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

Pragmatic violence.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top