6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Maxwells
Maxwells's picture
Is Karate enough?

Hi all,

My name is Max, I'm new to this forum and I wanted to get people's thoughts on something. Karate is designed for self defence against an untrained opponent, I think we can all agree on that. Given the availability of Martial Arts training in modern days is Karate enough to be confident in your self defence skills? I was also wondering if people think that modern weapons such as flick knives, mean that Karate is a less effective form of self defence?

Please understand that I am not a troll. Karate is a great martial art with a lot to offer and is very effective against the opponents it was intended to be used against. Namely, untrained 'criminals and ruffians' as i believe one of the Old Masters described it.

Thanks for your thoughs.

Max 

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

My two cents:

I don't think any martial arts currently being taught does a very good job of addressing edged weapon violence, and I think their ability to do so is limited by reality.

A knife is such a large advantage that the best you can hope for in "empty hadn vs. knife" training is knowing enough to possibly survive, and hopefully enough to completely avoid such situations in the first place, which is really the bulk of what that study should be.

There is no system or technqiue that can save you from a knife, and I would be very skeptical of anyone claiming they can, including Karateka.

I'd suggest looking though the self-protection section more thoroughly and getting an idea of what that entails before worrying about whether this or that art contains the proper techniques for certain weapons, that is the wrong direction.

colby
colby's picture

The problem is both sides are right. You can say that knife defense worn work or probably wont work and your right. The best solution is to just give them your wallet or your jewelry and hope you got it all insured. But in this rare cases where they are looking to just stick you anyways you got to do something. Whatever that means.

But I think it falls more under understanding a weapon based art. That's the best way to defend again those kinds if weapons. If you can and it's not illegal to practice

And dont try and be all compative all thetime, most the time when you get stuck up, which is rare, they just want your money. so just give them the money.

Chris R
Chris R's picture

Combat sports have evolved over time, and karate hasn't evolved alongside them. So in a skilled exchange, you are at a disadvantage if you only know karate. But the most common self defense scenarios have not changed much. Natural habitual acts of violence are still the same, and this is what karate was mostly designed to deal with. So karate is still relevant to most self defense scenarios. Dealing with modern weapons, and fighting in scenarios that demand specialist skills, such as fighting on the ground against a skilled grappler, are outside the realms of karate. So yes, karate is still relevant, but like everything it has limitations.

Tau
Tau's picture

I think it depends on what you mean by "Karate." There are various flavours and levels of quality. The Karate that I started learning in 1994 is a far cry from what I practice now. You'll probably find the members of this forum are very different from "traditional" "3K" practitioners. 

I believe that if taught correctly in a holistic manner and with consideration and adaptation to modern challenges then Karate can be highly effective. Of course nothing is guaranteed, especially when edged weapons or projectile weapons come into play. 

And this isn't to say that cross-training isn't of value. No harm in exploring other martial arts. What I always recommend is keeping a critical mind as to what it is that any other art or teacher offers. And there's no harm in learning another art that doesn't have a pragmatic focus if you're honest about this and if it brings you pleasure.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Max,

Maxwells wrote:
I'm new to this forum and I wanted to get people's thoughts on something.

Welcome to the forum and that’s what we are here for :-)

Maxwells wrote:
Karate is designed for self defence against an untrained opponent, I think we can all agree on that.

We can, but we need to clarify. Firstly, there are many “karates” all of which have differing objectives. However, it would be fair to say that that was the original purpose (Itosu, Motobu, et al).  Secondly, experience has shown me that most think “untrained” means “unskilled”. Not so. “Untrained” simply means “does not practise martial ats for the purpose of duelling with other martial arts”. The criminal can be highly skilled at using violence for criminal aims without such training.

Maxwells wrote:
Given the availability of Martial Arts training in modern days is Karate enough to be confident in your self defence skills?

I’m assuming you mean because more people train in martial arts today, we need to be prepared for that? If so, I would disagree. It’s not in the criminal’s interest to use the methods of consensual violence when much more effective methods are at their disposal (surprise, deception, numbers, weapons, ferocity, etc). Why would they seek to “fight you” for what they want? This video expands on this point:

 

Maxwells wrote:
I was also wondering if people think that modern weapons such as flick knives, mean that Karate is a less effective form of self defence?

Karate should move with the times and if we are studying martial arts, in part, for their crossover to self-protection then weapons should be covered.

An old podcast on weapons: https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/weapon-defence

Worth emphasising that we need to be careful not to get stuck on the physical. No martial art (alone) is a good solution to self-protection. If we have the wider self-protection skills in place, then they can be very useful providing they are goal focused and practise is correctly contextualised

Maxwells wrote:
Please understand that I am not a troll.

I’m sure we all get that. Critique, questions, discussion and dissent are very important. When done in good faith they are massively important. If you read through the posts you’ll see a fairly wide variety of views. I understand the intent and it’s welcome.

Maxwells wrote:
Karate is a great martial art with a lot to offer and is very effective against the opponents it was intended to be used against. Namely, untrained 'criminals and ruffians' as i believe one of the old masters described it.

I’d again point out that “untrained” in one thing (a given martial art) does not equate to “unskilled” in another thing (criminal violence). I’m not sure if your making that connection, but many do (as discussed from 3:52 onward in the video above).

The methods of the kata had that focus. However, I think it would be fair to say that many modern karateka don’t approach the kata in that way. Modern karate has also expanded to include various forms of consensual violence. We see karate tournaments, karateka who kickbox, karateka in MMA, etc. The karateka involved in those activities teach and practise in a way that is relevant to those activities, and still label what they do as “karate”.

These days the term “karate” points to the core / roots of what is being practised but is does not describe the specifics of what is being practiced. Say “boxing” and everyone gets it … say “karate” and it could point to one of a hundred different things.

All the best,

Iain