Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shinpan-ho

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shinpan-ho

    I read the following on a legal forum about the philosophy of judging and its analogy to to how baseball umpires call the game. Here is the quote:

    " First umpire: Some are balls and some are strikes, and I call them as they are.

    Second umpire: Some are balls and some are strikes, and I call them as I see 'em.

    Third umpire: Some are balls and some are strikes, but they aint nothin' til I call 'em.

    Three views of legal reasoning are represented here, with the first umpire representing some form of essentialist jurisprudence such as so-called mechanical jurisprudence. The second umpire would be close to the role attributed to a traditional judge in a liberal democratic society, believing in the existence of truth and in the wisdom of attempted impartiality, but also in the imperfection of people to see or understand truth. The view of the third umpire is usually attributed to legal realism or critical legal studies, though it would fit only a subset of adherents to those quite different philosophies."

    Quite apart from the arcane legal language, how does this apply to shinpan philosophy? When I referred fencing bouts I tended toward the second philosophy of judging.

  • #2
    Wtf!?!?!?!

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the essence of this post went over the heads of the majority of KWF readers.

      (See above post)

      From my very limited experience of shinpan I would have to agree with Theodores analysis of the description of the second umpires philosophy.

      The first umpire assumes he can tell the difference between a strike and ball, that the process is objective and dispassionate and can be achieved by anyone.

      The third believes it is his decision to label a particular play ball or strike and the play is nothing with out is assessment.

      The second umpire has a more humble perspective. He recognizes the subjective nature of making value judgments in his sport. He understands that humans are unable to be impartial and knows his calls are his own opinion and others may have differing perspectives.

      This sounds like the kendo shinpan.

      It may be a reason why there are three

      Comment


      • #4
        I think the 2nd philosophy is best for baseball, but I also think this can't entirely be directly related to kendo.

        A strike in baseball is an absolutely defined black and white event, the only variable is the ability of the umpire to see it. For example, there is no such thing as a ball delivered through the strike zone, but called a ball because the pitcher didn't have a proper follow through.

        In a way, #3 may be the closest description to a shimpan, especially when you consider that competition at higher levels of kendo are held to higher standards to be awarded with the same decision. But in baseball, a strike is a strike is a strike.

        Comment


        • #5
          Contrary to what you might believe by my last post "wtf!?!?!?", i did understand what theodore was trying to explain. The only problem was the way he tried, and the words he used, which i thought were gratuitous. Such as the use of words like "essentialists" and "jurisprudence" and the use political terms to explain the umpires philosophies. This was why i said "WTF!?!?!!". No offence to theodore himself, but props to Infiinity for clarifying it for those who might be intellectually uninspired. Peace.

          Ahmed.

          Comment


          • #6
            He was trying to impress us

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gregory
              He was trying to impress us
              Did it make you giggle?

              Comment


              • #8
                You have NO idea

                Comment


                • #9
                  Too sublime?

                  Originally posted by ahmed61086
                  Contrary to what you might believe by my last post "wtf!?!?!?", i did understand what theodore was trying to explain. The only problem was the way he tried, and the words he used, which i thought were gratuitous. Such as the use of words like "essentialists" and "jurisprudence" and the use political terms to explain the umpires philosophies. This was why i said "WTF!?!?!!". No offence to theodore himself, but props to Infiinity for clarifying it for those who might be intellectually uninspired. Peace.

                  Ahmed.
                  Ahmed,
                  It may have skipped your notice that the statement was in quotation marks, and was clearly identified has haven been taken from a legal forum. I'll try to go with one syllable (oh no, I can't do it) words from now on if you are going (oh no, another -dang) to read my posts.

                  Check out this martial concept: bun-bu-ryodo.

                  The rest of you, thanks for taking the time to read and discuss this matter intelligently.
                  Last edited by Theodore; 19th September 2005, 12:42 PM. Reason: Additional text

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Your right, it did skip my notice. No reason for you to look down your nose. I wasnt trying to offend you, as i have said before, so your attempts at being clever were ill-advised. Bun bu ryodo, the dual path of martial and literary arts. Thanks for the info. Good-day.

                    Ahmed.
                    Last edited by ahmed61086; 19th September 2005, 03:07 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      People who have a problem when you use the correct word for that particular situation... perplex me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        If I'm acting as shimpan, I take the #2 viewpoint. But as a competitor, I take #3 - it ain't nothin' till the ref says it's somethin'.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Neil Gendzwill
                          If I'm acting as shimpan, I take the #2 viewpoint. But as a competitor, I take #3 - it ain't nothin' till the ref says it's somethin'.
                          that is it! i didn't think about that aspect...
                          thanks neil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            [double post]
                            Last edited by ben; 20th September 2005, 10:20 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'd side with number three, for a specific reason: as a shinpan you need to not just have but also *display* a great deal of authority. That can be quite daunting if you are forced to shinpan high level matches and don't yet feel experienced enough. So I sometimes like to say to myself that, as a shinpan, when I'm right, I'm right, and when I'm wrong, I'm also right. As Neil pointed out, for a competitor, it pays to have this view of shinpan. For a shinpan also it can help your confidence to be able to say this.

                              Interesting topic as I'm about to attend the IKF Asian Zone Shinpan Seminar. Been thinking a lot about shinpaning lately...

                              b

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X