as having something more to it than the physical aspects are free to do so.  It's terrific for that.

Just because you don't see more to it, doesn't mean there isn't more there.  Doesn't mean there is more to it, either.  But I am not given to flights of fancy or ooga-booga stuff.  I trust my instincts and my instincts have not steered me wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 3, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't think I am 'painting a philosophy' as much as recognizing that there is a philosophy in there.  But again, people who don't want to view karate as having something more to it than the physical aspects are free to do so.  It's terrific for that.
> 
> Just because you don't see more to it, doesn't mean there isn't more there.  Doesn't mean there is more to it, either.  But I am not given to flights of fancy or ooga-booga stuff.  I trust my instincts and my instincts have not steered me wrong.


I wasn't referring to you, Bill. The "painting a philosophy" comment is more about the kind of folks who try really hard to make any MA that is still teaching fighting skill (like Karate) NOT about that fighting skill. There's definitely more to be had than just that skill - in fact, the tagline for my program reflects that view: "Self-defense. Self-discipline. Self-development."


----------



## Buka (Jan 3, 2017)

Not for fighting? Oh, crap, I've been doing it wrong all this time! Oh, man, I have a lot of explaining to do.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 3, 2017)

I think of martial arts as a weapon, like a gun.  There is no mistake of why the gun was created and what the gun can do.  This is the gun's "original purpose or original purposes."  From there I can choose how to use the gun.  I can either be a butt or I can be honorable, I can use it for war or I can use it for peace.  At this point, this is where the gun takes on characteristics of my ethics and moral teachings.   Martial arts is and was just like this.  The techniques in a martial art make clear that the purpose of the system was to injure another.  But what we decide to do with it is defined by who we are an not what the martial art is.

Now back to the gun.  We can change the purpose of a gun and give it purpose other than killing (be it person or animal). For example:  Flair gun, paint gun, starter pistol.   Once we do this, we have fundamentally changed why the gun was created and what the gun can do.  In martial arts, this would be similar to martial arts that aren't good for self defense, such as martial arts that train point sparring, forms competition, tricking, and other entertainment type martial arts.  Depending on which system a person stakes, their karate may stick closely to the original purpose for the creation or it may have been changed so that it serves a different purpose.  No matter how good a person is with Tricking, the principles in tricking would fail in combat, which is fine because it wasn't created for combat.

If a school trains close to why the system was created (doesn't matter if for war, self-defense, or entertainment) then that system and the person will contain similar philosophies of that system along with a "customized perspective" of that philosophy that is based on the student.  I see my system of Kung Fu as brutal and unforgiving, and it was made for only 1 purpose.  I train according to this purpose. My "customized perspective" dictates how I feel I should carry myself and the knowledge that I have.  Do I handle the "gun" with respect and care or do I "wave the gun" around carelessly and allow anyone to take control of it?

We may be on either side of the discussion, depending on the system that we study and the school that we teach in or study in.  

I think the "zen attitude" is often confused with "self-control" that is often trained in martial arts.  By controlling ourselves physically and mentally we are better able to do the techniques found within the system. Things like punching correctly and with control helps us to prevent injury to ourselves and others.  The peacefulness and brotherhood is probably more of a reflection on how students and teachers treat each other in the school and some of that bleeds out into our lives.  For example, I find it easier to punch someone I don't know than someone I know.  Most of us are probably like that with a gun. A stranger breaking into your house will probably be easier to shoot than a friend breaking into your house.  

But there are exceptions where the school is all about the zen and brotherly love and often times these same schools often have techniques that really don't work well for self-defense.  It's like one of the members here stated when asked about the difference between his martial arts classes and self-defense class. He stated, "I teach confidence in my martial arts class and self-defense in my self-defense class."


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 3, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> My immediate response is "so then what the hell is it for?"


Originally, civilian self defence.  Hence the reason kata doesn't look like fighting.

Nowadays it can be for any number of things, winning throphies, a more interesting way of keeping fit than going to the gym, etc etc


----------



## Buka (Jan 3, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> My immediate response is "so then what the hell is it for?"



You know my knee jerk reaction to these discussions about no fighting Martial Arts. I always lead with my emotional answer because I see too little fight training in Martial Arts schools these last few years. That worries me a great deal.

But I'll tell you what it's for. It's for the development of character. Through rigorous and intense training of fitness and fighting, discipline and will, of, from and through, Martial Arts. All Martial Arts.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Jan 3, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> You can defend yourself without inflicting pain - by avoiding the confrontation in the first place. If things have gotten to the point of an unavoidable physical confrontation with someone who is genuinely trying to do you harm, then it's not very likely you are going to be able to subdue your attacker without inflicting pain. You're doing well if your joint lock restraints manage to work with only pain inflicted rather than having to actually break a limb.



If they are attacking me why do they deserve that luxary of not getting hurt?


----------



## donald1 (Jan 4, 2017)

Its also common for people to make excuses and false assumptions when they fail or give up.

Karate works.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 4, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> If they are attacking me why do they deserve that luxary of not getting hurt?



Meet force (or the realistic threat of force) with equal force.  A cousin chest bumping you in anger doesn't justify a dislocated elbow.  Someone reaching for a gun justifies breaking the arm so he can't use it.  And the other one if he reaches with his other hand.  

Part of being an adult is knowing the difference between right and wrong and acting accordingly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Meet force (or the realistic threat of force) with equal force.  A cousin chest bumping you in anger doesn't justify a dislocated elbow.  Someone reaching for a gun justifies breaking the arm so he can't use it.  And the other one if he reaches with his other hand.
> 
> Part of being an adult is knowing the difference between right and wrong and acting accordingly.


That chest bump isn't an attack.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 4, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That chest bump isn't an attack.



I was just trying to go with an extreme on both ends of the spectrum.  Someone sticking their chest out and bumping you with it, trying to get you to back up could be considered an attack by some.  It's a reach, but depending on the circumstances, I guess you could consider it an attack; there's physical contact after all.

I know, semantics.

Edit:  What if it's a running chest bump that knocks you back a step or two?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I was just trying to go with an extreme on both ends of the spectrum.  Someone sticking their chest out and bumping you with it, trying to get you to back up could be considered an attack by some.  It's a reach, but depending on the circumstances, I guess you could consider it an attack; there's physical contact after all.
> 
> I know, semantics.
> 
> Edit:  What if it's a running chest bump that knocks you back a step or two?


An attack, in my opinion, generally requires either an intent to injure or a threat to injure (like a robbery at knife-point). The simple chest bump does not contain that. The running chest bump may - that's something that would depend upon the scenario. The simple chest bump I'll probably just slip in one direction or another to control it. The running chest bump probably ends up with the other guy on the ground, because there's enough chance of them injuring me (even accidentally) for me to take more direct action.


----------



## Buka (Jan 4, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I was just trying to go with an extreme on both ends of the spectrum.  Someone sticking their chest out and bumping you with it, trying to get you to back up could be considered an attack by some.  It's a reach, but depending on the circumstances, I guess you could consider it an attack; there's physical contact after all.
> 
> I know, semantics.
> 
> Edit:  What if it's a running chest bump that knocks you back a step or two?



If I'm working, and get the expanded chest push from somebody, that's not usually a good thing, usually leads to further difficulties for them. The running chest bump - well, you know.



gpseymour said:


> An attack, in my opinion, generally requires either an intent to injure or a threat to injure (like a robbery at knife-point). The simple chest bump does not contain that. The running chest bump may - that's something that would depend upon the scenario. The simple chest bump I'll probably just slip in one direction or another to control it. The running chest bump probably ends up with the other guy on the ground, because there's enough chance of them injuring me (even accidentally) for me to take more direct action.



I'm not sure. If somebody I knows surprises me with a chest bump, that's one thing. Somebody I don't know may be an entirely different story, dependent on the circumstances.

On the bright side - if I'm going to get snookered, a chest bump probably wouldn't be too difficult to deal with - although I'm racking my brain trying to remember if I ever did. Can't remember ever training against a chest bump, per se. Hmm.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2017)

Buka said:


> If I'm working, and get the expanded chest push from somebody, that's not usually a good thing, usually leads to further difficulties for them. The running chest bump - well, you know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not saying there's no reason to respond to a chest bump, but it's not what I define as an attack. It's still part, IMO, of what some call "the monkey dance". They're trying to provoke. Without context, it's hard to say how important it is and how big the response should be. I'm not decking the guy if that chest bump is the whole physical attack. I will reintroduce some space, because he's WAY too close.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Jan 4, 2017)

It has already been said but a chest bump is not even an attack. It's more of a greeting and normally used a friendly gesture. Shoving someone with your shoulder as you walk by them isn't really an attack either, it's more of a challenge.

As I said before my point still stands. If a complete stranger actually attacks me, then there is no reason I should be nice to them, this is not to say I am going to shatter every bone in their body or anything like that. Honestly that isn't how I fight, worse thing I will do is probably toss them over and they hit the floor very hard. 

Worst injury I ever gave someone was a bloody lip. I lose my cool quickly but cool down just as fast, honestly I've been working on it a lot and I haven't even been in any fights for a long time. 

This entire year I have been free of stupid fights. Now a year is a very long time and I am very proud of myself.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Jan 4, 2017)

donald1 said:


> Its also common for people to make excuses and false assumptions when they fail or give up.
> 
> Karate works.



When I fail I don't blame karate, I blame me.

But I see your point. I have seen so many people leave because they expect to be some amazing fighter in 2 months. When they aren't they blame the fighting style.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 5, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> It has already been said but a chest bump is not even an attack. It's more of a greeting and normally used a friendly gesture. Shoving someone with your shoulder as you walk by them isn't really an attack either, it's more of a challenge.
> 
> As I said before my point still stands. If a complete stranger actually attacks me, then there is no reason I should be nice to them, this is not to say I am going to shatter every bone in their body or anything like that. Honestly that isn't how I fight, worse thing I will do is probably toss them over and they hit the floor very hard.
> 
> ...



I'm not talking about chest bumping one of your boys.  Back in my day (I'm 40 and that has to be the first time I've said that), people used a chest bump like throwing a shoulder (we did that too).  It was kind of common in baseball when managers argued with umpires.  Think Tommy Lasorda.  But I digress. 

I never said it was an attack.  I was just making a point.

And great job with no fights this year. Even though it's only January 5th   I know what you mean though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 5, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I'm not talking about chest bumping one of your boys.  Back in my day (I'm 40 and that has to be the first time I've said that), people used a chest bump like throwing a shoulder (we did that too).  It was kind of common in baseball when managers argued with umpires.  Think Tommy Lasorda.  But I digress.
> 
> I never said it was an attack.  I was just making a point.
> 
> And great job with no fights this year. Even though it's only January 5th   I know what you mean though.


I thought of Tommy Lasorda, too. We're showing our age.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 5, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I thought of Tommy Lasorda, too. We're showing our age.



What ever happened to Slim Fast?  Lasorda made them some money.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Jan 6, 2017)

Who is Tommy lasordo?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> Who is Tommy lasordo?


Google him, you whipper-snapper.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 6, 2017)

Tortoise said:


> Karate is about self defense, not fighting.  I believe there is a difference.  If you are fighting, you are looking to inflict pain.  If I can defend myself without inflicting pain, that would be preferable.  If I can defend myself by using a lockflow technique and restraining someone until police arrive, I would prefer that to breaking the opponent's arms, if possible, if my goal  is self defense.  If I am in a real fight, I would try to break his arm.  I may have to break his arm just to defend myself, but I would avoid it if possible



Pragmatic violence.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 6, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> Who is Tommy lasordo?


lol.  Now I know how old I am.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 17, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> My immediate response is "so then what the hell is it for?" That's usually met with some fortune cookie answer like " it is about the journey." Or it is about "personal development."
> 
> Why can't it be about both? I never understand the whole fighting is not what it is about mentality not only with karate but with martial arts in general.
> 
> ...



The original and primary purpose for the martial arts (karate) is fighting.  Whether that be offensive (war) or defensive (personal protection).  Any other reason is an add-on.  Doesn't mean that other reasons are less valid, only that they are add-ons.  On does not need to learn how to punch, kick, break bone, throw, fall or destroy joints to get in shape or be spiritual or met other people or have a hobby.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 17, 2017)

Ironbear24 said:


> If they are attacking me why do they deserve that luxary of not getting hurt?


I knew a guy in high school, that found out that beating up the Special Needs kid, that pushed him, was about the stupidest thing he had ever done, in his life.


----------



## robal (Jan 28, 2017)

Interesting topic.  I think modern karate in general has a lot to do with any confusion. I recently read a blog post on a similar thought. Actually the whole blog  sort of addresses the whole modern karate issue. There is the article that touches on the subject of karate being about fighting (or not). It's a bit humorous. It's called "You can't have it both ways and I found it on this blog :

"The Outer Circle" (My view of the modern karate mess)

Here is the post mentioned: "The Outer Circle" (My view of the modern karate mess): You Can't Have It Both Ways.


----------



## Balrog (Jan 28, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> *Karate is meant for fighting.*
> 
> I think the issue is that people fail to say it correctly.  Karate is *not only* meant for fighting.


This.

One of our seniors once said that we train for the 1%.  99% of the time, the confidence and assuredness that we got from our training would be enough to deter a bad guy from targeting us as a potential victim.  But we have the physical skills to fall back on for that last 1%.  We teach life skills, and we use Taekwondo as the teaching medium (substitute your art for TKD).


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 29, 2017)

Team Alpha Beast said:


> It was brought to the mainland of Japan as a combat sport in lieu of boxing


Was it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 29, 2017)

Team Alpha Beast said:


> Yes in the 1920s there was some interest in boxing.  In 1922, the Japanese Government decided that Japan needed their own sport instead of adopting boxing.  They invited Gichin Funakoshi from Okinawa to start teaching in Japan....but they made him change the name of the art...prior to that is was called tudi which was Chinese for "Hand" because of the Japanese hate of the Chinese and it was changed to Karate.


Funakoshi wrote that "karate" was already being used - and both kanji ("Chinese" and "empty") were in common practice. He said the "Chinese" character was more widely used, but that may have been because of the culture in Okinawa.


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 29, 2017)

Team Alpha Beast said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But it was still brought to the mainland as a sport and branded as Karate


The original use of the word "karate" in print is attributed to Ankō Itosu.  He died in 1915, before the introduction into Japan in 1922 (according to your previous post).


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 29, 2017)

Team Alpha Beast said:


> But do you disagree that:  In 1922, the Japanese Government decided that Japan needed their own sport instead of adopting boxing. They invited Gichin Funakoshi from Okinawa to start teaching in Japan.


I don't know enough to agree or disagree which is why I am asking you, as you seem to be more knowledgable on the subject.


----------



## JP3 (Jan 29, 2017)

Transk53 said:


> Pragmatic violence.



Is that a bad thing?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 29, 2017)

Touch Of Death said:


> I knew a guy in high school, that found out that beating up the Special Needs kid, that pushed him, was about the stupidest thing he had ever done, in his life.



I was going to go after a down syndrome guy who cracked the sads pushed some stuff over and broke some stuff.  And was basically on him when i realized that there was no way that was going to end well. And just stort of stopped and said. "don't do that again" and let him go.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 29, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Is that a bad thing?



Nope. Would it be under the umbrella "do what is necessary" Difficult one to answer. If they have a weapon, or pick something up that could be used as such, probably get away it. If they repeatedly try to strangle you, or make to and fail. Probably get away it. But to say " I may have to break his arm just to defend myself, but I would avoid it if possible" probably ain't going to get away it.


----------



## JP3 (Jan 29, 2017)

I translate that as, "If I don't have to hit you, I will not.  But, if I have to hit you, I'm going to do it with everything I've got."

In the above, you can replace the word "hit" with any technique word, of course.

And, all of you gentle readers who are not participating in this sub-topic, keep your minds out of the gutter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 29, 2017)

Team Alpha Beast said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But it was still brought to the mainland as a sport and branded as Karate


And branded with the "empty" kanji for "kara". You are correct on that point.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Google him, you whipper-snapper.


He Australian.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2017)

Touch Of Death said:


> He Australian.


An Australian whipper-snapper.


----------



## Darrencowan (Feb 2, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Wow you guys are really kind.
> 
> Martial Arts is often seen as a cure for weaklings, victims, people with no self-esteem, and other personal development issues.  Training martial arts as it was originally meant is tough, so if a person shows up for class on week one, week2, month 1, month 2. etc.  Then they aren't as weak and helpless as they think they are.  I've see people who don't have self-esteem because it shows up during class and then they wash out, because they think they can't do something.
> 
> Martial arts can't bring out what isn't already there.



I think weakling is a relative term used to describe someone's physical appearance, someone's disability.  Yes, karate does help you build yourself up.  I know it did me, and still does. But for people to say "weakling" about a disabled person truly doesn't understand the power and incredible fortitude of the mind.  You want to know the most dangerous muscle in the body--the mind.  Sharpen that tool and you'll win any fight.


----------



## Darrencowan (Feb 2, 2017)

Tortoise said:


> Karate is about self defense, not fighting.  I believe there is a difference.  If you are fighting, you are looking to inflict pain.  If I can defend myself without inflicting pain, that would be preferable.  If I can defend myself by using a lockflow technique and restraining someone until police arrive, I would prefer that to breaking the opponent's arms, if possible, if my goal  is self defense.  If I am in a real fight, I would try to break his arm.  I may have to break his arm just to defend myself, but I would avoid it if possible.
> 
> Lockflow, are you referring to wrist locks?


----------



## Tortoise (Feb 7, 2017)

Joint locks, not all wrist locks.  Here is a video of the type of thing I was referring to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 7, 2017)

Tortoise said:


> Joint locks, not all wrist locks.  Here is a video of the type of thing I was referring to.


All of those locks are recognizable to me - very close in some cases to what we do in NGA.


----------

