PDA

View Full Version : Do Kata have meanings beyond the martial aplications ?!?!?



Mizu_no_kokoro
5th May 2007, 01:18
It's kind of an esoteric question but I'd like to year some prespectives on the topic.

My opinion is that they contain life lessons that are useful in countless non-martial aplications.... But that might be my endoctrination speaking !! ehehehehe

ZachZinn
5th May 2007, 01:55
It's kind of an esoteric question but I'd like to year some prespectives on the topic.

My opinion is that they contain life lessons that are useful in countless non-martial aplications.... But that might be my endoctrination speaking !! ehehehehe


I read something a while back specifically regarding Goju-Ryu kata and buddhist mudra's...the article was interesting and thought provoking, though I can't vouch for how accurate it was in a scholarly sense as i'm no scholar myself.

If I can hunt down the article i'll post a link.

ZachZinn
5th May 2007, 01:58
Here is something along the lines of what I was talking about, not sure where I stand on this, but I suppose I do think that solo kata practice has esoteric implications.

http://www.cybersurvey.com/kata.htm

Jay Vail
5th May 2007, 13:05
It's kind of an esoteric question but I'd like to year some prespectives on the topic.

My opinion is that they contain life lessons that are useful in countless non-martial aplications.... But that might be my endoctrination speaking !! ehehehehe


According to Kennedy and Guo in "Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey," the short answer is No. Forms/sets/kata "serve as a way to remember the system's various movements and practice them in an orderly manner . . . Set routines can also serve as a kind of encyclopedia of the system's movements." At 146. Kennedy and Guo expressly reject the notion that kata has some spiritual or quasi-religious purpose or objective. According them, this was a notion graphed onto martial arts to make them more marketable to the non-street gang crowd: "varioius Shaolin systems are seen as being a method of Buddhist religious training, a kind of 'moving meditation.' The idea, which lies at the core of much 'New Age' martial arts, is a recent idea that, to a large extent, comes from the West. In Qing-era China, martial arts ability was viewed simply as a trade or skill not too different from bricklaying." At 84. "To enhance the image of their arts, teachers started connecting up Chinese philosophy with the study and practice of their styles. Doing so brought an intellectual element to what had previously been a physical trade or skill. This mix of philosophy and health exercise made the Chinese martial arts more palatable and appealing to China's emerging middle class in the early 1900s. You see the same thing in modern day America." At 85.

Dick Mineo
23rd May 2007, 04:44
Not exactly sure how deep you want to go with this topic.
Kata and their bunkai are for martial training but as one goes deeper into their art form.....some forms go beyond the fight aspect of kata.
Go Ju Ryu for example has internal meanings to each kata....that is....one is to train for multaple directions of use for the hands. One is to internalise the silence in the middle of a thunder storm. Another is to move far quietly, and so on.
Another thing that kata can assist one in achieving is different levels of brain activity....that is....beta, alpha, theta and delta brain waves. This I believe is the best part of working thousands of hours on kata.
After the body learns the moves and the mind learns what they are for....the kata will begin to flow in ways that cause the brain to more - over see - than command. If one can learn to put the brain in this place while sparring with another.....you will find things much different than the usual fight or flight response that untrained people experience.

This topic can go on for too long to keep going but my short answer is YES kata does teach more than just martial methods.

Dick Mineo

trevorg
23rd May 2007, 09:45
Hi Dick,

Good to see you on here.

Osu
Trevor

trevorg
23rd May 2007, 09:53
My own view is that kata is a component of the whole; Do (the way).

I thought this aiki link provided a fair guide.
http://www.aikidoonline.com/archives/2001/mar/feat_0301_tkc.html

Osu
Trevor

Kyro Lantsberger
23rd May 2007, 18:03
According to Kennedy and Guo in "Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey," the short answer is No. Forms/sets/kata "serve as a way to remember the system's various movements and practice them in an orderly manner . . . Set routines can also serve as a kind of encyclopedia of the system's movements." At 146. Kennedy and Guo expressly reject the notion that kata has some spiritual or quasi-religious purpose or objective. According them, this was a notion graphed onto martial arts to make them more marketable to the non-street gang crowd: "varioius Shaolin systems are seen as being a method of Buddhist religious training, a kind of 'moving meditation.' The idea, which lies at the core of much 'New Age' martial arts, is a recent idea that, to a large extent, comes from the West. In Qing-era China, martial arts ability was viewed simply as a trade or skill not too different from bricklaying." At 84. "To enhance the image of their arts, teachers started connecting up Chinese philosophy with the study and practice of their styles. Doing so brought an intellectual element to what had previously been a physical trade or skill. This mix of philosophy and health exercise made the Chinese martial arts more palatable and appealing to China's emerging middle class in the early 1900s. You see the same thing in modern day America." At 85.

I looked at this book over at Amazon.com. I do agree that much of the mystification of martial arts is more of a western addition than eastern. Most of the Chinese/Taiwanese teachers whom I have dealt with are far more grounded than their US counterparts. However, I would have to take some issue with the quote above. It is correct as far as it goes, but ignores some trends in Chinese society contemporary to the periods being discussed. A little thing known as the Boxer Rebellion, and the issues in Chinese society both before and after come into play here. There is also documented evidence of pre-Qing era(or at least early Qing era (late 1700s) of martial arts movements being used as moving meditation. The Jesuit missionary Cibot actually drew and published them.

Im interested in the source quoted, I think that there is very little well written stuff out there regarding martial arts from an academic perspective. Although I disagree with the book, I do admit that they have a monumentally difficult task. Imagine in 150 years writing about martial arts in the US. One would be tempted to conclude that McDojo youth TKD schools were representative of the whole, missing the nuances provided by MMA schools, traditional groups, and combative groups.

don
23rd May 2007, 18:40
According to Kennedy and Guo in "Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey," the short answer is No.

Not sure why we're invoking Chinese concepts for Jpn MAs...


The idea, which lies at the core of much 'New Age' martial arts, is a recent idea that, to a large extent, comes from the West.


I looked at this book over at Amazon.com. I do agree that much of the mystification of martial arts is more of a western addition than eastern.

But in Japan, this association is pretty much what comprises the idea of MICHI/DO. Buddhist ordination ceremonies--i.e., esotericism, the reading out of sacred Buddhist truth from profane practices--entered poetry, e.g., in the 13 century. Esoteric practices entered professions such as carpentry and merchandising in the 15th and 16th centuries. These would also have their places in martial arts and even kickball (KEMURI), now soccer.

(See BUDDHAS AND KAMI IN JAPAN at http://netlibrary.com/Reader/ especially Chapters 7 WILD WORDS AND SYNCRETIC DEITIES and 10 HONJI SUIJAKU AT WORK.)

This sort of reading out or in of spiritual truth was rife in Jpn religious practices. This leads me to think, e.g., that aikido founder Ueshiba Morihei was not a revolutionary, as so many aikidoists like to claim, for reading out the universe in his precious art, but rather, a reformer.

Kyro Lantsberger
23rd May 2007, 21:35
I think you made a good point, Don. I was reading the threads and didnt notice this was in the traditional karate forum. The Chinese and Japanese situations are worlds apart. The martial culture, and the culture of martial arts is totally different between the two. When I hear "mysticism" in the context of Chinese arts, I think "belief in Chi." Most of the Chinese/Taiwanese I have trained with are far less hung up about this than George Lucas Force Luvin' Americans. I dont know enough about Japanese styles to even have an opinion.

Not sure what the right forum would be for this, its still a good question, though.

ZachZinn
23rd May 2007, 21:36
Not sure why we're invoking Chinese concepts for Jpn MAs...

If I had to guess here i'd say it's because we're talking about Karate kata specifically, and those are thought to have Chinese origins as far as I know.

I'm still not sure whether we're talking about historical fact(s), personal views, or both in this discussion.

Shorin Ryuu
24th May 2007, 09:13
I personally don't believe the kata exists for anything other than martial application. That being said, there are extra benefits you can gain from continued dedication and hard training of the kata. However, these benefits would be the same for any activity requiring continued dedication to hard training.

But, I want to clarify an issue or two.

The big Buddhist influx into karate is relatively a newer invention. Karate came from Okinawa, which was always far more Chinese and Confucian in their orientation rather than Buddhist. There are certainly Buddhist overtones that have a long history in other Japanese arts, but as karate was Okinawan, they didn't have this Buddhist influence originally.

When karate was introduced to Japan, it was viewed as somewhat incomplete because it didn't obsess about character development in the same manner that other "budo" arts did (kendo, judo, etc... many of which had more Buddhist overtones). This is not to say character was unimportant to the Okinawans, far from it. However, like I mentioned, their concepts of character were more Confucian than Buddhist. The practitioners of karate (Shuri) were more of the upperclass/bodyguards/law enforcement type and were naturally expected to have good character as the natural order of things (and thus serve as a good example for others to follow). Another part of this natural order of things was the acceptability of using violence swiftly to remove any disruptions to the natural order of things (bandits, thieves, ruffians, etc.). This is where the martial arts came in, of course.

But, back to the main discussion. When karate was introduced to the Japanese mainland, philosophy, meditation, Buddhist emphasis, and other extraneous things were added both by those who spread it and those who learned it. Even on Okinawa, especially among some of the more Japanese influenced styles, such as Matsubayashi Shorin Ryu, started to adopt some of these more esoteric practices into their training.

I'm not making any value judgments here. I'm just saying the Buddhist influence that exists in some styles of karate wasn't originally there. Of course, you can always draw Buddhist parallels to anything, especially things involving fighting and/or hard physical training, so it is of no surprise that many make this assumption about karate.


Edit: And just as a side note... Even if there is a lot of mystification of martial arts in the West... there are just as many people in the East (if not more) who mystify martial arts.

Jay Vail
24th May 2007, 10:48
Not sure why we're invoking Chinese concepts for Jpn MAs...





But in Japan, this association is pretty much what comprises the idea of MICHI/DO. Buddhist ordination ceremonies--i.e., esotericism, the reading out of sacred Buddhist truth from profane practices--entered poetry, e.g., in the 13 century. Esoteric practices entered professions such as carpentry and merchandising in the 15th and 16th centuries. These would also have their places in martial arts and even kickball (KEMURI), now soccer.

(See BUDDHAS AND KAMI IN JAPAN at http://netlibrary.com/Reader/ especially Chapters 7 WILD WORDS AND SYNCRETIC DEITIES and 10 HONJI SUIJAKU AT WORK.)

This sort of reading out or in of spiritual truth was rife in Jpn religious practices. This leads me to think, e.g., that aikido founder Ueshiba Morihei was not a revolutionary, as so many aikidoists like to claim, for reading out the universe in his precious art, but rather, a reformer.


"Traditional" karate (if one considers Okinawan karate traditional) is not a Japanese martial system. It is wholly or almost wholly derived from Chinese sources. That is plain from the structure of the techniques and the way they are practiced and from the literature. Perhaps the greatest indication of that pedigree is the reliance on solo forms. This is a Chinese training method. You do not see solo forms in the koryu arts, altho you might see solo practice; they are always paired kata. Japanese karate is a modern system, so if there are spiritual elements in it, they are modern imports.

Moreover, I seriously doubt that the koryu Japanese systems put much emphasis on spiritualism or personal development. They were all combat oriented and hence intensely practical.

If you want personal development or enlightenment, do charity work, meditate, perform tea ceremony or take piano lessons.

The bottom line is, sadly, martial arts are about fighting and killing (or not being killed). This is hard for some middle class people to accept, so they rationalize their practice as self improvement.

Jay Vail
24th May 2007, 10:54
The big Buddhist influx into karate is relatively a newer invention. Karate came from Okinawa, which was always far more Chinese and Confucian in their orientation rather than Buddhist.

But wasn't the Shaolin Temple, which is the legendary fountain of all Chinese martial arts, Buddhist? ;-)

Shorin Ryuu
24th May 2007, 13:17
But wasn't the Shaolin Temple, which is the legendary fountain of all Chinese martial arts, Buddhist? ;-)

I was referring to "Chinese and Confucian" as an adjective for the Okinawan culture, not necessarily karate. The Okinawans simply weren't Buddhists, so they didn't incorporate that into their art. Furthermore, it isn't like the Okinawans all visited the Shaolin temple to learn. It was more often the case that they learned from non-Buddhist monks when they did have exchanges with the Chinese.

Certainly Okinawa did have Chinese influences in its development, and certainly the name "Shorin" was a tribute to the Shaolin temple. But for Shorin Ryu, at least, it is distinctly Okinawan in characteristic, not necessarily a direct copy of Chinese arts. In fact, that is why Chibana Chosin changed the characters of 少林 to 小林 when naming it Shorin, because he felt strongly that it was Okinawan.

ZachZinn
24th May 2007, 18:50
The bottom line is, sadly, martial arts are about fighting and killing (or not being killed). This is hard for some middle class people to accept, so they rationalize their practice as self improvement.


Who have you killed recently? How many times recently have you avoided your own death with your martial arts training?

Unless you're a LEO or something i'd have to assume the answer is few to none.

Most people training in traditional MA today aren't in constant danger, and certainly won't be in a position to kill anyone (please no anecdotal evidence to the contrary) for the most part.

This is not to say I don't see the value in keeping the 'martial' in the arts...I most definitely do. I also think we have to acknowledge putting on a uniform of some sort, bowing and whatnot, and all the other trappings of training in a traditional MA have a purpose beyond the martial.

Things would look very different if we were just training for fighting.

ZachZinn
24th May 2007, 20:40
This thread got me thinking...

Seems to me traditional martial arts are facing a real indentity crisis today, particularly with the rise in popularity of MMA/NHB sports and training methods.

I have no idea just what we are supposed to be, but I have really hard time rationalizing in this day and age that traditional training methods are the best route purely for learning to fight.

We don't live in the same world these arts came from (most of us at least), how can they remain so overtly 'martial' in such a completely different context?

Again don't get me wrong I don't want training that's all meditation and asthetic kata practice, but if I examine my own reasons for going to the dojo a few times every week, they go beyond just learning fighting technique, frankly there are much more efficient methods to learn to fight than the traditional way of training, if that is our sole purpose.

Jay Vail
25th May 2007, 09:45
Who have you killed recently? How many times recently have you avoided your own death with your martial arts training?

Unless you're a LEO or something i'd have to assume the answer is few to none.

Most people training in traditional MA today aren't in constant danger, and certainly won't be in a position to kill anyone (please no anecdotal evidence to the contrary) for the most part.

This is not to say I don't see the value in keeping the 'martial' in the arts...I most definitely do. I also think we have to acknowledge putting on a uniform of some sort, bowing and whatnot, and all the other trappings of training in a traditional MA have a purpose beyond the martial.

Things would look very different if we were just training for fighting.


Zach, let's not be snide. Let's be civil. Also, let's be realistic instead of disagreeing just to disagree. We are training in fighting, of course. The fact one does not actually have to fight does not change the ultimate object. It is the same as a soldier going to the range, practicing room clearing, or learning how to call down artillery or air support. He may never be in combat or kill anyone, but he is preparing in case he must do so.

Jay Vail
25th May 2007, 09:54
This thread got me thinking...

Seems to me traditional martial arts are facing a real indentity crisis today, particularly with the rise in popularity of MMA/NHB sports and training methods.

I have no idea just what we are supposed to be, but I have really hard time rationalizing in this day and age that traditional training methods are the best route purely for learning to fight.

We don't live in the same world these arts came from (most of us at least), how can they remain so overtly 'martial' in such a completely different context?

Again don't get me wrong I don't want training that's all meditation and asthetic kata practice, but if I examine my own reasons for going to the dojo a few times every week, they go beyond just learning fighting technique, frankly there are much more efficient methods to learn to fight than the traditional way of training, if that is our sole purpose.


Zach, these are questions that have puzzled many people in the arts, at least in America -- that is, why are the training methods so inefficient? You are quite right that there are quicker ways to learn the material than the rote repetition of kata. I guess the answer is, the ancients who invented the art from which karate sprang and inherited its training tradition didn't want its training method to be efficient.

But the techniques of karate work very well in fighting. If you look closely at muay thai and san shou -- and even silat -- for instance, you see the same technique base.

trevorg
25th May 2007, 10:01
Interesting discussion. You can't take the 'martial' out of martial arts because underlying everything is the fact that the training derives from trying to hurt others and protect yourself, and in the darker recesses of the military to kill other people.

But its not all about bash and bang. It was Sun Tzu who said "Therefore, one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful.
Subduing the other’s military without battle is the most skillful".

Osu
Trevor

Jay Vail
25th May 2007, 10:06
I was referring to "Chinese and Confucian" as an adjective for the Okinawan culture, not necessarily karate. The Okinawans simply weren't Buddhists, so they didn't incorporate that into their art. Furthermore, it isn't like the Okinawans all visited the Shaolin temple to learn. It was more often the case that they learned from non-Buddhist monks when they did have exchanges with the Chinese.

Certainly Okinawa did have Chinese influences in its development, and certainly the name "Shorin" was a tribute to the Shaolin temple. But for Shorin Ryu, at least, it is distinctly Okinawan in characteristic, not necessarily a direct copy of Chinese arts. In fact, that is why Chibana Chosin changed the characters of 少林 to 小林 when naming it Shorin, because he felt strongly that it was Okinawan.


I used to buy the theory that karate was changed a great deal by the Okinawans from the techniques that they learned from the Chinese. But over time I am not so convinced of that as I once was. There are systems of Fukien white crane, for instance, that are astonishingly similar to karate. And there are many features of karate that are imported virtually without change from Chinese systems, such as the practice of retracting the fist to the hip, the middle block (chudan uke), the cat stance, the forward stance, the horse stance, and so on. The most striking feature (no pun intended) is the reliance on solo kata as a core training mechanism. As far as I know, the Chinese are the only people in the world who use such a method, although for most Chinese systems, it does not have the prominence given to it in karate.

I am not persuaded that Chosin Chibana was an authority on karate's pedigree. Most martial artists are shockingly ignorant of the facts of karate's development and are more prone to believe and to repeat myths rather than facts. The survival of the Shaolin Temple myth is a prime example. Master Chibana's change could reflect national or ethnic pride rather than deep knowledge of karate's history.

don
25th May 2007, 15:42
I personally don't believe the kata exists for anything other than martial application.Below, folks will suggest that there are modern training methods which are far more effective for martial applications than KATA, et al. I would agree.

Karl Friday, historian of Jpn military history and MENKYO KAIDEN in Kashima Shin-ryu, has an article in Budo Perspectives, Vol. 1 by Alexander Bennet in which he holds that from their inception, the purpose of the martial RYUHA was antiquarian/spiritual and not strictly utilitarian.

Inconveniently enough, the issue of the purpose of the "martial arts" is by no means resolved by the word "martial."

I'll grant that it is nice when they work in a scuffle.

LVZen1
25th May 2007, 17:54
This is a very interesting conversation. I would, if I may, introduce the idea of Karate being an art of Civil Defense, rather than a Military or Martial Art and the techniques might be more applicable in defensive situation against assailants with either moderate or no skill.
The term 'Bushi' in Okinawa was not the same as that used in Japan to refer to Samurai or Warriors, it means 'Gentleman,' and was given as an honorous title for someone who is well accomplished not only in skill, but character as well (where-as in Japan Samurai were a military class to which one was born, and they were often referred to as Bushi, or warriors).

This means that even a simple illiterate fisherman, being well accomplished at Karate, yet generous, kind, and polite, could be referred to as 'Bushi' in Okinawa, but not in Japan, where it was reserved by rite of birth.

A Military often resorted to arms in times of combat, thus, if one were to look for a 'Martial' art in Okinawa, one might be more apt to take up the study of Kobudo (not just Bo, Sai, Kama, and Nunchaku, but also Timbe-Rochin, and Nitan Bo) with Karate as the empty-handed compliment to these in a civilian setting, much like Jujutsu to Kenjutsu, Naganita-jutsu, Kyujutsu, ect.

In addition to this, I think that Kata are a bit misrepresented in modern Karate as being ONLY the solo form.
I think Kata does encompass the solo form, but is so much more than that, with the other 95% being the practice of free-form Bunkai, utilizing principles such as Tegumi, Nage Waza, Atemi Waza, Tuite, the study and application of Jintai Kyusho or points of anatomical weakness.
Many students of old-style Karate often say that it took them fifteen years just to learn two Kata, why would it take fifteen years just to learn a Kata if all the Kata encompassed were the solo form and some inefficient Bunkai? Why would Choki Motobu have spent any time learning, practicing, and teaching Naifuanchi (and defeating a western boxer in tokyo) if he felt it was a waste of time and there were more efficient methods?
No, I think Kata, originally, was taught as a solo form only in bits and pieces and Kata training was not just limited to the solo form. I think the solo form was taught as a means to train in off times and the majority of 'class' time was spent going over the practical applications in two-man drills. This was considered 'Kata' in 'old style' Karate, and it is this 'old-style' Karate that are contained within the Kata, and each Kata are complete fighting systems unto themselves, utilizing different principles, ect.

Gekesai is a style utilizing two, sometimes three Kata, it is the style of Chojun Miyagi, which is highly effective if given enough time to study, usually takes years just to learn a single Kata, not necessarily to master it, but to learn even a fraction of what it has to teach you.
Not just in the ways of combat either, there is so much more there than one might think at first glance.

David Chapman

Shorin Ryuu
25th May 2007, 20:44
I used to buy the theory that karate was changed a great deal by the Okinawans from the techniques that they learned from the Chinese. But over time I am not so convinced of that as I once was. There are systems of Fukien white crane, for instance, that are astonishingly similar to karate. And there are many features of karate that are imported virtually without change from Chinese systems, such as the practice of retracting the fist to the hip, the middle block (chudan uke), the cat stance, the forward stance, the horse stance, and so on. The most striking feature (no pun intended) is the reliance on solo kata as a core training mechanism. As far as I know, the Chinese are the only people in the world who use such a method, although for most Chinese systems, it does not have the prominence given to it in karate.

If you would like to get into very technical details, I could explain how Okinawan karate does these and perhaps you can explain to me how they are done in China. Simply saying because both systems have middle blocks, horse stances, and forward stances isn't enough to convince me. For that matter, the horse stance is pretty different, unless the Fukien styles you are talking about does them differently than most Chinese arts I've seen.

There are many of those associated with Okinawan martial arts who have very much staked their reputation on Okinawan martial arts being extremely similar to Chinese martial arts. These people will tell you that everything is an exact copy. I am inclined to not believe them. If anything, many of these people have lost the Okinawan way of doing them and are under the impression that the Okinawan way (or at least their understanding of it) is "wrong". These people have started to try and do Chinese martial arts under the guise of Okinawan martial arts. If they wanted to learn Chinese martial arts, they would be better off doing them then just trying to fit them exactly into Okinawan ones. As the current trend in traditional Okinawan martial arts is a mad scramble to become instantly Chinese, I'm sure my statements here will be unpopular. I have no bones about Chinese martial arts, which have been an obvious influence on Okinawan ones. But to try and do Okinawan karate (Shorin Ryu, at least) as a Chinese martial art will end up resulting in something that won't be as good either way.

Now of course, the "newer" karate arts like Goju Ryu and Uechi Ryu are closer to Chinese arts (although they also look different than a lot of other Chinese arts).

All this being said, there are two big things to keep in mind. Most even "traditional karate" has been changed dramatically even over the past 50 years, and most of it has been for the worse. And on a much more salient point to this actual discussion, none of this has any bearing on the cultural aspect that the Okinawans were more influenced by Chinese Confucianism than Chinese or Japanese Buddhism.



I am not persuaded that Chosin Chibana was an authority on karate's pedigree. Most martial artists are shockingly ignorant of the facts of karate's development and are more prone to believe and to repeat myths rather than facts. The survival of the Shaolin Temple myth is a prime example. Master Chibana's change could reflect national or ethnic pride rather than deep knowledge of karate's history.

Perhaps you would do better to read up on the personal history of Chibana Chosin (1885-1969). I say this because I am unsure if you know much about Chibana Chosin or not, since your statement seems to indicate "not". Most people don't know that much about him anyway, as he was definitely not one to go about seeking the spotlight. Please don't take that personally; you could have just been making a generalization. By the way, your generalization about many martial artists just repeating myths does stand generally true. However, Chibana wasn't merely an observer of martial arts history on Okinawa, he was a part of it.

If anything, he was recognized as THE authority on karate during his lifetime. He was a completely nonpolitical man, yet when the first organization on Okinawa was founded to bring the majority of the major Okinawan styles under one umbrella, he was asked and chosen to become its president. This doesn't reflect any political manueverings on his part, but just the fact that he was respected THAT much as a man of karate on Okinawa. If you were to speak with karate historians on Okinawa, Chibana's students on Okinawa (or elsewhere), or just those people associated with his peers or from karate men from that time period, you would get the same impression. After doing all of the above, I certainly did.

As far as national or ethnic pride goes, Chibana was the exact opposite. He greatly disagreed with both movements that were occurring on Okinawa. He disliked the heavily anti-Japanese movement as much as he disliked the heavily anti-Chinese movement. Like I said, he was a very apolitical person and was just a man of karate. He appreciated the Chinese martial arts enough to name his karate style "Shorin", but he felt there were enough differences to warrant a nuance in spelling.

As far as repeating myths, it is ironic that you say so, as he would always delineate which stories tended to be myths designed with a moral (Bushi Matsumura being forced to fight a bull or Bushi Matsumura refuses to fight a band of ruffians and instead crawling under their legs humbly) and which ones were more likely fact (Bushi Matsumura fighting Chinto, for example).



Karl Friday, historian of Jpn military history and MENKYO KAIDEN in Kashima Shin-ryu, has an article in Budo Perspectives, Vol. 1 by Alexander Bennet in which he holds that from their inception, the purpose of the martial RYUHA was antiquarian/spiritual and not strictly utilitarian.

Inconveniently enough, the issue of the purpose of the "martial arts" is by no means resolved by the word "martial."

I'll grant that it is nice when they work in a scuffle.

Martial ryuha and such on Japan tended to be different than those on Okinawa, so I am unsure if he would be a good authority to speak on the Okinawan arts specifically. This does bring up a good point. Nowadays and even in the early days of modern karate, people put too much extra stuff in the kata. Kata were meant to be simple and effective. The techniques are simple; their execution is advanced. Most people only pay repeated lip service to this ideal. Because their techniques are weak, they are compelled to come up with very complex and impressive sounding bunkai (well, the Okinawans tended to just use the word "imi", which means... "meaning", but nowadays many of them say bunkai as well). The more complex this obsession with bunkai becomes, the less utilitarian the kata becomes.

ZachZinn
26th May 2007, 01:18
Zach, let's not be snide. Let's be civil. Also, let's be realistic instead of disagreeing just to disagree. We are training in fighting, of course. The fact one does not actually have to fight does not change the ultimate object. It is the same as a soldier going to the range, practicing room clearing, or learning how to call down artillery or air support. He may never be in combat or kill anyone, but he is preparing in case he must do so.


Fair enough, for the record though this was the statement I was responding to:


The bottom line is, sadly, martial arts are about fighting and killing (or not being killed). This is hard for some middle class people to accept, so they rationalize their practice as self improvement.

My point in saying what I said was not to be insulting, but to point out what I see as being wrong with this statement.

It's not that people who live around a comparitively small amount of violence can't accept the purpose of martial arts; it's that they don't have to.

If they don't have to (and I believe this is true for most of us) it changes the whole equation, doesn't it? Why should they do martial arts purely for the purpose of self defense?

I left out the 'middle class' thing because i'm not sure it's valid, I grew up fairly poor, in a fairly dangerous city, and aside from a few scraps I really never had to worry about killing anyone. Now I live in a ridiculously safe place for the most part.

My point is that the majority of people practicing martial arts these days (obvious exceptions not withstanding) are never going to have to use them for anything beyond the occasional barfight or tussle.


Why am I blabbering about all this? I don't know.

I guess I just don't like the immediate negative reaction to martial arts as a form of self improvement. What exactly is wrong with this concept? I've seen the bad end of it at commercial schools certainly, but I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bathwater and say the idea is just some middle class delusion.

Shorin Ryuu
26th May 2007, 01:33
There's nothing wrong with self-improvement in the martial arts. I think there are things you can get for self-improvement from practicing martial arts. Yet when I train martial arts, I train for the technical expertise, not for self-improvement. You see, I am of the opinion that it is precisely the concentration and dedication required for pursuing the martial arts solely as a fighting art and nothing else that can give one extra benefits like self-improvement. Therefore you can't force it to become something for self-improvement. The moment you do, it becomes neither a fighting art nor a unique self-improvement device. It can still be used for self-improvement even if your overt cause is such, but it would be no different than just exercising for self-improvement.

shotobouv
26th May 2007, 01:50
Interesting discussion. You can't take the 'martial' out of martial arts because underlying everything is the fact that the training derives from trying to hurt others and protect yourself, and in the darker recesses of the military to kill other people.

But its not all about bash and bang. It was Sun Tzu who said "Therefore, one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful.
Subduing the other’s military without battle is the most skillful".

Osu
Trevor

Trevor, I like the quote. Sun Tzu was more about the deeper meaning of applying force or not applying force for a means to an end.

I have often thought of kata as learning harmony. Harmony for myself.

Kata has internal harmony and external harmony, these give you balance, timing and distance.

The same concept of harmony transfers to kumite, because you need to have harmony with your opponent. You must move with your opponent and have his distance and timing. When you have harmony, then you can break the harmony and attack or counter attack, when your opponent is most open.

You need to have this same hamony when you leave your house. If you drive a car you must have harmony with the traffic around you or you may have an accident.

In kata we learn timing and tempo of a kata, is this just a smaller version of life that we are now imposing uppon ourselves?

Just wondering.

ZachZinn
26th May 2007, 01:57
There's nothing wrong with self-improvement in the martial arts. I think there are things you can get for self-improvement from practicing martial arts. Yet when I train martial arts, I train for the technical expertise, not for self-improvement. You see, I am of the opinion that it is precisely the concentration and dedication required for pursuing the martial arts solely as a fighting art and nothing else that can give one extra benefits like self-improvement. Therefore you can't force it to become something for self-improvement. The moment you do, it becomes neither a fighting art nor a unique self-improvement device. It can still be used for self-improvement even if your overt cause is such, but it would be no different than just exercising for self-improvement.


I agree with the above, i'm just amazed at the negative reactions one sees when the subject gets brought up on e-budo...see the "jutsu vs. do" debates.

trevorg
26th May 2007, 09:39
There's nothing wrong with self-improvement in the martial arts. I think there are things you can get for self-improvement from practicing martial arts. Yet when I train martial arts, I train for the technical expertise, not for self-improvement. You see, I am of the opinion that it is precisely the concentration and dedication required for pursuing the martial arts solely as a fighting art and nothing else that can give one extra benefits like self-improvement. Therefore you can't force it to become something for self-improvement. The moment you do, it becomes neither a fighting art nor a unique self-improvement device. It can still be used for self-improvement even if your overt cause is such, but it would be no different than just exercising for self-improvement.

I couldn't agree more.

Osu
Trevor

trevorg
26th May 2007, 09:47
Trevor, I like the quote. Sun Tzu was more about the deeper meaning of applying force or not applying force for a means to an end.

I have often thought of kata as learning harmony. Harmony for myself.

Kata has internal harmony and external harmony, these give you balance, timing and distance.

The same concept of harmony transfers to kumite, because you need to have harmony with your opponent. You must move with your opponent and have his distance and timing. When you have harmony, then you can break the harmony and attack or counter attack, when your opponent is most open.

You need to have this same hamony when you leave your house. If you drive a car you must have harmony with the traffic around you or you may have an accident.

In kata we learn timing and tempo of a kata, is this just a smaller version of life that we are now imposing uppon ourselves?

Just wondering.

Tim

For the record, I also teach conflict management using the works of Sun Tsu and Musashi as the central resource, so whilst you are correct in part, but only in part, because it is all about strategy and the art of winning without fighting.

However, I digress, but only a little because you are absolutely correct in that it is also about achieving harmony; balance in life if you will. And I truly believe that harmony (wa) in kata and all other aspects of, in my case karate, is the main goal in training. This must manifest manifest itself in one's life and help create a better person, assuming one is training for the right reasons.

Osu
Trevor

Jay Vail
26th May 2007, 12:27
I guess I just don't like the immediate negative reaction to martial arts as a form of self improvement. What exactly is wrong with this concept? I've seen the bad end of it at commercial schools certainly, but I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bathwater and say the idea is just some middle class delusion.

I can appreciate your feelings about this. But my point is that martial arts were not created as methods of self improvement or for spiritual purposes. These are notions imported recently in order, as pointed out so eloquently by Kennedy and Guo, to make them palatable to certain segments of the population. This happened both in China and Japan. In Japan, for instance, you have the example of judo, which took a rough and tumble close combat method utterly devoid of spiritual or ethical elements, and sanitized it for the middle classes, thus creating judo out of jujutsu. "Do" is the term that signals the presence of these spiritual or ethical elements. "Jutsu," meaning practice, signaled the practical combat oriented nature of the original methods.

Because these methods were created for combat and for practical self defense in a harsh world, it seems to me to be a delusion to look for spirituality and ethics and self improvement in these methods. One can certainly find them there, but that is true of any difficult activity.

ZachZinn
26th May 2007, 21:43
Because these methods were created for combat and for practical self defense in a harsh world, it seems to me to be a delusion to look for spirituality and ethics and self improvement in these methods. One can certainly find them there, but that is true of any difficult activity.


Gotta tell ya Jay, if you want to keep this 'civil' as you put it you might want to tone down the condescension a notch. I know what Jutsu and Do mean.

This is just turning into the typical debate i've seen so many times on e-budo, and I don't see it going anywhere productive.

If you honestly believe the "do" arts have somehow lost the real meaning of martial arts than there's no point in continuing the conversation for those of us that practice them.

Using Judo as an example of whats wrong with "do" arts is nothing short of ridiculous.


Edited to remove some of the harshness.

Jinmukan
27th May 2007, 17:27
Some kata are just pure techniques. But many also have symbolic meanings. The names of katas are also quite symbolic.

john_lord_b3
28th May 2007, 06:13
Yep, the names..

Sanchin = three battles

Seishan = 13

Jyuroku = 16

Seipai = 18

Niseishi = 24

Gojushiho = 56

Suparimpei = 108

Is there any numerological significances on those numbers?

powerof0ne
28th May 2007, 15:13
The bottom line is, sadly, martial arts are about fighting and killing (or not being killed). This is hard for some middle class people to accept, so they rationalize their practice as self improvement.

I'm curious Jay, have you, or do you compete in full contact competition? Get into street fights much? Have you ever killed someone with your bare hands?
The point I'm trying to make is if that you do martial arts for fighting and killing, and have never done neither, that seems like a waste of time. Martial arts can be for any reason you want to make them but you can't expect everyone to train in them for the same reason(s) that you do.
Personally, I do martial arts because ever since I was a kid I thought they were "cool" and now that I have gotten older I appreciate the history and culture that come with them. I also enjoy knockdown kumite and muay thai fighting, but that isn't for everybody.
I really can't say much about Kata because like most of you, if not all of you, I have seen many different reasons what Kata are for. I think it's interesting what Enshin Karate did with Kata, but you can't deny it's effectiveness.

Jay Vail
28th May 2007, 16:08
I'm curious Jay, have you, or do you compete in full contact competition? Get into street fights much? Have you ever killed someone with your bare hands?
The point I'm trying to make is if that you do martial arts for fighting and killing, and have never done neither, that seems like a waste of time. Martial arts can be for any reason you want to make them but you can't expect everyone to train in them for the same reason(s) that you do.
Personally, I do martial arts because ever since I was a kid I thought they were "cool" and now that I have gotten older I appreciate the history and culture that come with them. I also enjoy knockdown kumite and muay thai fighting, but that isn't for everybody.
I really can't say much about Kata because like most of you, if not all of you, I have seen many different reasons what Kata are for. I think it's interesting what Enshin Karate did with Kata, but you can't deny it's effectiveness.

I have had knives pulled on me and I have been stabbed twice. Been around when guys pulled guns but never seen one fired in anger. Had plenty of fights for real in my younger days; the last one was about 15 years ago now. I'm too old and slow for the full contact circuit now and I'd have got my clock cleaned by those pros anyway even at my best. Been mugged once too.

I don't agree that practicing martial arts is a waste of time if you don't actually do any fighting. As greater martial artists than I have said in the past, one point of learning to fight is so you don't have to.

But you want to be ready if violence comes your way. It can happen at any time, even if you stay out of biker bars and don't shoot your mouth off in traffic. For instance, a lawyer I knew had to take a leak so he stopped off at a public restroom serving a pair of restaurants at a shopping mall by an interstate in my town. In this public john, a transient robbed him with a knife and stabbed him more than 20 times and killed him. I myself got beaten and robbed in a public restroom.

Mall and public parking lots are other dangerous places. I know of people who have been attacked in them, some killed. The mother of a friend was abducted in a parking lot and killed. THere was a similar case in the news in South Dakota some time back where a known sex offender abducted a college age girl and killed her.

Been street interviewed quite a few times as well. No good comes out of that if you act meek. Nowing how to handle yourself helps calm the jitters and gets you out of the problem.

Jay Vail
28th May 2007, 16:25
Gotta tell ya Jay, if you want to keep this 'civil' as you put it you might want to tone down the condescension a notch. I know what Jutsu and Do mean.

This is just turning into the typical debate i've seen so many times on e-budo, and I don't see it going anywhere productive.

If you honestly believe the "do" arts have somehow lost the real meaning of martial arts than there's no point in continuing the conversation for those of us that practice them.

Using Judo as an example of whats wrong with "do" arts is nothing short of ridiculous.


Edited to remove some of the harshness.

Zach, no condescension was intended. If it came out that way, I apologize.

I don't know I'd go as far as to agree that the "do" arts have "lost the real meaning of martial arts," altho any combat art that strays from the testing of its techniques in the harsh reality of combat runs the substantial risk of loosing combat effectiveness and becomes mere calesthentics.

My point was rather different: that martial-art-as-enlightenment-study was a turn taken largely as a marketing ploy to make a dangerous violent activity more palatable to inherently nonviolent and peaceful people. That is what Kennedy and Guo said in their book, which I quoted above. I agree with that.

Jay Vail
28th May 2007, 16:47
[QUOTE=Shorin Ryuu]If you would like to get into very technical details, I could explain how Okinawan karate does these and perhaps you can explain to me how they are done in China. Simply saying because both systems have middle blocks, horse stances, and forward stances isn't enough to convince me. For that matter, the horse stance is pretty different, unless the Fukien styles you are talking about does them differently than most Chinese arts I've seen.

There are many of those associated with Okinawan martial arts who have very much staked their reputation on Okinawan martial arts being extremely similar to Chinese martial arts. These people will tell you that everything is an exact copy. I am inclined to not believe them. If anything, many of these people have lost the Okinawan way of doing them and are under the impression that the Okinawan way (or at least their understanding of it) is "wrong". These people have started to try and do Chinese martial arts under the guise of Okinawan martial arts. If they wanted to learn Chinese martial arts, they would be better off doing them then just trying to fit them exactly into Okinawan ones. As the current trend in traditional Okinawan martial arts is a mad scramble to become instantly Chinese, I'm sure my statements here will be unpopular. I have no bones about Chinese martial arts, which have been an obvious influence on Okinawan ones. But to try and do Okinawan karate (Shorin Ryu, at least) as a Chinese martial art will end up resulting in something that won't be as good either way.

Now of course, the "newer" karate arts like Goju Ryu and Uechi Ryu are closer to Chinese arts (although they also look different than a lot of other Chinese arts).

All this being said, there are two big things to keep in mind. Most even "traditional karate" has been changed dramatically even over the past 50 years, and most of it has been for the worse. And on a much more salient point to this actual discussion, none of this has any bearing on the cultural aspect that the Okinawans were more influenced by Chinese Confucianism than Chinese or Japanese Buddhism.



Perhaps you would do better to read up on the personal history of Chibana Chosin (1885-1969). I say this because I am unsure if you know much about Chibana Chosin or not, since your statement seems to indicate "not". Most people don't know that much about him anyway, as he was definitely not one to go about seeking the spotlight. Please don't take that personally; you could have just been making a generalization. By the way, your generalization about many martial artists just repeating myths does stand generally true. However, Chibana wasn't merely an observer of martial arts history on Okinawa, he was a part of it.

If anything, he was recognized as THE authority on karate during his lifetime. He was a completely nonpolitical man, yet when the first organization on Okinawa was founded to bring the majority of the major Okinawan styles under one umbrella, he was asked and chosen to become its president. This doesn't reflect any political manueverings on his part, but just the fact that he was respected THAT much as a man of karate on Okinawa. If you were to speak with karate historians on Okinawa, Chibana's students on Okinawa (or elsewhere), or just those people associated with his peers or from karate men from that time period, you would get the same impression. After doing all of the above, I certainly did.

As far as national or ethnic pride goes, Chibana was the exact opposite. He greatly disagreed with both movements that were occurring on Okinawa. He disliked the heavily anti-Japanese movement as much as he disliked the heavily anti-Chinese movement. Like I said, he was a very apolitical person and was just a man of karate. He appreciated the Chinese martial arts enough to name his karate style "Shorin", but he felt there were enough differences to warrant a nuance in spelling.

As far as repeating myths, it is ironic that you say so, as he would always delineate which stories tended to be myths designed with a moral (Bushi Matsumura being forced to fight a bull or Bushi Matsumura refuses to fight a band of ruffians and instead crawling under their legs humbly) and which ones were more likely fact (Bushi Matsumura fighting Chinto, for example).

QUOTE]

I do not mean to suggest that karate is an exact copy of some Chinese system. Rather, my point, apparently not well made, was that it is heavily influenced, if not wholly derived from Chinese methods. This is not to say that the Okinawans took everything they learned into karate, or todi, its precedessor. See for instance Harry Cook, Shotokan karate, p. 7. Cook believes that karate is heavily based on Chinese sources but also derives from non-Chinese methods. The problem I have with this argument, which may very well be true, is that the scope and nature of these non-Chinese methods are not well described in any of the literature and those who do attempt to do so, such as Javier Martinez, do not cite their sources very well. (Interestingly, Martinez argues that tuite, a supposedly Okinawan grappling method whose techniques are imbedded in the kata, was in fact derived from Chinese chin-na.)

As for the history of karate, Bruce Clayton argues that it is not well documented and little if anything was ever set down in writing about it. He argues that word of mouth histories cannot be trusted. So while no disrespect is intended toward Master Chibana, I have not seen anything in any writings associated with him that indicates his knowledge of karate's pedigree was based on anything other than oral history. If you can point me to a source that contradicts this, I would appreciate it a great deal.

CEB
28th May 2007, 17:57
What is more important, an accurate history or a fantasic story that feeds the fighting spirit? :)

Shorin Ryuu
29th May 2007, 04:26
I do not mean to suggest that karate is an exact copy of some Chinese system. Rather, my point, apparently not well made, was that it is heavily influenced, if not wholly derived from Chinese methods. This is not to say that the Okinawans took everything they learned into karate, or todi, its precedessor. See for instance Harry Cook, Shotokan karate, p. 7. Cook believes that karate is heavily based on Chinese sources but also derives from non-Chinese methods. The problem I have with this argument, which may very well be true, is that the scope and nature of these non-Chinese methods are not well described in any of the literature and those who do attempt to do so, such as Javier Martinez, do not cite their sources very well. (Interestingly, Martinez argues that tuite, a supposedly Okinawan grappling method whose techniques are imbedded in the kata, was in fact derived from Chinese chin-na.)

As for the history of karate, Bruce Clayton argues that it is not well documented and little if anything was ever set down in writing about it. He argues that word of mouth histories cannot be trusted. So while no disrespect is intended toward Master Chibana, I have not seen anything in any writings associated with him that indicates his knowledge of karate's pedigree was based on anything other than oral history. If you can point me to a source that contradicts this, I would appreciate it a great deal.

I see what you are getting at now. I think you misunderstand me. When I said karate was Okinawan, I was referring to it branching off from the Chinese influenced teaching and having its own Okinawan traits and characteristics. I agree with you that most of the input into Okinawan karate from external sources was Chinese.

With regards to wanting a historically recorded document, I can't give you one. Chibana Sensei gained his knowledge of karate history before it was recorded in the sense that you are talking about. When Nakasone Genwa wrote his Karatedo Taikan in the 1930s, which was one of the earliest attempts at comprehensively looking at Okinawan karate in writing, he featured Chibana Sensei in one of his segments. By this time, Chibana Sensei already had decades of recognition as a karate master. Like I mentioned before, he didn't just learn karate history, he was a part of it.

While Bruce Clayton's love of documented history is admirable, there is a difference between the fond myths that were told in oral histories and plain history passed down by mouth. Like I mentioned earlier, Chibana Sensei would always make a distinction when discussing history.

There isn't much written on Chibana Sensei in English (or Japanese, for that matter), and sometimes what is written is a little inaccurate. In time, I expect that to change.

kenningar
29th May 2007, 22:26
hello every one, im new at here and i practice shoryn ryu matsubayashi, somebody knows this style of karate??? what do you think about it???? wish i could see nice and good forums here, byes!!!!

john_lord_b3
8th June 2007, 09:42
What is more important, an accurate history or a fantasic story that feeds the fighting spirit? :)

I can quickly point out some styles of Japanese martial arts that flourished largely because of the latter :) and their exponents will be amazingly p*ssed off if we try to explain to them the former :(

So, if you're into politics, the latter works better.. if you're into historical research, the former is the best..

Unfortunately, I'm not a historian nor a politican, I'm just a guy playing music and doing Budo for fun :P

CEB
8th June 2007, 14:47
I'm an organ player. I have 3 Hammonds if you count the X-B that I use for gigs. I'm too old and lazy and too short on volunteer help to carry the B-3 anymore. The C-2 sits in my living room

Timothy.G.B.
8th June 2007, 18:31
It's kind of an esoteric question but I'd like to year some prespectives on the topic.

My opinion is that they contain life lessons that are useful in countless non-martial aplications.... But that might be my endoctrination speaking !! ehehehehe

When I look at the original question, it strikes me that a kata, in and of itself, has no inherent meaning, except that which is intended by the creator and/or that which is taken by the person who practices it.

If the question(s) were asked, "Did the creator of a kata intend for it to be more than just a syllabus of techniques? When you practice kata, is it more than just a syllabus of techniques to you?", then I think the conversation might be much less energized.

We will never know what any of the creators of the kata were thinking when they created them because they are all dead. However, we need only ask each individual if they themselves find meaning beyond fighting techniques in kata. I think those are the answers we have received mostly in this discussion.

Our teacher has told me this...kata is only really needed if your Sensei is not around to teach and correct you. Kata contains techniques for fighting arranged in a pattern that makes them easier to remember on your own, a process called "chunking" in psychology that allows people to remember more than just learning a million individual techniques.

For me, I don't have my teacher around all the time to correct me so kata is invaluable in my current training. If I forget something I can return to the kata to "check it" for myself. If I am training the technique wrong, then my teacher just asks to see my kata and corrects it. I don't personally find any esoteric meaning in the kata. I find that sitting meditation is a much more effective and efficient practice for those kinds of endeavours.

Best,
Tim

john_lord_b3
11th June 2007, 15:48
I'm an organ player. I have 3 Hammonds if you count the X-B that I use for gigs. I'm too old and lazy and too short on volunteer help to carry the B-3 anymore. The C-2 sits in my living room

Whoa, cool! From an organist to another, SALUD! (plays high C on the upper manual with Leslie at full speed, drawbars pulled all out :D )

Karate and organ playing is much alike. You carry around a Hammond Suzuki XB around, because the real thing weights 400 pounds and the repair costs a fortune. The XB weighs a lot less, costs $2000 in used market, and that includes the volume pedal. Non-organist will not care what kind of organ you carry to the gigs, as long as it sounds good. And the XB can scream. It can purr. With the percussion on, it can be funky too! :) But organ purists will scream on your ears "But that's not the real thingie!"

Same thing with Karate. You train Kata for enjoyment and health benefit, because you're not living in the 19th century anymore, and your safety is guaranteed by your country's constitution. There are police officers around, ready to serve and protect you. The last thing in your mind is to use your Karate to defend yourself empty-handedly against 5 armed thugs. So, what good is your Kata training for? Of course, the best reason for continue Kata training is because it's fun, it's enjoyable, it keeps you healthy. :) But off course, "Karate purists" will scream on your ears "But Karate is for fighting!" :)

Life is complicated sometimes eh? :D

JS3
12th June 2007, 05:11
Same thing with Karate. You train Kata for enjoyment and health benefit, because you're not living in the 19th century anymore, and your safety is guaranteed by your country's constitution. There are police officers around, ready to serve and protect you. The last thing in your mind is to use your Karate to defend yourself empty-handedly against 5 armed thugs. So, what good is your Kata training for? Of course, the best reason for continue Kata training is because it's fun, it's enjoyable, it keeps you healthy. :) But off course, "Karate purists" will scream on your ears "But Karate is for fighting!" :)

Life is complicated sometimes eh? :D

Sorry to disagree but your safety is not garanteed by the Constitution, and police are there to serve the public safety not your personal safety.
The Constitution simply outlines how the government is suppose to operate.
The Bill Of Rights ( I prefer the "Bill of No Rights" (http://www.worldtrans.org/sov/norights.html) ) simply places limits on the power the government has over the people.

See the following court cases:
Riss v. New York: 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293, N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958) The government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim.
-In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex- boyfriend had repeatedly threatened, "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was reuiqred to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)
-Ruth Brunell called the police on twenty different occasions to beg for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her.
They told Mrs. Brunell to call back when her husband got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help.

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985) Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)


You and only you are ultimately responsible for your safety.

john_lord_b3
14th June 2007, 12:26
Sorry to disagree but your safety is not garanteed by the Constitution, and police are there to serve the public safety not your personal safety.

See the following court cases:
Riss v. New York: 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293, N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958) The government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim.

Damn... and where are the politicians when you need them? (sarcasm mode on) :D (sarcasm mode off)