# Karate Training Venn Diagram



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2010)




----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2010)

I was thinking about the old argument about sport vs art vs self defense and I put together this Venn Diagram to help describe my thinking.  If we think of karate as being all three and that some techniques or aspects of training belong in spaces of the diagram, how would you place certain aspects of training?  What fits all three?  What fits in two categories?  What fits in only one?

Lastly, allow me to define the categories, and you may disagree with my definitions by all means.

1.  Art = Do = Character Development = Esoteric
2.  Sport = Competition = Rules = Struggle for dominance
3.  Self Defense = Stopping unlawful use of force


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 5, 2010)

I don't agree with art = esoteric.

Imo, art are the techniques and understanding / concepts that underpin those techniques.
The art may contain things that are no longer as relevant as when the art was conceived,
the art may contain fine motor skills that are not really available for sport or self defense,
the art may contain things that are flat out unusable for self defense (like information on assassination),
the art may contain things like dojo etiquette and ways of tying your belt which have nothing to do with self defense or sports,
the art may contain survival skills, medical information and other things.


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 5, 2010)

<shrugs> I don't train for sport or art at all.  We practice no technique or drill in my dojo that does not have an apparent practical use.  I suppose the recitation of a dojo kun might be one of our few concessions to the art or personal development aspect of training.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'struggle for dominance' or 'stopping unlawful use of force' either.  The skills we try to acquire and develop as we practice karate are morally neutral.  Quite simply, their strict purpose is to be able to physically defeat (harm and control) another person or a small group of people.  They can certainly be used for self-defense only, yet obviously someone could use them for nefarious reasons.  I make no differentiation between struggling for dominance and self-defense.  They are the same thing to me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I don't agree with art = esoteric.
> 
> Imo, art are the techniques and understanding / concepts that underpin those techniques.
> The art may contain things that are no longer as relevant as when the art was conceived,
> ...



Thanks, I think your list fleshes things out and adds to what I initially wrote.  Art = esoteric, but that certainly isn't the whole of it.  Also, I think that many of the things you described above could also be thought of as esoteric.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> <shrugs> I don't train for sport or art at all.  We practice no technique or drill in my dojo that does not have an apparent practical use.  I suppose the recitation of a dojo kun might be one of our few concessions to the art or personal development aspect of training.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'struggle for dominance' or 'stopping unlawful use of force' either.  The skills we try to acquire and develop as we practice karate are morally neutral.  Quite simply, their strict purpose is to be able to physically defeat (harm and control) another person or a small group of people.  They can certainly be used for self-defense only, yet obviously someone could use them for nefarious reasons.  I make no differentiation between struggling for dominance and self-defense.  They are the same thing to me.



In competition, we struggle for dominance within a structure of rules.  Both participants agree to the rules and both agree to engage.

In self defense, you have one party that DOES NOT want to engage and is attempting to ward off/evade/stop the use of force.  This isn't a struggle for dominance, because "winning" may not actually accomplish the actual goal.

Does that make sense?


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 5, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> In competition, we struggle for dominance within a structure of rules.  Both participants agree to the rules and both agree to engage.
> 
> In self defense, you have one party that DOES NOT want to engage and is attempting to ward off/evade/stop the use of force.  This isn't a struggle for dominance, because "winning" may not actually accomplish the actual goal.
> 
> Does that make sense?




To me not really, but that is fine.

When the fists start flying, self-defense is just a nice way to describe harming your attacker to the point that his assault upon you ends.  What degree of harm the attacker takes depends on the situation, but the fight itself is certainly a competition between your attacker and yourself to see who can defeat the other, even if the stakes are rather more than a trophy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> To me not really, but that is fine.
> 
> When the fists start flying, self-defense is just a nice way to describe harming your attacker to the point that his assault upon you ends.  What degree of harm the attacker takes depends on the situation, but the fight itself is certainly a competition between your attacker and yourself to see who can defeat the other, even if the stakes are rather more than a trophy.



I think this is more then a philosophic difference.  A competition mindset can actually work against goals in self defense.  The objectives when the fists start flying may be similar in some situations, but they also may be VASTLY different and this distinction might mean the difference between life and death.

Specifically, there are bunkai in our kata that show techniques for escaping an attacker or group of attackers.  Those techniques do not belong in the Sport circle and do not cross into the sport circle.


----------



## OldKarateGuy (Nov 6, 2010)

Depending on the rules of any specific competition (event or style), point sparring might have absolutely no value in terms of self defense, and may even be counterproductive. Rules may be intended to limit risks, or to even up age or height/weight differences. I understand that sport competitions have to have limits, but the distinction is important when training, especially if you wish to insure an instinctive reaction (to a threat) will be practical and not competition-based. However, point sparring could improve things like timing, range (hopefully) and speed. 

As for "do", I suppose everyone has heard "There is no first strike in karate" or the like, but in the real world, there may be times when a first strike is absolutely called for. So the philosophical and reality may be at odds. Maybe a better distinction in today's world is whether the student can articulate a reasonable (and legal) basis for offering violence. 

I agree escape/restraint/take-down techniques are almost always self-defense oriented. When referring to, say, ground fighting, whether as a sport or self defense, one of my personal objections is that it assumes one will face a single adversary.But since one can't always control the circumstances, then ground fighting does have a defensive value. 

I also try to train students for the things that may be less practical, but traditional, such as some weapons or forms. I think there is an inherent beauty in the traditional aspects of martial arts, and I would find teaching - and training - somewhat deficient without including them. Not to re-open the never-ending debate about the value of kata, but I personally find value in them.


----------

