Is Karate a civilian fighting system?

Hi Holger,

Thanks for starting this one off. I think that knowing what kind of violence karate was originally designed to address is vital if we are to understand karate and the kata upon which it is based.

To me, it’s pretty clear cut that karate was a civilian tradition as opposed to a military one. The fact it was practised by some military personnel does not make it a military system. As an example, I know guys in the modern army that box … but that does not mean boxing was designed to be used in war.

As was discussed recently, there are military units that use Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu as form of mental and physical conditioning; but that again does not mean BJJ was specifically designed to be used in today’s war zones. We know it was not.

All empty hand methods (including karate) are widely irrelevant in the weapons heavy world of warfare. If karate was intended to be used in war, it is a very poor solution. For my part, I see no evidence that karate was ever designed to be used in war though (and there is evidence to the contrary).

Some bodyguards practised karate, but that does not make karate a bodyguarding system (see Bruce Clayton’s “Shotokan’s Secret” for an alternative view. I disagree with the conclusions, but it’s a superb read!). Matsumura was a bodyguard but, there is no firm evidence that any of the other karate masters were. As has been discussed here recently, Matsumura also practised Jigen-Ryu swordsmanship, but it is not a dedicated bodyguarding system either. Here we have arts practised by a bodyguard, as opposed to bodyguarding arts.

The fact that karateka trained with and fought against each other does not make it a duelling system either. Who else would they train with? And running around to picking fights with civilians for training purposes would seem to go against common decency and the ethics of karate (Motobu may have had his fair share of civilain fights, and as I’ll come to in a minute he is on record as saying karate was not for fighting other karateka).

As regards the karate vs. karate thing, we need to make the distinction between a consensual fight with two martial artists, and a fight in the civilian enviroment (not in a ring or on a battlefield) where the participants happen to be martial artists (i.e. Matsumura vs. Chinto).

There is often an assumption that a match fight between two martial artists will be the same as a real fight between two martial artists (normally from those with no experience or empirical understanding of the latter and that is why they are unable to accurately contrast the two). They are very different environments. They are not the same due to the differing objective and the changed “emotional environment”. It is the nature of the encounter, not the background of the enemy, that is the defining issue.

(See this thread here for a video showing how boxers don’t box when they fight for real. Martial artists are just the same. A real fight is a real fight!: http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/trained-fighters-boxers-kicking)

Kata is not for a consensual rule bound exchange and that’s the defining issue for me. I see no evidence that karate was primarily designed for fighting other karateka in a "square go". I do see plenty of evidence to the contrary.

As regards the differing translations, translation from Japanese or Okinawan is always going to be difficult. That’s why I get my translations done by non-karateka who are professional translators. My translation of Itosu’s precepts was one such translation as is explained in this article: http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/10-precepts-anko-itosu

Itosus 10 Precepts by Iain Abernethy wrote:

In 1908, Itosu wrote a letter outlining his views on karate and explaining why he felt karate should be introduced on to the Okinawan school system. It is this letter, and the 10 precepts recorded within it, that is the subject of this article. This letter gives us an insight into karate as it was coming out of the shadows and beginning its journey to becoming an art practised by millions.

There are a few English translations of this important document; but unfortunately they vary greatly and it is difficult to determine which ones are correct. You would expect some variation when moving text from one language to another; however, some of these variations are not just different ways of saying the same things, as would be expected, but they often express very different sentiments. Most of these translations are also done by martial artists. I therefore can't escape the suspicion that they may be inadvertently putting their own views on karate into their translations.

There is a rare 1938 book complied by Genwa Nakasone called "Karate-Do Taikan". This important book contains material by masters such as Funakoshi, Mabuni and Otsuka. It also contains relatively good quality photographs of Itosu's 1908 letter. I sourced a copy of the book from Okinawa and sent scans of Itosu's letter - without any background information - to one of the UK's leading translation companies. As non-karateka and professional translators I felt that they would be able to give an accurate and "un-skewed" translation.

The translation company informed me that the document was written in "a very old literary style" and hence was difficult to translate; even for professional translators. This may also help explain why the existing translations of the document vary so much? The translation company contacted a specialist based in the USA who would be able to accurately translate the document and the scans were sent to him. It is this translation that is included in this article.

The translation was taken from scans of Itosu's original handwritten letter. This translation was also done independently by a leading professional translator who is a specialist in this kind of work. The translator was not a martial artist and he therefore had no specific view to promote. I therefore have no reason to doubt its accuracy. That is not to say other translations are necessarily inaccurate - it is certainly similar to others; as you would expect - however, there is no denying that in parts the one I commissioned expresses very different sentiments to some other translations. I would encourage the reader to compare the existing translations and decide for themselves which make most sense and are likely to be the most accurate.

So while others may translate Itosu’s first precept differently, I have absolutely no reason at all to doubt the accuracy of the following:

Iains translation of Itosus 10 precetps wrote:

1, Karate is not merely practiced for your own benefit; it can be used to protect one's family or master. It is not intended to be used against a single assailant but instead as a way of avoiding injury by using the hands and feet should one by any chance be confronted by a villain or ruffian.

Even if people prefer to go with another translation of the above, the following is pretty unambiguous. In Shoshin Nagamine's great book “Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters” (translated by Patrick McCarthy) Nagamine, a student of Motobu, tells us that Motobu said,

“The applications of kata have their limits and one must come to understand this. The techniques of the kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter in an arena or on a battlefield. They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behaviour.”

That’s pretty clear that karate was not developed to be a military or a duelling system.

In the same book, Patrick McCarthy (Shoshin Nagamine) also gives a slightly different translation to the one you credit to him above which is much closer to the one I commissioned:

“[Karate] is not meant to be employed against a single adversary but rather as a means of avoiding the use of one’s hands and feet in the event of a potentially dangerous encounter with a ruffian or a villain”

In both the above and mine, there is agreement on the fact karate is for “villains and ruffians” not soldiers or fellow karateka. It’s civilian self-protection that is stated as the purpose of karate.

Historical and text based arguments aside, the most compelling evidence has to be the kata themselves. There is nothing in the kata that looks like a duel to me. The methodology of the kata simply does not work against other karateka. People have been trying to make that work for the last few decades and the results are ridiculous and damaging to karate.

The contrived, forced, choreographed karateka vs. karateka “bunkai” we see in many groups, where people have to do exactly what they are told, when they are told, including doing things for no reason (i.e. pulling hands to hips, across chests, etc) is the best that has been produced from a karateka vs. karateka perspective. The necessary back and forth footwork, guards, etc needed for duelling are also totally absent from kata.

However, when kata is viewed from the perspective of a self-protection situation, the need for choreography disappears and the unexplained “oddities” described above become explained and functional.

Self-protection is a prefect fit for the motions of kata: Duelling is an imperfect and severely stretched alternative position.

Rory Miller (a non-karateka who is very experienced with regards to real violence) makes the similar observation in his superb book Mediations on Violence, “What I am saying from my experience is that the mechanics of karate kata are extremely functional in real life.” He also says, “Occasionally I would have an encounter, often an intense one, and later see the action in my wife’s karate kata”.

(See picture to the right of Rory and Iain discussing the use of and defence from guns in the Seattle sunshine in 2010 … included to break up text and give and interesting picture when I share this post on Facebook!)

As I say, the methods and mechanics of kata are a perfect fit for reality; but they simply don’t fit with duelling.

I appreciate that others may hold a different view, but to me all the evidence points firmly one way: Karate is a civilian system. I’ve found all claims to the contrary to be unsupported, based on circumstantial conjecture, impractical, contrived or illogical when contrasted with the kata.

The vast majority of karateka were not soldiers, bodyguards or pro-fighters. They were civilians. Pointing to the exception to try to prove a rule is not logical and it makes much more sense to me to take things at face value i.e. karate was a civilian system practised by civilians.

As always, it is down to the individual to think about this for themselves, weigh up the evidence, the validity of any given position, and come to their own conclusions. I hope this thread helps people do that as alternative positions are put forward and further evidence for karate’s civilian nature is added by others.

All the best,

Iain

Hi Iain,

thanks for replying. I see I'll having a hard time with my challenge. But I'll go on trying :o).

Iain Abernethy wrote:

All empty hand methods (including karate) are widely irrelevant in the weapons heavy world of warfare. If karate was intended to be used in war, it is a very poor solution. For my part, I see no evidence that karate was ever designed to be used in war though (and there is evidence to the contrary).

Good point. But all the holistic fighting systems made use of weapons. In the old days the past masters were also highly skilled in handling weapons (Kobudo, Jigen Ryu etc.). That was seperated later in history, due to the pure mass of Karate students, when Karate was introduced in the okinawan school system. You simply almost don't need any equipment  to train in an empty hand system. What about the samurai? They trained for the battlefield. They made use of Spears, the Naginata, Swords, they trained in archery and empty hand methods too. The old sword schools also made use of Kata as a training tool. What about two highly skilled samurai meeting in a self protection situation. Do they keep a cool head or is it also highly emotional so that things get sloppy?

Iain Abernethy wrote:

The fact that karateka trained with and fought against each other does not make it a duelling system either. Who else would they train with? And running around to picking fights with civilians for training purposes would seem to go against common decency and the ethics of karate (Motobu may have had his fair share of civilain fights, and as I’ll come to in a minute he is on record as saying karate was not for fighting other karateka).

In beating up helpless civilians lies no glory. Defeating another master made some of the old masters famous. The mentioned translation was made by McCarthy who is an avid supporter of the whole "Karate is a civilian fighting system" thing. So is it reliable?

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Even if people prefer to go with another translation of the above, the following is pretty unambiguous. In Shoshin Nagamine's great book “Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters” (translated by Patrick McCarthy) Nagamine, a student of Motobu, tells us that Motobu said,

“The applications of kata have their limits and one must come to understand this. The techniques of the kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter in an arena or on a battlefield. They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behaviour.”

That’s pretty clear that karate was not developed to be a military or a duelling system.

In the same book, Patrick McCarthy (Shoshin Nagamine) also gives a slightly different translation to the one you credit to him above which is much closer to the one I commissioned:

“[Karate] is not meant to be employed against a single adversary but rather as a means of avoiding the use of one’s hands and feet in the event of a potentially dangerous encounter with a ruffian or a villain”

In both the above and mine, there is agreement on the fact karate is for “villains and ruffians” not soldiers or fellow karateka. It’s civilian self-protection that is stated as the purpose of karate.

I understand it as that Karate should not be applied under any circumstance. It should be avoided. The point is who where those ruffians or villains. When they were members of the noble classes they knew Karate more or less. As a civilian you had to work on the fields from sunrise to sunset. No time to get bored. No time to cause trouble. Motobu was right. It works best when the opponent has absolutely no idea about fighting. But does that mean it will not work against a trained opponent at all?

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Historical and text based arguments aside, the most compelling evidence has to be the kata themselves. There is nothing in the kata that looks like a duel to me. The methodology of the kata simply does not work against other karateka. People have been trying to make that work for the last few decades and the results are ridiculous and damaging to karate.

The contrived, forced, choreographed karateka vs. karateka “bunkai” we see in many groups, where people have to do exactly what they are told, when they are told, including doing things for no reason (i.e. pulling hands to hips, across chests, etc) is the best that has been produced from a karateka vs. karateka perspective. The necessary back and forth footwork, guards, etc need for duelling are also totally absent from kata.

Thats true. Kata does not look like anything, but Kata. We learned that real combat is another matter. Kata contains a lot of informations in regards to fighting. What is done with that information is up to the practitioner.

What is widely presented as "bunkai" is in fact rediculous and disturbing.  But may be that is not the point. Back in the days, the masters tought Kata and their applications (kumite, not to confuse with modern sports kumite). When they teach that kumite it might look ridiculous and unrealistic, but do we know what that exercise was for. The could have worked on a certain method or tactical stuff, that looks completely different when applied in a serious encounter.

The shift to a civilian fighting system nowadays is quite clear, with the focus on character development. But that's another story.

Regards Holger

Hi Holger,

ky0han wrote:

What about the samurai? They made use of Spears, the Naginata, Swords, they trained in archery and empty hand methods too.

True and the samurai trained specifically for warfare. That is well established. They were warriors; not civilians. We have many tales of armies of samurai meeting on the battlefield. Where are the tales of armies of karateka or kobudoka doing battle? There are none. The vast majority of karateka and kobudoka are civilians, and the samurai are warriors.

ky0han wrote:

In beating up helpless civilians lies no glory

Rapists, murders, thieves and paedophiles are all civilians (assuming we don’t meet them in ring or on the battlefield) and are far from “helpless”. Civilians can be extremely dangerous and able! Protecting ourselves and our loved ones is not beneath us and, in my view, is very worthwhile and honourable. I feel the old masters felt the same.

ky0han wrote:

Defeating another master made some of the old masters famous.

Was that the sole purpose of their training? I see nothing that suggests the old masters were egomaniacs that trained just to enhance their reputations. There is however plenty to support the civilian nature of karate.

ky0han wrote:

The mentioned translation was made by McCarthy who is an avid supporter of the whole "Karate is a civilian fighting system" thing. So is it reliable?

Why do you think Mcarthy takes that position? Could it be because all the evidence supports that position? :-) Do you have an alternative translation that shows Mccarthy’s translation is inaccurate? If not, perhaps dimissing it out of hand as potentially unreliable could be unwise?

ky0han wrote:

The point is who where those ruffians or villains. When they were members of the noble classes they knew Karate more or less. As a civilian you had to work on the fields from sunrise to sunset. No time to get bored. No time to cause trouble. Motobu was right. It works best when the opponent has absolutely no idea about fighting. But does that mean it will not work against a trained opponent at all?

The noble classes were still civilians. As I pointed out the karate masters of the past were civilians; not soldiers or pro-fighters. The strata of society they came from is irrelevant. As a side issue, it’s also tenuous to say that the lower classes never attacked anyone because they were too tired.

As I said in the above post, it is the nature of the exchange and not the background of the enemy with be the deciding factor in the type of violence and hence how we train for it. Also Motobu did not say “no idea about fighting” he said the techniques of kata were, “most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behavior”. They are two very different things.

You also need to read that in context i.e. it follows the statement that karate was not for battlefields or an arena (and in arenas people are very familiar with each others methods). I’ll copy the associated paragraphs relating to “trained fighters” below as you may have missed it. I’m not saying karate won’t work against trained people. I’m saying it was designed for self-protection and was not designed for use against people in a consensual match fight.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

As regards the karate vs. karate thing, we need to make the distinction between a consensual fight with two martial artists, and a fight in the civilian enviroment (not in a ring or on a battlefield) where the participants happen to be martial artists (i.e. Matsumura vs. Chinto).

There is often an assumption that a match fight between two martial artists will be the same as a real fight between two martial artists (normally from those with no experience or empirical understanding of the latter and that is why they are unable to accurately contrast the two). They are very different environments. They are not the same due to the differing objective and the changed “emotional environment”. It is the nature of the encounter, not the background of the enemy, that is the defining issue.

(See this thread here for a video showing how boxers don’t box when they fight for real. Martial artists are just the same. A real fight is a real fight!: http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/trained-fighters-boxers-kicking)

Kata is not for a consensual rule bound exchange and that’s the defining issue for me. I see no evidence that karate was primarily designed for fighting other karateka in a "square go". I do see plenty of evidence to the contrary.

ky0han wrote:

Thats true. Kata does not look like anything, but Kata.

It looks a lot like real fighting to me too (and plenty of others too).

ky0han wrote:

We learned that real combat is another matter.

No we did not. If you are again referring to Funakoshi’s precepts, then you need to look at Genwa Nakasone’s explanations of those precepts (which Funakoshi endorsed) in Karate-Do Taikan. The precept has nothing to do with kata being one thing and real fighting being another; it has to do with the need to adapt to the enemy and to “transcend the kata and move freely” i.e. not be stuck on the specific example the kata gives.

That is why “Always perform the kata exactly; Combat is another matter” is frequently the preferred translation because, although not literally “word for word”, it removes ambiguity and it is totally in keeping with the sentiment Funakoshi wished to express.

ky0han wrote:

Kata contains a lot of informations in regards to fighting. What is done with that information is up to the practitioner.

Not really. I can’t take a paint brush and knock a nail in with it. I can’t use a hammer to nicely paint a wall. Karate practitioners can (and do) try to make kata work for things for which it was not designed, but it does not work. As I said in the last post, “the methods and mechanics of kata are a perfect fit for reality; but they simply don’t fit with duelling”.

ky0han wrote:

I see I'll having a hard time with my challenge. But I'll go on trying :o).

Comparing contrasting viewpoints and thinking is always very useful. Dogmatically and repeatedly asserting a position for the sake of it is rarely productive. I hope we are engaged in the former? ;-) Do you genuinely believe karate is not a civilian tradition and is instead it is a military or duelling system? If so, could you flesh out why you feel kata better fits that hypothesis?

All the best,

Iain

Hi Iain,

thanks again for your reply.

Now things are clearing up for me in terms of what you understand is civilian.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

The vast majority of karateka and kobudoka are civilians.

You are right. Allright. I thought of cilivian = untrained.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Protecting ourselves and our loved ones is not beneath us and, in my view, is very worthwhile and honourable. I feel the old masters felt the same.

I totally agree with that. But causing trouble with an untrained opponent as a highly skilled dude just for testing the own skills is another matter.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Why do you think Mcarthy takes that position? Could it be because the evidence leads that way? :-) Do you have an alternative translation that shows Mccarthy’s translation is inaccurate?

He formulated the HAOPV theory. That's why I think he takes this position. As you wrote in your article there are a view translations out there. Can I say there are incorrect? No! I can only asume that they are maybe interpreted in a certain direction to fit in. That's why I pointed out the example with Funakoshis 18th precept of the Nijukun, trying to show the difference between translation and interpretation.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Comparing contrasting viewpoints and thinking is always very useful.

That's what I wanted to do, helping clarify things.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Dogmatically and repeatedly asserting a position for the sake of it is rarely productive.

That was not my intention. Just wanted to eliminate the slightest doupts.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Do you genuinely believe karate is not a civilian tradition and is instead it is a military or duelling system? If so, could you flesh out why you feel kata better fits that hypothesis?

No and no. I ran out of "arguments" ;o).

Regards Holger

.

ky0han wrote:

What is translation and what is interpretation. Lets see.
We all know Funakoshis 20 precepts. Lets take for example the 18th precept. "Kata wa tadashiku, jissen wa betsumono".
That is commonly translated as "perform Kata correctly, a real fight is another matter" or "Kata must always be performed exactly; Combat is another matter".
If you really translate it, than it says nothing more than "Kata is evidently, Jissen (real combat) is an exception (another thing)". Nothing that says "perform" or "perform correctly". See what I mean? Perform Kata correctly is an interpretation.

Well, for the purposes of seikakusa - accuracy, kata wa tadashiku does quite literally translate to "kata correctly." The Japanese word "tadashii" is pretty much universally translated as "correct."

To get the translation "kata evidently," you're talking about different words -  "hanzen," "akiraka," or "meihaku." None of these words even remotely resembles the reading or writing of "tadashii." There is no interpretation on the part of translators going on here whatsoever.

**edit to fix problems with Japanese scripts

Ky0han wrote:

But all the holistic fighting systems made use of weapons. In the old days the past masters were also highly skilled in handling weapons (Kobudo, Jigen Ryu etc.). That was seperated later in history, due to the pure mass of Karate students, when Karate was introduced in the okinawan school system. 

The use of modern ryukyu kobudo as an example of how the old ryukyu martial arts that included proto-karate were holistic (and thus supposedly non civilian)  is a bit off here.

Even a cursory look at the arsenal of ryukyu kobudo (which itself was not a unified system until Taira and Matayoshi in the 20th century) will tell you that they are not warriors weapons for dedicated military use at all but adapted tools. Even the bo and sai which may have some ancestry as dedicated weapons are certainly not designed for battlefield fighting and would only have a role in local security at best.

That is not to mention the fact that it is still highly disputed that empty handed and weapons were part of a united system at all. The coming together of karate and kobudo is in my opinion more of an expedient political step in promoting ryukyu martial culture on a united front. 

The ryukyu islands did have dedicated military systems that have sadly died out today and there may be some influence on later schools and styles from them (motobu ryu is one example) but what we see today is clearly not the same thing.

On the matter of the translation, like so much of Japanese it is indeed possible to interpret the meaning in a number of different ways but the context is king and any interpretation has to take into account the overall spirit behind Itosu's message. In this case the fact that the word "tadashiku" is in the adverbial form (correctly as opposed to correct) strongly indicates that there is a non written verbal ending implied here (most likely performed but could equally well be learned or practised). This ending is invariably put into the English translations as missing out a main verb like this is not common in English and confusing to its readers.

I don't actually see any real ambiguity in this sentence to tell the truth and although Itosu's language is old it is still perfectly understandable and not really subject to the sort of cultural and linguistic distance that muddy the meaning of older texts.

Why is karate not a battlefield fighting, or what indicators do we have that it is not?

1. No body armor is worn. In almost all battlefield systems armor of some sort is worn. Likewise the techniques used in battlefield systems are designed for use in and against armor.

2. Karate is designed for singular combat meaning one on one. Battlefield fighting arts are designed for the group, likewise the weapons employed are used with the group on mind. Singularly you can manipulate a spear in many ways, however when you're part of a phalanx/ hedge/ formation your movements are usually limited by the man on each side of you.  Think spearwall here.

3.The weapons used in karate (as Gavin pointed out) are basically farmer's tools or else low on the list in terms of efffectiveness. Likewise karate's weapons are for the most part hand held, there is no archery present.   Battlefield weaponry is designed to engage the enemy at a many ranges, from projective to longrange spear/halberd, up to sword and dagger.

4. The least effective means off killing someone is with your bare hands. Our primate ancestors used roocks and sticks and even today a brick or rock will do more damage than your hand, is used properly. On the battlefield weapons are primary, empty-hand is the very last option you want to employ.

5. Distance killing is very common on the battlefield. Face it if you can kill your enemy from afar why endanger yourself by engaging them up close. Think Agincourt and the longbow here.There are is no distance killing in karate. Or for a better example look at the picture of Iain and Roy. It's my guess they stepped in close to fit in the camera frame, if it'd been for real the shooter (Roy) would have been a few feet further away. I know I would have. 8 feet is a very long range for a karate-ka, however for a shooter it's just right to plcae your shots in a very tight grouping. Provided that the person isn't running away from you.

6. There are similarities to be found between civil and battlefield fighting arts but usually the precentage factor is low. For instance in the picture Roy Miller is armed with what looks like a 9mm, which is agreat weapon for self-protection. However that dosen't mean that it would be a mainstay on the battlefield where M-4s, AK-47s, M-14s & 16s, mortars, gernades, IEDS and other instruments of destruction dominate.  Hence you have weapons for personal defence and weapons for the battlefield. Not all waepons are the same and not all empty-hand motions are used for the samething. The chopping action used in the shuto is also the same action used with a sword, but different scenarios make for different types of combat.

7. Many of the martial or military overtones found in karateare just that, overtones. They were probably introduced by the Japanese during the 30's to instill a militaristic mindset needed for the upcoming war, or ongoing one. It's something we've still not gotten over today

Overall, if taught properly, karate serves its purpose as a civil fighting art very well. However if taken out of the combative enviroment for which it is intended then its effectiveness is drastically lowered.

Mike.

BTW: Iain you've got sort of a sinking look on your face in the picture. What's a matter? Cat got your tongue?

Hi Holger,

ky0han wrote:

Allright. I thought of cilivian = untrained.

Depending on what is meant be “trained” it can mean that, but in this discussion I simply meant civilian i.e. karate (as in the old karate of the kata) is designed to be utilised in the civilian environment and not in a ring or on a battlefield.

As regards “trained” through we need to consider “trained for what”? For self-protection, for war, to win bouts, to kill? People can be trained for one thing but that does not mean they are trained for all things.

People can also be untrained but very experienced and hence much more dangerous than their trained counterparts. The professional criminal is not “trained” in the way a martial artist is trained. Their training is often “on the job” alongside other experienced criminals. Some criminals may not fare well in the dojo or in the ring, but in their own environment they are incredibly potent. Just as how the guy who is top dog in the dojo can get taken out with ease outside the dojo (if his dojo is not truly self-protection focused). The guy who gets drunk and brawls four nights a week is also likely to pose a greater threat in the civilian environment than the guy who trains four times a week in your standard karate class (sadly).

Sometimes karateka feel that my saying kata is designed for civilian use is a slight on kata! They feel affronted that because kata was not designed to “beat up other martial artists” I’m inferring it is some how deficient or less than other arts. Not so! Problem and solution are always related. A solution to one problem is not deficient because it can’t solve other problems without revision or modification.

ky0han wrote:

He formulated the HAOPV theory. That's why I think he takes this position.

It’s not my place to argue for Mr McCarthy, but I bet he would say he formulated his views on kata based on the evidence; as opposed to inadvertently shaping the evidence to fit his theories i.e. evidence can first, theory came second.

Although there is plenty of differing views on the detail, I think anyone who looks at kata seriously has to conclude that it is self-protection focused because the evidence is just so strong. No other way of looking at kata makes sense historically or practically.

ky0han wrote:

That was not my intention. Just wanted to eliminate the slightest doubts.

I suspected you were playing “devil’s advocate”, but I wanted to be sure in case we ended going around in circles

ky0han wrote:

No and no. I ran out of "arguments" ;o).

Hopefully others will contribute too and ensure any aspects we have missed are explored. Thanks for kicking this off, for helping to ensure the issue is opened up for discussion and for giving me a laugh with the above line

All the best,

Iain

Hi Mike,

Great post and I think that empirically stating the point like that makes for a very potent argument. Can I ask for some clarification on point two?

michael rosenbaum wrote:

2. Karate is designed for singular combat meaning one on one. Battlefield fighting arts are designed for the group, likewise the weapons employed are used with the group on mind. Singularly you can manipulate a spear in many ways, however when you're part of a phalanx/ hedge/ formation your movements are usually limited by the man on each side of you.  Think spearwall here.

When you say “one on one”, am I right in thinking you mean the individual is fighting on their own as opposed to having a dedicated role in the group and fighting as part of a collective? (I first read “one on one” to mean “never against a group” and an individual may need to fight to escape from a group in self-protection. I thought clarification would be a good idea just in case your intent gets misread?)

michael rosenbaum wrote:

Overall, if taught properly, karate serves its purpose as a civil fighting art very well. However if taken out of the combative enviroment for which it is intended then its effectiveness is drastically lowered.

Bingo! Could not agree more and that’s why it is always important to know what type of violence a given methodology is designed to address.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

BTW: Iain you've got sort of a sinking look on your face in the picture. What's a matter? Cat got your tongue?

Nope! The cat had nothing … but Rory had a gun!  Really good of him to share a little of his extensive knowledge with me and I enjoyed it greatly. Interestingly enough, Marc MacYoung sent me a news report a few weeks latter about a shooting that happened very close to the street where that photo was taken. USA self-protection certainly has differences to UK self-protection as you have pointed out before.

All the best,

Iain

Ian, Mr. Rosenbaum,

Loved reading this discussion. I totally agreed with your view points on the issue being discussed. Sometimes overthinking something is not helpful. I read Michael's book found on your site and found it to be really informative. I have passed it on to some other friends with a high recommendation to read...

Iain Abernethy wrote:

The guy who gets drunk and brawls four nights a week is also likely to pose a greater threat in the civilian environment than the guy who trains four times a week in your standard karate class (sadly).

Ian I found the above statement to be very true some time back. We had an individual who would visit our class on occasion just to look and chat with us. He was 5-10 and built like a brick, the type of street wise individual who could take most so-called "trained Karate-ka," and beat them to a pulp. Red (nickname, never knew his real name) was once hit with a baseball bat across the back and he did not even notice. He did pay back the favor to the bat owner in some gruesome pain. In his environment, the street scene, he was a threat....proves your point. Anyway, I don't engage in discussions much just though I say hi and let you guys know that I appreciate the discussions here...full of info and that makes sense when one thinks about, but not too much...thanks...Miguel

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Hi Mike,

Great post and I think that empirically stating the point like that makes for a very potent argument. Can I ask for some clarification on point two?

michael rosenbaum wrote:

2. Karate is designed for singular combat meaning one on one. Battlefield fighting arts are designed for the group, likewise the weapons employed are used with the group on mind. Singularly you can manipulate a spear in many ways, however when you're part of a phalanx/ hedge/ formation your movements are usually limited by the man on each side of you.  Think spearwall here.

When you say “one on one”, am I right in thinking you mean the individual is fighting on their own as opposed to having a dedicated role in the group and fighting as part of a collective? (I first read “one on one” to mean “never against a group” and an individual may need to fight to escape from a group in self-protection. I thought clarification would be a good idea just in case your intent gets misread?)

Iain that's it in a nutshell. The battlefield practitioner/soldier/combatant has to function within a group. In as such his movements/actions have to blend with/support those of his fellow soldiers. For example an infantry squad though made up of several men fights as one unit, therefore each soldier supports the other with proper lanes of fire, movement through terrain etc, etc. It is the squad, not the individual who gets through the firefight alive. In pre-firearms days spearmen like the Greek Hoplites fought shoulder to shoulder therefore their movements were limited by the formation they made up.  This is also true of 15th century warfare in Europe as well as Japan where large formations of men fought with spears/halberds. They had to keep the formation intact to make their weapons effective, hence the spear wall or the famous British Box used to repel cavalry attacks at Waterloo. Alone the individual stands little chance on the battlefield, but combined in a squad, comapny or battlion their chances increase, even though their personal mobility decreases. Unless of course the formation is broken and melee combat breaks out. Karate on the other hand has a wide range of movements which are great for one on one but would not be conducive for the Phalanx or pike formation. Also in modern warfare the tendency is to shoot from behind cover, (if possible) because movement draws fire. Which, is not good by any means. Especially if you're the target.

Have a good day!

Mike

Hi all,

I have to say that this has been a fascinating article for me; i have to admit that in 17 years of training (and four in the military) it's not a subject I have tackled personally but one that has further opened my eyes to the history and development of karate.  I love to learn about the history of my chosen arts, and others that have influenced them. And although I won't pretend to be as well educated as many of you guys so obviously are, I smile every time I learn something new about karate (virtually every day).

I started karate 1994 as a nine year old doing the usual thing in classes and didn't have a clue about what karate really was until I reached 1st kyu in 1998, or at least I thought I was getting somewhere.  I mean by this stage I had realised that achieving 1st dan was only the beginning, but I didn't know what exactly it was the beginning of.  I knew my technique was rapidly improving, but kata, bunkai and indeed the history and even the spirit was being overlooked, at least in terms of my personal training.  I then changed clubs (and styles from Wado Ryu to Shotokan) and my development continued, but it has only been relatively recently that I came across Iain's work, and Gavin Mullholland's absolutely fantastic "Four Shades of Black" and started to realise that even at 2nd dan I have so much to learn.  I now feel that the true spirit and meaning of karate is within striking distance, although I have no doubt that I'll never learn it all (that doesn't stop me wanting to try :-P).

I know I have veered a little off topic here, but there is a somewhat personal undertone to this post.  It is discussions such as these, with like minded (and indeed different minded) individuals which, if one takes the interest and time to absorb, can further develop a person's (namely mine) path as a martial artist.  As I have said, I love to learn and develop by as many means as possible, and this humble discussion (irrespective of my personal views in this instance) has allowed me to do that.

It is why I love karate to an extent that my friends and family don't understand - it has evolved from doing punches and kicks up and down the hall as a nine year old with no real understanding of their purpose, to asking myself why I do what I do, and creeping towards some degree of enlightenment, however subtle, when seemingly innocuous questions are asked.  Is karate a civilian or miltary art?  My mother would say "who cares", but to me it is another facet of a wonderful and diverse art that is teaching me about myself all the time, and for that, I have guys like you to thank.  And I have learned more about the art of war in this thread than I did in several years in the military, and no short time in Afghanistan :-)  Added bonus!

Hopefully, sometime in the near future, I will be knowledgable enough to add something more tangeable to these threads, but for now, I will leave the discussions to those who know better and simply draw whatever I can and hope that it adds in whatever small way to my practise, belief and spirit towards martial arts.

Warm regards to all,

Mike

Still a beginner, seventeen years on

Please excuse the shameless plug, but if anyone is interested there's more info in this book about the civilian verses military roles, the contrasting weapons and ethos of the two; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fighting-Arts-Evolution-Secret-Societies/dp/1886969213/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295538577&sr=1-1 It's not a long read, but informative. The military verses civilian part in found in the second half.

Have a good day!

Mike R

Hi everyone,

Shidokai wrote:

Well, for the purposes of seikakusa - accuracy, kata wa tadashiku does quite literally translate to "kata correctly." The Japanese word "tadashii" is pretty much universally translated as "correct."

To get the translation "kata evidently," you're talking about different words -  "hanzen," "akiraka," or "meihaku." None of these words even remotely resembles the reading or writing of "tadashii." There is no interpretation on the part of translators going on here whatsoever.

Mhhh... My wordprocessor with the included dictionary is telling me another story.
The kanji per se is translated as "true, logical". The kanji plus kana that is used for writing tadashiku is according to my wordprocessor translated as "right, surely, no doubt, evidenty".
The kanji with other kana (tadashii) as shown in the nijukun can be translated as  "right, just, correct, righteous, honest, truthful, proper, straightforward, perfect"
Thats what the google translater is saying: http://translate.google.de/?hl=de&tab=wT#ja|en|%E6%AD%A3%E3%81%97%E3%81%8F%0A%0A%E6%AD%A3%E3%81%97%E3%81%84%0A (just copy the url and put that into your browser)

Gavin J Poffley wrote:

On the matter of the translation, like so much of Japanese it is indeed possible to interpret the meaning in a number of different ways but the context is king and any interpretation has to take into account the overall spirit behind Itosu's message. In this case the fact that the word "tadashiku" is in the adverbial form (correctly as opposed to correct) strongly indicates that there is a non written verbal ending implied here (most likely performed but could equally well be learned or practised). This ending is invariably put into the English translations as missing out a main verb like this is not common in English and confusing to its readers.

I don't actually see any real ambiguity in this sentence to tell the truth and although Itosu's language is old it is still perfectly understandable and not really subject to the sort of cultural and linguistic distance that muddy the meaning of older texts.

Thanks Gavin, that was of some help.

@Micheal Rosenbaum
You came up with really good stuff, thanks for that. I think that puts the nail in the coffin ;o).

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Depending on what is meant be “trained” it can mean that, but in this discussion I simply meant civilian i.e. karate (as in the old karate of the kata) is designed to be utilised in the civilian environment and not in a ring or on a battlefield.

With untrained I mean the way Motobu put it into words. "... someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behaviour." Pardon my imprecision.

Regards Holger

michael rosenbaum wrote:

Iain that's it in a nutshell. The battlefield practitioner/soldier/combatant has to function within a group. In as such his movements/actions have to blend with/support those of his fellow soldiers.

Thanks for the clarification! Makes perfect sense to me and it is an “argument” I’ll be adding to my repertoire :-)

tksdaddy wrote:

I have to say that this has been a fascinating article for me; i have to admit that in 17 years of training (and four in the military) it's not a subject I have tackled personally but one that has further opened my eyes to the history and development of karate.

Really pleased that you found it useful! It’s an important issue and that’s why I’m grateful to Holger for ensuring it was discussed and opened up.

tksdaddy wrote:

Hopefully, sometime in the near future, I will be knowledgeable enough to add something more tangible to these threads, but for now, I will leave the discussions to those who know better and simply draw whatever I can and hope that it adds in whatever small way to my practise, belief and spirit towards martial arts.

One of the reasons I think this forum (in both incarnations) has been successful and gets so much traffic is that there is no hierarchy and everyone is free to ask questions and express views. I think that makes for much better discussions and hence it makes the forum a better resource for all. In the past, some of the best threads have been when people have asked for the “given” or the “obvious” to be explained. One of the dangers of conversations between the “knowledgeable” is that they can become stale without the interjection, question and challenge of those who would label themselves as “not so knowledgeable”. The “given” and the “obvious” sometimes turn out to be far from given and far from obvious when discussions get into full flow.

In short, no one should feel they are “unqualified” to contribute because that’s never the case and it’s the combined effort of all that makes this forum what it is.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

Please excuse the shameless plug, but if anyone is interested there's more info in this book about the civilian verses military roles, the contrasting weapons and ethos of the two; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fighting-Arts-Evolution-Secret-Societies/dp/1886969213/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295538577&sr=1-1 It's not a long read, but informative. The military verses civilian part in found in the second half.

Just went online and ordered it. Did not know about that book! Looking forward to reading it.

ky0han wrote:

With untrained I mean the way Motobu put it into words. "... someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behaviour." Pardon my imprecision.

I think Motobu’s quote reflects the ideas around “trained for what?” that I expressed in the above post as he makes it very clear about what they have no idea of (i.e. the skills the karateka will employ). They could be trained in other ways though.

Military strategists and pro-fighters generally have a very good idea of the skills and capabilities of their enemy and hence that information can be used against them as you have an idea how they will respond to any given action.

It’s not the same in a civilian self-protection situation though when the enemy is likely to be a complete unknown. There is therefore no place for trying to provoke a trained response, feinting, drawing, indirect attacks etc because none of those things are relevant for self-protection (which is also why they are not in kata); because the enemy is an unknown and not a practitioner of the same martial arts as us.

You can never divorce a method form the environment in which it was designed to operate and that’s why this thread is so important. I’ve enjoyed it!

All the best,

Iain

One of the problems hendering civil fighting arts practitioners that I see is that their stand of comparison is always combative sports, i.e. MMA, Judo, Boxing etc. ANd while these are rough and tough engagements they do not always fall in line with civil self-defense. Unless the civil practitioner has some LEO experience, worked a door, etc or else studied street behavior then their often as much in the dark as those who have never trained in karate.

Mike

michael rosenbaum wrote:

One of the problems hindering civil fighting arts practitioners that I see is that their stand of comparison is always combative sports, i.e. MMA, Judo, Boxing etc. And while these are rough and tough engagements they do not always fall in line with civil self-defense. Unless the civil practitioner has some LEO experience, worked a door, etc or else studied street behavior then their often as much in the dark as those who have never trained in karate.

That’s a very valid point and that can sometimes make conversations like this very difficult due to the different “frames of reference”.

People who only know one kind of conflict are prone to believe that all conflict is the same. Therefore, they incorrectly assume that what works best in one context must work best in all contexts. And by extension, any attempt to say something is not suited to for a given context is taken to be the same as saying that it is inherently faulty. Not so!

We also have the problem when people become adamant that a certain methodology works in “context Y” because they have experience of in working in “context X”. Again it’s very difficult to explain otherwise when their views are based on the faulty assumption that “X=Y” and they have no experience to the contrary.

I touched on this in my first post in this thread:

Iain Abernethy wrote:

There is often an assumption that a match fight between two martial artists will be the same as a real fight between two martial artists (normally from those with no experience or empirical understanding of the latter and that is why they are unable to accurately contrast the two).

As I say, it can sometimes be very difficult to discuss these issues when faulty assumptions are firmly held due to differing frames of reference. There are a few good examples of this on the old forum where discussions have got stuck in loops because individuals have had difficulty accepting their existing frames of reference are not valid within a changed context. This is entirely understandable too because they only have one frame of reference and hence no direct experience to empirically show that all conflict is not the same.

All the best,

Iain

michael rosenbaum wrote:

Please excuse the shameless plug, but if anyone is interested there's more info in this book about the civilian verses military roles, the contrasting weapons and ethos of the two; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fighting-Arts-Evolution-Secret-Societies/dp/1886969213/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295538577&sr=1-1 It's not a long read, but informative. The military verses civilian part in found in the second half.

The book arrived today and I’ll start reading it properly as soon as I finished the book I’m on. However, I’ve skipped ahead to section in question and read it this morning. Brilliant and a very clear exploration of the issues discussed in this thread! The paragraph that finishes section 1–8 is a nice summation:

“With these comparisons between civilian- and military-developed fighting arts, it is easy to see the difference in the classical military systems and those of their civilian counterparts. In many cases, by using the term martial art as we do today, we assume that all systems were created equal when in fact this is not absolutely true. The Japanese classical bujutsu systems are much different than those of the Okinawan Te practitioner. Both were effective fighting arts but yet they both evolved and developed under different circumstances. This is also the case with those military and civilian fighting arts found in other parts of the world.”

Great stuff! Defiantly a must-read book for anyone who wants to explore this issue further.

All the best,

Iain