What the training is for

For me, karate has to begin with the reason we train, not with the technique we want to demonstrate.

Self-protection is not the same as winning a fight

When I was younger, much of my training encouraged the idea that being capable of fighting was the same as being prepared to protect myself. I was fit, confident, willing to engage, and used to measuring success by what happened once a confrontation had begun.

Experience has made me less comfortable with that assumption. A fight can be won and still leave someone injured, prosecuted, or dealing with consequences that last much longer than the incident itself. There is no prize for handling a situation physically when it could have been avoided.

That is why my approach begins before the first strike. Awareness matters. So does recognising when someone's behaviour is changing, understanding the environment, finding a way out, and knowing when to leave. Verbal skills, restraint and judgement belong in the training, not as polite additions but as part of its purpose.

When there is no other choice

None of that means pretending physical violence cannot happen. People can be grabbed, shoved, struck or crowded before they fully understand what is taking place. At that point the problem is not how well a technique looks, but whether they can protect themselves, make space, regain control and get away.

I do not teach physical responses as if there are guaranteed answers. Distance, surprise, fear, other people, the ground beneath your feet and the legal circumstances can change everything. So can the person's age, size, fitness or experience.

A method which only works when those things have been arranged in our favour may have a use in practice, but we should be careful about what we claim for it outside the dojo.

Being able to fight and knowing when to fight are two different things.

The purpose decides the training

There are many good reasons to practise karate. Fitness, enjoyment, sport, cultural interest and personal development are all legitimate. I have no quarrel with people who train for those reasons.

My concern begins when training for one purpose is presented as proof of another. If we tell students that we are preparing them for civilian self-protection, then that claim should shape what we practise, the problems we select, and the way we test our understanding.

For me, that is the starting responsibility.