Why I am thinking of giving up Karate,

[Paul Bedard]

Now your making more sense David! I totally with the being in control statement. It kind of goes with the old saying that the punishment will fit the crime. Just because you have to defend your self, does not mean that it is right to, injure, or kill your attacker. Being in control & making the split second decision of techniques being used is of the utmost importance. A lot of times the techniques being used are dictated by the opening the opponent has provided. There are many different reasons on why people fight. I myself have no desire to test my skills on someone who has had the same amount of training as myself. The desire to fight was never a reason for my training. Rules make it a game & I`m not a gamer. So this idea of testing your worth in a ring doesn`t get me too exited!!
However as you said, being aware of legal & moral implications due to the severity of your defense, should bring out the level of your skill level. For example if you just go into an arm bar technique with the attempt to break the arm. #1 is it justifyed, if the opponent is not holding a weapon, or is alone, most likely not. # 2 if you just go in trying an arm bar, it most likely wont work, I use the terms distraction & softening. You have to soften him up a bit & distract him to get your joint lock in. As I said, I agree with not going to extremes, just because you are defending yourself, but as I also mentioned, a weapon or multiple attackers changes everything. I`m sorry, but someone is getting hurt & I will use every dirty little trick to ensure it isn`t me, especially if you are being a threat when my loved ones are near...
Killing This is an extreme outcome to be avoided, unless no other option is available. Let`s think about multiple attackers with weapons. Depending on the situation, your only chance for survival might be to drop the first one or two. I don`t know where you live, but almost any larger center now ( Smaller ones too ) Have all too many cases of extremely violent crimes, where 1 or more innocent people get killed or as in a case not to far from here a young father with serious head injuries, that he is non responsive to even his family. The whole family becomes a victim. There are certain situations where the no gooders are out to seriously harm or kill & in my opinion if you are in the unavoidable situation of facing this scum. You have to be as lethal or more lethal than they are.
Hence the saying `I would rather answer to 12 than be carried by 6` If you are the type that thinks this is to extreme at anytime. Then I would suggest you don`t go out at night or travel in areas of isolation.
I really don`t believe going into a ring & challenging someone who is prepared to follow rules is going to prepare you for the ultimate battle.
Tournaments, MMA, kickboxing of any sort is a game IMHO

Paul B

[Hangetsu-dachi]

"RenegadeMonk"]Sorry for the slow reply Hangetsu.

What I do believe is that Karateka should be able to fight any time and anywhere under any set of rules (including none at all).

Good to hear from you again... When I say I think sport venues run counter of self defense I do not advocate retarding the level of training because one can't apply atemi waza. Modern equipment pretty much allows us to fully stress test the art. I believe we should be doing just that. If done right it can be on par with MMA's level of reality. In fact I'd say it more than on par. Just one example... put a club, or a knife in an opponent's hand and through stress testing one realizes that a round house kick isn't all that effective. A) It has a very low percentage of success at stopping a fight instantly and B) Doesn't check the opponent's forward progress resulting in getting clubbed or stabbed. Its probably the the reason why one doesn't see them in classical Kata. Yet, **** in mma, a round house kick is "high" percentage technique.*** go figure..?? It's stuff like this that confuses me... I call it the "reality conundrum" In reference to martial arts and self defense: where in reality...things don't always appear to be what one thinks they are.

One of the issues I have with the supposed maiming methods of self defense that in theory keep karateka from being worthwhile competitors, is that without the skills that enable someone to be a good fighter, any such techniques and strategies are beyond a persons ability to apply anyway.

I agree, so I'm really into stress testing the ba-jesus out of what I do.

Now one of the things that comes with the skill to apply a technique in a dynamic combat situation is the ability to think and to choose what technique you apply, while assessing the opponent, the environment, everything! The idea of unthinkingly reacting to (maiming) an adversary is a) one that will get you thrown in jail, b) one that ignores the ultimate goal of MA, control. US marines used to be trained that way. A few inconvenient civilian deaths later they now train a system that presents the marine with the choice to restrain, to injure or to kill (at least if the discovery show "Human weapon* is to be believed). Any civilian defence system must do the same.

I have the belief that one does not get to pick and choose if they will use deadly force. The person assaulting you makes the choice for you by way of their actions. Who can say if its correct or not.... ) according to my belief... If these marines were convicted, then they crossed the line and made the decision themselves. I live near Detroit..It seems like everybody has a CCW (concealed weapons permits) I have friends who actually used hand guns in self defense. In both cases the assailant was shot, in one case, so to was my friend. Both cases, once the facts were sorted out never went to trial. (off course the other guys were convicted of deadly assault and robbery or something to such nature) I've had multiple police officers tell me if you have used deadly force, and in court, can prove that you were in fear of losing your life, and took steps to remove yourself from the situation before your actions were forced by the assailant ... there is no conviction possible, not even in a civil court.

When I was a teenager I remember watching UFC 4 and seeing Ron Van Clief ( a supposed karate master) face off against Royce Gracie. At the ding of the bell...Van Clief races across the octagon to meet Gracie and without setting up anything... fires a lone mae-geri. Of course Gracie sees it all the way... " So would a novice" Royce deflects the kick, hauls Van Clief down to the mat and chokes him out in 23 seconds flat. (at least the my recollection of how it happened) I thought even as a teenager... Huh? Didn't that guy ever have a real fight outside of a ring before? ...some Karate master he was... lol.

I hear what you saying renegade... Its best avoid believing in myths and in order to know reality.... its best to delve in the proven. I advocate just that also....

[fujicolt]

If i may polite ask for some information here:

Renagade monk said:

One of the issues I have with the supposed maiming methods of self defense that in theory keep karateka from being worthwhile competitors, is that without the skills that enable someone to be a good fighter, any such techniques and strategies are beyond a persons ability to apply anyway.

Now to be fair - he does say it is only an 'issue' for him which may mean 'NOT YET DECIDED' which is fine.

So renegade firstly - your comment above is a little vague.

Are you saying Competition is not worthwhile because it disallows competitors to use 'maiming methods of self defence'?

Or are you saying that 'without being a good 'competition fighter' you wouldn't have the ability to apply such strategies and techniques because they will be beyond your 'personal ability'.

or are you saying something else that i have not understood cos of the wording of your post

Just seeking clarity before i 'on post' answer - that is all

[RenegadeMonk]

Steve, I am saying none of those.

What I was trying to get across was the idea that, the skills one needs in order to apply self defence techniques well in real life situations (aggressive moving opponents etc), are some of the same skills that are used in competition fighting.

[jsoulejr]

When I was a teenager I remember watching UFC 4 and seeing Ron Van Clief ( a supposed karate master) face off against Royce Gracie. At the ding of the bell...Van Clief races across the octagon to meet Gracie and without setting up anything... fires a lone mae-geri. Of course Gracie sees it all the way... " So would a novice" Royce deflects the kick, hauls Van Clief down to the mat and chokes him out in 23 seconds flat. (at least the my recollection of how it happened) I thought even as a teenager... Huh? Didn't that guy ever have a real fight outside of a ring before? ...some Karate master he was... lol.

A 51 y/o man went up against Gracie at his peak.
Here's Van Cleef: Strikers hadn't figured it out back then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_van_Clief
http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Ron-van-Clief-49
http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/Ro ... -Now-18699
What have you done to compare? At least check your facts.