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

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

original-616fb11abcc7b81828257ee1e48e668b.gif
 
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."
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
Its also common for people to make excuses and false assumptions when they fail or give up.

Karate works.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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? :)
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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 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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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'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.
 
Back
Top