Wado Heretic

In that our sources agree. There is no existing evidence that Chibana, or Nakazato, taught a version of Jion or Jitte. However, Kyudokan and its descendent schools have a version of Jion and Jitte. Most likely they came from Higa Yuchoku Hanshi's studies with his first teacher Jiroma Shiro, although some credit his later teacher Miyahira Seiei. Yet, Higa generally credited Miyahira with expert instruction in punching techniques rather than kata. Generally speaking, the original source is not know specifically. Aside from Kyudokan, some of the descendent schools of Shidokan have a version of Jion. The origin of theirs' I am even less sure of. But an interesting aside is that two of Itosu students, Yabu Kentsu and Hanashiro Chomo, are both credited with versions of Jion which are still practiced. Chozu Nakama, a late Kobayashi instructor, reportedly taught Jion as he learnt it from Hanashiro. It is important to note that Hanashiro's only known teachers were Matsumura Sokon and Itosu Anko. Thus, there is a Shuri, and thus by extension a Shorin-Ryu Jion tradition. I have been unsuccessful in tracing it any further back unfortunately.

First thing, good luck going forward Aurik. To answer the opening posts question. My short answer, and perhaps a little facetious, is all of the above. The longer and less facetious answer is that it depends on the student, and the context of the training. To give an example, for relative beginners when doing pad-work or starting on Striking Sparring, I do prefer the use of boxing gloves. When we are just swinging, or we are doing drills with an element of chaos, I prefer they wear the safest gloves possible for punching to limit injury. And when they start striking sparring, we tend to do hands only anyway to get started. Sometimes with my more advanced students, I do still prefer they use boxing gloves when we are doing hands only sparring, because I do usually let them use MMA style gloves for sparring, but sometimes they get into grabbing matches, when I want them working on deflecting and punching smart. Plus, if they end up against a relative beginner using heavier gloves it keeps it more equal. As can be inferred, we do use MMA style gloves, but usually when we are doing Kakei-Kumite and allowing harder hand-strikes, or we are doing Jiyu-Kumite with contact. Sometimes if it is someone’s first time doing a flow-drill, with henka options thrown in, or Renzoku Kumite I might ask them to wear them just to be safe too. I have a supply of the WKF equipment including leg protection, because we do light sparring at least once every eight weeks, and it is good enough for that. The thicker padding also seems to psychologically make people work at a safer distance as well. Why, I am not sure, but it could be the feeling of an added reach of almost an inch or something. Personally, they also feel lighter than my collection of MMA gloves. We also use it is we decide to compete under sundome rules, and we need to prepare for that as well. We tend not to use gloves at all when doing Kiso Kumite, Flow-Drills, Kakei-Kumite, or Renzoku Kumite, but there are exceptions to this rule as mentioned above. Mostly, because the flesh against flesh is good for conditioning, but the rules of the exercises keep them relatively safe and allow for controlled contact. We also do conditioning exercises on pads without gloves or shin-guards to get used to hitting something without gloves. It also helps to gain an understanding of one’s actual reach when not wearing protection, which is essential for self-defence. We do use Kudo style space helmets for head protection when we do full-contact sparring. I find the face mask absorbs a lot of the impact, otherwise absorbed by the neck, and thus the brain, which happens with more conventional head gear. But that is twice a year at most. Plus, I pull people off the mat if they keep taking shots to the head, and not being productive.

My condolences.

Welcome back, and good to see you making content again.

To give a better answer, my first question would be to ask who, and where they were, awarded their Dan grades? I have known some Okinawan Organisations to recognise Dan grades from other systems, though it does not explicitly mean it is an endorsement of a person's skill in the Okinawan Systems. Some unscrupulous people have used this to promote themselves as experts in Okinawan karate despite having a very limited experience of it. With regards to Wado-Ryu and Shito-Ryu having similarities to Shorin-Ryu. To answer this it depends on the branch of Shorin-Ryu: whether it is Kobayashi, Matsubayashi, Sukunaihayashi (Seibukan), or Shobuyashi. In terms of Kata there is similarity between all the branches, and the aforementioned Japanese systems. In the list below I will be focusing on kata I am aware of that exist in Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and in at least one branch of Shorin-ryu: Pinan kata series: All the systems mentioned practice the Pinangata. Kūsankū: All the systems mentioned practice a version of Kusanku. Naihanchi: All the systems mentioned practice at least Naihanchi Shodan. Seisan: Seibukan, Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and some branches of Kobayashi. Chintō: All the systems mentioned practice a version of Chintō. Passai: All the systems mentioned practice a version of Passai. Rōhai: Matsubayashi, Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and some branches of Kobayashi. Wanshū: Seibukan, Matsubayashi, Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and some branches of Kobayashi. Jion: Seibukan, Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and Kobayashi. Jitte: Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and some branches of Kobayashi. Thus, if we were tally the kata in common between Wado-Ryu, Shito-ryu, and the best-known branches of Shorin-Ryu we get the following, in descending order: Kobayashi: 6-9 Seibukan: 8 Matsubayashi: 7 Shobayashi: 5 A lot of the core kata are similar between the Wado-Ryu, Shito-Ryu, and the various branches of Shorin-Ryu. Most begin with a thorough study of the Pinangata and Naihanchi before continuing to Passai and further on from there. However, it should be noted that the Pinangata and Naihanchi were added to Seibukan by the second generation. Beyond the kata we can get into the kumite but that would deserve a book to be fair to all the subtle differences. Nonetheless, I will give a brief overview. Both Matsubayashi and Wado-Ryu have formal kumite forms which were influenced by Motobu Choki, although Wado-Ryu has significantly more two-man exercises, and were also influenced by Shindo Yoshin-Ryu. Orthodox Okinawan Karate methodologies, which most branches of Shorin-Ryu can be called as they come down via shared sources, when you get into applications usually fall into free-style wrestling with dirty boxing, or kickboxing with dirty Judo. Which is to say they focus on arm-controlling or body-to-body techniques and trying to put the opponent on the floor, while utilising percussive techniques to make resisting being thrown even more difficult. Conversely using punching and kicking to control distance, and then throwing when the opportunity presents itself, and using handles and targets to start the throw you would not see in polite competition such as the hair, fingers, dangly bits et cetera. In terms of principles, and using Shito-Ryu terms, we might say a lot of Shorin-Ryu techniques embody Rakka, the use of powerful technique to subdue and stagnate an attempt to attack, and hangeki, defeating an attack with your own. Still using Shito-Ryu terms, In contrast, Wado-Ryu tends to favour ryūsui, flowing around attacks to nullify and stagnate an attack, and ten’I, changing position relative to an opponent to gain advantage. As can be gathered from my using the Shito-Ryu terms we can gather that Shito-Ryu tries to embody all these principles. However, at the higher level, in Shorin-Ryu, there should be use of ryusui and ten’I in conjunction with rakka and hangeki. Plus, in truth, some principles do not work without employing another. Rakka relies on ten’I for best outcome, and hangeki on ryusui to give the base combinations. Plus, to mention the last of the five fundamental principles of Shito-Ryu outlined by Mabuni Kenwa, kusshin: the use of stances and body movements to contract, expand, lower, and rise, as part of a counter attack or technique. This principle should be observed in Shorin-Ryu Kata, and in Wado-Ryu’s Kumite gata, to be performed correctly. There are then other principles which do not carry over perfectly such as gamaku and chinkuchi and so on and so forth. But that is going back to probably requiring a book to do the topic justice. Anyway, I would say most of the kata the systems have in common fall into the Kickboxing with dirty Judo when it comes to their applications. They use a lot of large techniques which expand and collapse the miai, either into or out of body-to-body combat range. From personal experience, I began my study of Shorin-Ryu having essentially just earned my Shodan in Wado-Ryu. The main areas where I felt I had to basically start all over was in the proper use of the waist to generate power, and fixing my stances with intent, but I still managed to earn my Nidan in Shorin-Ryu with just two years of training. Now, I was able to train Four times a week, and did a couple of hours a day of my own training, in that two year period. But the point being, there is a lot that is transferable.

To answer the question of experience with the system my answer must be only a little, and even then, by observation of demonstrations rather than training on the dojo floor. The formal, official history is that Ryūei-ryū is the heterodox, family system of the Nakaima family. Its reported history begins with Nakaima Norisato who studied martial arts for seven years in China under Ryu Ryu Ko. After completing his studies, but before returning to Okinawa in the 1870s, it is stated that Norisato also spent time collecting weapons, scrolls, and experiences across the Fujian, Canton, and Beijing areas. Norisato passed his knowledge onto his son Kenchu, who in turn passed these teachings onto his son Kenko. Nakaima Kenko is the one who decided to teach his family’s knowledge to the public, and he did this in 1971 when he began teaching 20 teachers at the school where he was a janitor. Kenko appears to have in fact named the system out of a need to do so when he made it public. My own teacher was somewhat derisive of this fact. When I brought up Ryūei-ryū once he did remark with veiled critique: “One week he was a janitor, now he is a karate teacher.” That aside, we can study the kata of the system to determine the credibility of the official history: • Niseishi/Nijushiho • Sanseiryu • Seisan • Pāchū • Heikū • Paikū • Ānan • Ohan Niseishi as a kata was also taught by Aragaki Seisho, another student of Ryu Ryu Ko. It is also found in Okinawa Kempo lineages originating with Sakiyama Kitoku, another student of Ryu Ryu Ko. All these versions of the kata are very similar except for some key differences in embusen. However, the general order and selection of techniques are similar. Interestingly, Chito-Ryu, a system greatly influenced by Aragaki as he was Chitose’s first teacher, teaches Niseishi as its second traditional kata after Seisan and Chitose’s various Kihon no Kata. In Okinawa Kempo it is part of the core 12 kata alongside the Pinangata, Naihanchigata, Seisan, Passai, and Kusanku. Similarly, Ryuei-Ryu appears to teach it as their first kata period. In Shi’to-Ryu it is usually the first Aragaki Kata learnt too. This suggests Niseishi may have been taught as a rudimentary kata by Ryu Ryu Ko as Okinawa Kempo, Chito-Ryu, Shi’to-Ryu, and Ryuei-Ryu all treat it as such. However, Niseishi more broadly speaking in Okinawan karate can almost always be traced back to Aragaki. Ryuei-Ryu and Okinawa Kempo are outliers, and other students of Ryu Ryu Ko do not appear to have included it in their approaches. Sanseiryu exists in Shi’to-ryu, Goju-Ryu and To’on-Ryu, and it is highly probable if unarguable that it was taught by Higoanna Kanryo, another student of Ryu Ryu Ko. I have not had the opportunity to see the To’on-Ryu version, and the Goju-Ryu and Shi’to-Ryu versions are virtually identical, but the Ryuei-Ryu version is very much like the Goju-Ryu and Shi’to-Ryu versions. Interestingly, however, I have found no evidence of a Senseiryu attributed to Aragaki, nor does it appear to be practiced in Okinawa Kempo. A version of Seisan exists in every system claiming a lineage from Ryu Ryu Ko via an Okinawan Student. The Ryuei-Ryu version is almost identical to the Goju-Ryu and Shi’to-Ryu versions, and it follows the Chinese Template also found in the To’on-Ryu and Uechi-Ryu versions. Based on these three kata being largely common to proclaimed students of Ryu Ryu Ko we can conclude that Nakaima Norisato was likely a student of Ryu Ryu Ko. A problem is that Nakaima Kenko would not have had to leave Okinawa to learn these kata. He could have learnt Senseiryu and Seisan from studying Goju-Ryu, and the Ryuei-Ryu versions bear a striking resemblance to the Goju-Ryu versions as they include the characteristic Kansetsu Geri. Said Kansetsu Geri does not exist in other versions of Seisan Iam aware of, and as mentioned Sanseiryu appears essentially unique to Goju-Ryu outside of Ryuei-Ryu. Niseishi could easily have been learnt from any number of systems which practice it on Okinawa. These kata are also learnt relatively early, around Sankyu-Ikkyu/brown belt level, in most systems they are studied in. Thus, accessible to a relative novice. However, this is being a little conspiratorial minded, rather than sceptical, so I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt that the similarities of the kata, and the common cause of the same kata being practiced, is that they indeed come from Ryu Ryu Ko. The rest of the kata, however, do present another problem. They exist nowhere else outside of Ryuei-Ryu in the canon of Okinawan Karate Kata. The versions found in Shi’to-Ryu come from Ryuei-Ryu, and differ purely from adaptations for competition, and differences in fundamental principles leading to different execution of techniques. If we accept the official history, these kata are either part of the Nakaima family tradition that existed before Norisato, or Norisato developed them from his studies in China which were apart from his training with Ryu Ryu Ko. The problem is that Ockham’s razor invites another explanation that Nakaima Kenko has simply made them up. I personally do not think they look very Chinese. Most Chinese influenced kata tend to lack symmetry, use predominantly open hands, and flow between movements. However, the performances of said kata I have seen have largely been by WKF competitors during competition. Thus, could be modified from the original way to do them into a way preferred by judges. Plus, we do have other family traditions from Okinawa such as the aforementioned Kingai-Ryu, Kojo-Ryu, and Motobu UdunDi which have kata from outside the broader Okinawan Kata traditions of Shuri, Naha, and Tomari Te. With regards to competition involvement and success it is predominantly by the efforts and success of Sakumoto Tsuguo. He is a three-time world champion in kata, a two-time winner of the World Games, and a two-time winner of the World Cup. He made his mark in 1987 when he performed Anan, a kata relatively unknown to anyone outside of Ryuei-Ryu, and introduced the Ryuei-Ryu kata to the world. Anan, Pechu, Paiku, Heiku, and Ohan have also since become popular competition Kata. It has been said that Nakaima Kenko disliked Sport Karate, and that he believed karate as Martial Art should be used for building one’s character. However, Sakumoto and other younger masters of the style which have outlived the late Nakaima, see the sport as an excellent tool for promoting karate and getting people interested in it. Sakumoto is one of the most sort out competition coaches in the world and has his hand in training most of Japan’s international competitors. His influence is essentially the answer to your question. Another aside I heard from my teacher is that Sakumoto was a gymnast, and despite Nakaima’s apparent protestations, the word through the grapevine is that Sakumoto was permitted to compete because of his athletic ability, and Nakaima chose him specifically. This, I consider wholly hear say, but Ryuei-Ryu does have a mixed reputation. With regards to Okinawan attitudes to Sport Karate there are trends. Which is to say, many older teachers share Nakaima Kenko’s thoughts, which is that karate is Budo, and should be trained to build character, and trained in a manner fitting actual fighting skills. However, the form this should take is also diverse. Some that this should be done by strict adherence to the hard training of the past, and others that tradition should be respected but fighting skills explored and evolved through kumite. You have some who live on the line, or in the middle ground, that Karate can be a life-time practice, but there is no harm in practicing the sport because karate as a sport and karate as budo are two different things and depending on where you are in life, you will want different things. Also, the pragmatic reasoning that the sport does attract people to Karate, and gives people goals in the short term, and this helps people get started. Finally, you do have people who are very much of the view that Karate is basically a sport and should be practiced as one. The third view is very much a minority in my experience, the second the majority when speaking to most teachers, and the first a handful of the older generation. I hope this has been of help.

The Shōrin-ryū version of Seisan is very much like the version of Seisan in Shi’to- ryū identified as Matsumura-no-Seisan that is historically attributed to Matsumura Sōkon. Most versions of Seisan, or Matsumura-no-Seisan, found in the different schools of Shōrin-ryū can be traced back to Kyan (sometimes spelt Kiyan) Chōtoku. From memory the Kobayashi schools of Shōbayashi, Seidokan, and Shidokan can trace their versions of Seisan back to Kyan. Matsubayashi-Ryū, Shōrin-ryū Seibukan, Okinawan Shōrinji-ryū, and Shōrinji-ryū Kenkokan, all being founded by direct students of Kyan, also inherit their versions from his as well. In short, the Shōrin-ryū Seisan can be easily traced back to Kyan, and most modern systems versions come from him. Where he got it is where the matter becomes confused. Tradition argues Matsumura because he was Kyan’s primary source of what is retroactively known as Shuri Te. Kyan’s Passai is recorded to have come from Oyadomari Kokan. As is his Wanshu although he learnt it from Maeda Pechin who was a fellow student of Oyadomari. Kyan is said to have learnt his Kusanku from Chatan Yara, and Matsumora Kōsaku is said to have taught Kyan his Chinto. In short, it is assumed that Kyan’s version of Seisan comes from Matsumura by product of elimination. The main problem with this being that Kyan did leave a written statement that he learnt Useishi (Gojushiho) from Matsumura with no mention of Seisan. That said, if we are going by written sources, then we only have strong witness testimonials for Naihanchi Shodan, Useishi, and Kusanku being taught by to Matsumura Sōkon. The more complete list regularly given including Naihanchi Nidan, Passai, Seisan, Chintō, and Hakutsuru is again built on a foundation of assumption. Which is to say all, or the majority, of those who claimed to have studied with Matsumura appear to have included those kata in their teachings. However, with regards to Seisan, the historian Hiroshi Kinjo strongly argued that there is no evidence of a Shuri line of Seisan from Matsumura Sōkon. to Anko Itosu, and that the commonly accepted Shuri version must in fact be a Tomari kata. However, this assertion is not universally accepted, and some have offered evidence of a Shuri Seisan lineage including Mark Bishop and Patrick McCarthy. However, it is compelling that most versions of Shōrin-ryū Seisan can be traced back to Kyan, and that most of his teachers were from the Tomari region. Before him, as with Seisan in general, its origins are sadly lost to the mists of time. My operant hypothesis is that the so-called Matsumura variation is the older of the two. This is because of a handful of observation. Aragaki no Seisan most closely resembles Matsumura no Seisan. This version is attributed to Aragaki Seisho who is the earliest person recorded performing Seisan. Aragaki was also a purported student of Ryu Ryu Ko, yet his version follows the embusen of the so-called Matsumura version, rather than the one followed by Goju-Ryu or Ryuei-Ryu, which are credited to other students of Ryu Ryu Ko. Aragaki was Higoanna Kanryo’s first teacher of Martial Arts before he departed for China. This Higoanna famously being the founder of Goju-Ryu Miyagi Chojun’s teacher. Thus, Goju-Ryu’s Seisan is attributed to Higoanna, and in turn Ryu Ryu Ko. Did Aragaki not teach Higoanna Seisan, or did Higoanna have it corrected by Ryu Ryu Ko while in China? Those versions of Seisan which can be traced back to Kyan largely follow the same embusen: Forward, turn to travel to where you started, turn left, turn right, face the back, turn to face the front, turn back on yourself, and then back to the front to finish. However, this is also true of the Aragaki version, who predates Kyan, as well as the version found in Okinawa Kenpo which has no clear historical connection to Kyan. Chito-Ryu’s Seisan, which may come from either Aragaki or Kyan, also follows this embusen. In comparison, the Seisan of Goju-Ryu and Ryuei-Ryu go as follows: Forward, turn to travel to where you started, turn right, turn left, face the back, and then turn back to the front to finish. The Goju-Ryu and Ryuei-Ryu are both directly linked to Ryu Ryu Ko and said to come from China. Higaonna Kanryo and Nakaima Norisato, the teacher of Goju-Ryu’s founder and the founder of Ryuei-Ryu respectively, both studied reportedly studied with Ryu Ryu Ko. Yet, there are two other versions I am familiar with, that are said to come from China, also follow this embusen. That is the Higoanna no Seisan of To’on-Ryu, from Higaonna Kanryu who studied with the Chinese envoy Wai Xinxian, who was reportedly a student of Ryu Ryu Ko, though I have found no clarifying evidence for this claim. The other is the seisan of Uechi-Ryu said to come from Zhou Zihe. Oddly enough, the San Zhan Taolu of Xiang Dian Quan, a form Luohan Quan found in Fujian province, follows a similar embusen though with some instances of moving backwards which is not done in Seisan. There are also a lot of moves in common with Seisan. Some hypothesise that it may be the Chinese version of Seisan, however, it is unproven and uncorroborated to say the least. I can see it being related to the Seisan that Higoanna, Nakaima, and Uechi brought back but I do not think it is convincingly one in the same. The sticking point being that four of at least seven of eight versions of Seisan that have existed on Okinawa since the 19th Century in theory came from China in that century. They are not the ancient Okinawan Seisan. At least four could be attributed to Ryu Ryu Ko: • Aragaki Seisho’s, possibly from Ryu Ryu Ko, which became Chito-Ryu’s version and was the probable origin of Shotokan-Ryu’s Hangetsu. • Higaonna Kanryo’s, probably from Ryu Ryu Ko, which became the Goju Ryu version, • Nakaima Kenri’s, probably from Ryu Ryu Ko, which became Ryuei Ryu’s version. • Kuniyoshi Shinkichi’s, likely from Sakiyama Kitoku who was a student of Ryu Ryu Ko, which became Okinawa Kempo’s version. We could extend this to five if it is true that Wai Xinxian, Higoanna Kanryu’s teacher, from whom the To’on-Ryu version of Seisan comes, was a student of Ryu Ryu Ko as has been speculated. The Uechi-Ryu and Kingai-Ryu could also be directly connected. Kingai Roshi, teacher of Matayoshi Shinko from whom Kingai-Ryu’s Seisan comes, may have been an elder student of Zhou Zihe, the teacher of Uechi Kanbun. Thus Kingai-Ryu and Uechi-Ryu’s Seisan could be directly related. I did once read that Mark Bishop said they were identical; however, I have heard from a reputable source since that although there are some similarities in pattern and technique choice, the versions are not identical. I would mention that I do find Uechi-Ryu and To’on-Ryu’s Seisan very similar in pattern and technique choice as well. Indeed, I think To’on-Ryu’s is closer to Uechi-Ryu’s than it is to Goju-Ryu’s. But that is an aside. Thus, five out of eight versions back to Ryu Ryu Ko, seven versions back to China, and said seven versions back to as little as two sources. Ryu Ryu Ko, and the teacher of Kingai Roshi and Zhou Zihe. Though, that is assuming Wai Xinzian was a student of Ryu Ryu Ko. Our only outlier is Kyan Chotoku’s Seisan, from an unconfirmed source, which became the version in Shōrin-ryū Seibukan, Okinawan Shōrinji-ryū, Shōrinji-ryū Kenkokan, Isshin-Ryu, and several Kobayashi-Ryu schools. But Aragaki’s and Sakiyama’s Seisan, although plausibly from Ryu Ryu Ko, follow the same embusen as Kyan’s version. In contrast, Higoanna Kanryo’s and Nakaima’s follow the same embusen as that of Uechi’s and Higoanna Kanryu’s which come from a different source, but from the same region of China and in the same time frame. One explanation could be that Aragaki and Sakiyama learnt one version of Seisan as they were contemporary, and it was altered by Ryu Ryu Ko by the time Higoanna Kanryo was studying with him. However, Nakaima studied with Ryu Ryu Ko before Aragaki or Sakiyama, and the Ryuei-Ryu and Goju-Ryu versions are fairly similar to one another. We should also consider their similarity to the To’on-Ryu and Uechi-Ryu versions. It is known that there was significant interaction between the traditions of Luohan Quan (Monk Fist) and Bái Hè Quán (White Crane), which produced systems such as Incense Shop Boxing. Ryu Ryu Ko is thought to have likely been a White Crane Teacher, while Kingai Roshi and Zhou Zihe are believed to have practiced and taught Fujian Tiger-Crane. It is very likely their versions of Seisan are similar because they come from a similar point of origin. If we follow that logic, it leads to the conclusion that the Matsumura no seisan embusen is not entirely of Chinese Origin, but rather an Okinawan innovation that may have come from interaction with Chinese Martial Arts. My speculation is that the Matsumura no Seisan Pattern is from an older stream, hence its origins have become so murky. Plausibly, Aragaki and Sakiyama must have seen a benefit in doing things different to what appears to have been Ryu Ryu Ko’s prescribed way. That is if we take Higoanna’s and Nakaima’s performances as reflective on the basis of following what appears to be the “Chinese” pattern when compared to other versions from China. Thus, I presume there must have been an Okinawa way to do Seisan, and then a Chinese Way. But we must beware innovation. Although it is unlikely they both made the same innovation after returning to Okinawa there is nothing to say they could not have, or perhaps agreed to make the change together as they could have in theory known each other. However, I am more inclined to believe they inherited the embusen from somewhere as that most easily aligns with the unknown source problem of Kyan’s. The recurring pattern suggests a tradition we have lost the history of. Oddly enough, in Kodokan we break the rules I mentioned above with our Miyahira no Seisan. We follow the Matsumura Embusen, except we go right, then left, and then back to centre after the sequence of Kake-Uke. I believe this was a change made by Yuchoku Higa based on his training with Shinzato, or Miyahira he learnt it from again was part of a slightly different tradition. It was this anomaly that actually led me to my hypothesis about there being a modern seisan we can track, and an old seisan which is the one that has spiralled into many different versions.

I would like Tyson to win, and if he comes in to the fight in the same shape he managed to come in against Jones four years ago, I think he can win. If he has kept himself in the pink, and puts in a good camp I think Tyson will come in as potentially a higher calibre boxer than Paul has faced yet. But, and this is where I think Fat Cobra hits the nail on the head, Tyson will be 58 going into this match. He had an exhibition bout in 2020 against someone else coming in over 50, but last had a serious bout in 2005. He might be able to come in with heavy and fast hands still, but we need to consider defence: will Tyson have the reactions still to make his defence work? There is only so much one can do against the march of time. Paul is 27, has been very active in his boxing with three fights in 2021 and three in 2023, and he had a match just this month. He only got around to one fight in 2022 for some reason. Even if he has not fought boxers of the calibre Tyson did in his prime, he has fought noted fighters. Paul does not seem to have been dazzled by the reputation of his opponents such as Anderson Silva. Tyson can win if he comes in fit enough, but at 58 I do not see it happening. If Paul does not allow himself to be beaten by Tyson's aura and reputation, and gets in there and does the work I think Paul is more likely to walk away the winner. My breakdown was more to point out Paul can box. He has fought novice boxers, but capable fighters, even if they were aging, over-weight, and from a different sport. His resume is obviously padded, but the traditional boxers he has fought have had equally, if not more, padded resumes. Robinson and Askren are more or less the only two we could call Tomato Cans on his fight card. Woodley had potential on paper, Diaz has potential and went the distance, Silva proved his potential against a former world champion. August and Bourland are inarguably Club Boxers, and Fury puffed up by celebrity and his connection to Fury the Greater, but all traditional boxers with more experience than Paul himself. Yet Paul won two out of three and managed a Split Decision even in defeat. Tyson is a legend and always a point of reference in any serious discussion of a Heavyweight GOAT. Paul will be the lowest rated opponent Tyson will have fought since 1985 during his rookie years. But Tyson is 58, and Paul has knocked people down and out. Speed on the defence is the first thing to get chipped away at by age, and Paul has a dangerous offence.

I am going to go against the grain and vote Jake Paul. I would prefer Mike Tyson to win, but Mr Tyson was last in the ring four years ago for an Exhibition Match against Roy Jones Jr which ended in a split decision. Credit to Tyson in that he is 2 years older than Jones, and Jones was last active professionally in 2018 (Before his fight last year against Anthony Pettis) compared to Tyson's last bout prior being in 2005. But that was four years ago, and Tyson is of an age where 4 years can make a huge difference compared to someone in their 20s or 30s. Jake Paul is not a terrible boxer, even if his record is some what padded: AnEsonGib is a Youtuber. Admittedly he was 2-0 as an Amateur Boxer before facing Paul, so more experienced than Paul, but otherwise a fair competition on paper. Paul securing an early TKO actually speaks in his favour in terms of his talent. Gib has since done well in the controversial Kingpyn High Stakes Tournament but I would take that with a pinch of salt considering the calibre of competitor. On balance, it just suggests Gib was not as easy an opponent as Paul made it look. Nate Robinson was fighting his first fight and was a Basketball player who was basically pushed into an enforced retirement at 33 due to injury. There is no other way to put it except that it was padding Paul's record, and Robinson was in that ring for brand recognition not as a fighter. Ben Askren never knocked anyone out, never mind on their feet: he achieved TKOs via ground and pound. He retired from MMA to have hip surgery, and when it came to the fight Askren came in heavier than he ever had in his previous fighting career. Throughout his MMA career Askren fought as a Welterweight (71 and 77 kg), though he fought a catchweight bout in 2016, but fought Paul in the Cruiserweight Division (80 and 86 KG). And the weight showed in Askren looking bloated and unconditioned. It was more clever padding as Askren was a great fighter in his time, but when one looks at the details more closely, it shows Askren was chosen because he was aging out and not a dangerous striker. The two Tyron Woodley bouts are where it becomes interesting to me. Like Askren, Woodley is a wrestler by training whose victories mostly came from putting people on the floor for submission attempts or ground and pound. However Woodley, from the top of my head, knocked out Josh Koscheck and Robbie Lawler on their feet. An important distinction when considering how dangerous a striker is coming from MMA to boxing: did they ever hurt someone with a punch on their feet? Plus, Woodley went the distance several times against better strikers, at least on paper, such as Stephen Thompson and got decisions in his favour. Woodley's striking acumen and knockout ability were arguably a league above Askren's so he posed a bigger threat to Paul. It is interesting that they went the distance to a split decision in their first meet, but Paul secured a KO in their second. Whether Woodley was not as prepared the second time due to being a replacement, and that made the difference, or Paul had gotten his number from their first bout being the question. I thought Woodley came out a better and more aggressive boxer in their second fight so I have to give credit to Paul for earning the KO personally. Nonetheless, Woodley was a novice at this point so even if I consider him more dangerous than Askren as a cross-over competitor, I am disinclined to consider it a boxing match against a boxer. Plus, as with Askren, Woodley came in heavier than he had during his MMA career. Woodley, as with Askren, was a Welterweight for his MMA career but fought Paul as a Cruiserweight. Personally, I thought Woodley looked as conditioned as he ever had so I do not think the weight made much of a difference to his fitness, but from a fighting weight perspective Woodley was overweight compared to what he once fought at. Plus, as Paul more naturally walks around as a Cruiserweight, all his bouts have been in this class, he is going to have an advantage in conditioning. He does not need to bulk to make weight, and it is unlikely he needs to cut if he keeps himself in the pink. It is not difficult to live at 200 lbs at 6’1 If you keep yourself relatively fit. Anderson Silva out boxed Julio César Chávez Jr. (53-6-1) to a split decision only fifteen months before meeting Paul. Silva won 23 of his 34 MMA victories by knock-out. Silva also finished Julio César Chávez Jr. by KO, and Tito Ortiz by KO, in two of his five boxing matches. The record I can find for Chávez suggests it was his professional debut, and Ortiz's chin has been a little suspect since UFC 66. But those two knock-outs are proof Silva has knock-out power as a Boxer. Paul taking a Unanimous Decision off Silva was no small feat, even if we consider Silva another cross-over fighter, he has been one of the successful ones. This fight alone should make us consider Paul's potential to upset even great fighters. Plus, Silva has fought as a Middleweight and Light Heavyweight meaning he did not come in at an entirely new and unusual weight class to fight Paul. Paul then managed a Split Decision against Tommy Fury. This bout needs a more thorough examination than most. Fury came in undefeated, like Paul, but with two more fights under his belt and seven against Traditional Boxers. Anthony Grant (5-4) was an MMA fighter making his debut boxing match against Fury. On paper, it reads as though Fury is the much more tried and tested boxer because of this as Paul had otherwise only fought cross-over fighters, two of them known more for their wrestling in MMA than their striking and fighting heavier than they ever had before, and all of them aged out passed their peak. However, the only Boxer that Fury fought who came to their fight with a winning record at the time, and who still has one, is Jordan Grant (6-4). Even if we consider Paul's record padded, he largely fought former top talents from the world of MMA. Fury's record, though filled with traditional boxers, is made up of club boxers that between them have a verified combined record of 10-156, which is 6.4% winning rate or roughly one victory in sixteen fights. Admittedly, before meeting Fury said verified combined record was 3-42, however, the average losing streak amongst his opponents before facing him was 7 which is only 1 higher than the average of 6 bouts fought in total before their bouts with Fury. To give credit to Fury, and to balance the argument, each of his opponents had more boxing experience than him coming into their fights. For curiosity’s sake, the reported but unverified combined record is of all of Fury’s prior opponents to Paul is 38-300-5, which translates to an 11.07% winning rate. The reported records give three out of eight of his opponents winning records, though only two verified, and only two with no victories to their names. Nonetheless, it suggests that Fury did not fight a high calibre of opponents. This is not good for Jake Paul because after getting a KO victory over Tyron Woodley and a Unanimous Decision over Anderson Silva he gives away a split decision to Fury. Looking at Fury’s opponents and their calibre he has obviously been protected and has a very padded resume. Thus, this SD loss is either a massive slip up on Paul’s side, or his boxing fundamentals are not as good as they need to be, and his earlier successes came from fighting credible fighters who were nonetheless novice boxers. Fury has since gone on to earn a Unanimous Decision win against KSI (4-1-0) which is not a win to write home about. The Nick Diaz bout was a farce and a catchweight bout. Diaz just did not seem to want to be there from the first second, never mind the first round. I consider Diaz one of the better Fighter-Punchers in MMA regarding his ability with his hands, so I was surprised to see his performance be what it was in this fight. The bug bear of the weight issues rears its head again as with the Askren and Woodley, Paul fought someone who never fought near the Cruiserweight bracket before. With that said, Nate Diaz has a hard chin but he otherwise spent 10 Rounds making Paul look good, though admittedly Diaz did seem to come alive in round 8 and forced Paul to clinch a few times. Nonetheless, I cannot recall seeing Diaz land any flush punches, but I recall seeing him take several. However, having seen Paul knock out Woodley, and knockdown Askren and Silva, I was surprised to see him unable to knock out Diaz. It was a poor performance from Paul rather than a great performance from Diaz from my perspective because Diaz just never seemed in the fight, although Paul still secured the Unanimous Decision. After the slide against Fury and Diaz, Paul seemed to bounce back with a convincing first round knock-out of Andre August. This was, arguably, Paul’s second bout against a traditional boxer. We can discard the previous weight issues as August is a Cruiserweight boxer. Plus, according to BoxRec, August was 10-1-0 with a five-fight win streak going into his fight with Paul. Although, his verified record would be 3-1 if using several sources to confirm rather than one. August’s past opponents, compared to Fury’s, also had a much more even-handed combined record of 42-105-9, which translates to a 26.92% win rate. It should be noted that August appears to have had a significant break between 2019 and 2023 which does not align with Covid-19 restrictions. He is currently 35 so may have been looking to wind down his career, but his trainer has recently said he may retire to focus on his family, so his break from boxing may have coincided with the birth of his children. That aside and said, however, August had a bout in 2023 against the then undefeated, 7-0, Brandon Martin during which August handed Martin his first defeat. After which he fought Paul. One could have attributed the loss to ring rust, but his victory against Martin suggests he had not lost much of his step being out the game for four years. August’s knock-out loss to Paul was only second loss but first loss by KO, and somewhat reaffirms Paul’s potential knock out power. Paul’s last fight was then his third fight against a traditional boxer in Ryan Bourland (17-2-0). A fight which ended with a first round TKO victory for Paul. Bourland had suffered both a TKO and KO loss previously so not an exceptional achievement in contrast to being the first to knock out August in 12 fights. Again, no weight issues to consider as Bourland is a Cruiserweight. However, as with August there are odd gaps in his fight record. Before the 17th September, 2022, Bourland last fought in October, 2018. A gap, again, not really explained by Covid-19 restrictions. Bourland is also 35 and again, the gap aligns with the idea he may have been planning to wind down his career. Nonetheless, he did come back in 2022 and won a TKO victory against Santario Martin, before then facing Jake Paul this month. Unlike with August, where the August-Martin fight could be viewed as a warm-up bout for August after his time out, because he fought Martin on the 11th July and then Paul in the December, Bourland seems to have come into the fight against Paul cold. That said, of the traditional boxers Paul has faced, Bourland unarguably has the most competitive back catalogue of opponents. His opponent’s combined record is 104-129-13, which translates to a winning rate of 42.27%. Significantly greater than the winning rates of Tommy Fury or Andre August’s past opponents. Mathematically, from a chance angle, Fury’s average opponent could win one out of ten bouts, August’s would win two but could win three out of ten, but Bourland’s would win four but could win five. On paper, with maths consider alone, Bourland is the most competitive traditional boxer that Paul has faced, and Paul put him down in one round. In short, I think Jake Paul is a more dangerous boxer than a lot give him credit for because he is a Youtuber, he is a clown for the screen, and he has built his boxing career on PPV Cross-Over bouts against retired or aging MMA Fighters. But he has convincingly defeated two traditional boxers, has a victory against Anderson Silva who defeated former world champion Julio César Chávez Jr. only a short while ago, and he has a 66.67% knockout rate from his 9 victories. But the world of cruiserweight and heavyweight can be very different. The cruiserweight division was created because promoters felt it unfair for men of 190 lbs to be fighting the average, fit, heavyweight of 210 lbs which emerged in the 70s. If Tyson still has his punching power, and sufficient hand speed, then his punches are going to be very different to anything Paul has faced before. Plus, Paul gave away a SD to Fury who has a padded resume, who only gets the attention he does because of Love Island Infamy and bring the brother of Tyson Fury. August and Bourland are at best journeymen boxers who I doubt anyone would be talking about if they were not brought into the spotlight to fight Jake Paul. Mike Tyson in his prime fought the best of the best and was the best of the best. The lowest calibre fighter he ever lost to, in my opinion, was Kevin McBride who was a National Champion and fought for international titles. Paul is dangerous and has a puncher’s chance. However, for Tyson to win convincingly it will require Tyson coming into the fight as fit as can be for a 58-year-old. There in lies my doubt. I do not know if Tyson will manage it, and I think Paul is more dangerous than a lot credit him. George Foreman shocked the world. If Tyson can come back in the shape, he was against Roy Jones Jr, then I think he will win as I want him to. But my instinct is that Paul will upset the world as he often does.

As a karateka first and foremost I would have to state Funakoshi Gichin as a definite on my Mt. Rushmore. Although there were other pioneers we must consider, and show due respect, with regards to getting Tode Jutsu from Okinawa to Japan, I would say Funakoshi has had the most wide-reaching implications. Konishi Yasuhiro, a direct student of Funakoshi, was instrumental in getting Karate Do recognised alongside other forms of Budo in Pre-War Japan. Funakoshi’s students, through the JKA, became global pioneers in spreading Karate to the World. Ōyama Masutatsu was the father of Full-Contact Karate, and he first discovered Karate through Funakoshi’s teachings. From karate come both American and Japanese forms of kick-boxing. Many among the first generation of Tang Soo Do and Tae Kwon Do also credit their training to the Shotokan. The world of Martial Arts could be very different if there had not been a Funakoshi Gichin. Second would be Kano Jigoro. He began the revolution of how Martial Arts was taught in Japan, and his innovations have been far reaching. A belt ranking system is used in most modern Japanese Martial Arts, but also Chinese Wushu, Korean Arts such as Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido, and Western Arts descending from Japanese ones such as Brazilian Jujutsu and many forms of American and European of Kempo and Jujutsu. The Judogi, as the first development of a formal keikogi, led to the creation of the Karategi. Both the Judogi and Karategi are used throughout the world, or have derivatives used in other martial arts. The Judo mentality of Randori has also had a deep effect philosophically on the martial arts, with Karate and other forms of Budo which otherwise eschewed formal competition developing competition rules, as a direct result of Judo being the prototype of the modern martial art in Japan. This has been carried forward into BJJ and SOMBO which are directly descended from Judo, but also some branches of Aikido, because their founders were also Judoka, included competition in an Art otherwise bereft of it. The pioneers of Kakuto Karate were generally accomplished Judoka as well as Karateka. Third would be Donn F Dreager. Primarily because he is the father of Hoplology and set the foundations for the anthropological study of Martial Arts. But he also helped a lot of people heading to Japan in the 60s for training, who have in turn become leading experts or have had a huge influence on their respective arts. Without him a lot of Westerners would have missed out on opportunities, and in turn, a lot of people would have missed out on them bringing their knowledge to their respective home countries. Dreager’s work also helped promote, and likely helped preserve, a number of arts which would otherwise likely be lost to history with his work too. My fourth I have struggled with but I have decided to settle on Rorion Gracie. Although the business mind behind the UFC was Art Davie, the architect of the event was in many ways Rorian Gracie. It was his work that laid the foundations for the first UFC to be conceived of as a concept through his Gracie Challenges, and working in a lot of film and television and making connections. Without his work there would not have been a UFC 1, and without that event, Modern MMA and by extension modern combat sports and fighting arts would likely not be the same. There was an emerging fighting scene in Japan, however, it was mostly hybrid systems such as Daido Juku and Shooto which had very restrictive rules, or it was rooted in Shoot-Wrestling and often blurred works with real shoot fights. UFC 1 prompted Satoru Sayama to create Vale Tudo Japan which in turn led to Pride, and the late 90s MMA boom which gave the sport a lot of the momentum it needed to survive and thrive. I did consider Jack Dempsey for fourth place, as I consider him the first boxer to box in a manner similar to modern and current boxers. He was also an early advocate of cross-training, and an early writer on fighting methods. I also considered Mitsuyo Maeda because without him there would be no Brazilian Jujutsu, and by extension no Rorian Gracie as the world knows him to help kick-start the MMA revolution. Another was Antonio Inoki for his inter-style matches, and setting the stage for the hybrid fighting systems that emerged in Japan in the 80s.

I have only really belonged to one organisation and I am with it for a number of reasons, but the primary one is access to the Head Instructor. I have regular private lessons with him and attend courses at the Hombu regularly. He is my teacher as well as Head Instructor. Plus, very reasonable financially considering it is his self-employment. Although there is a curriculum, it is flexible, so I am studying a selection of kata specifically for me rather than just because it is part of a syllabus. Plus, as long as I incorporate core teachings everyone in the association studies, I am free to otherwise manage my own curriculum. The major con I have found with my brief time in a few larger organisations was a lack of access to the senior instructors. One could attend courses with them but I very quickly found they were repetitious. It was generally similar stuff every time. And it was generally expensive. They were also very strict on the curriculum, which I can understand from a quality control perspective, in that the larger the group the more you have to rely on tertiary means beyond direct instruction. However, the curriculums did not really address actual competencies in my view. They became about knowing the right set of Kata, combinations, and being able to perform various techniques. I do think the scale of the organisation makes it more vulnerable to some of the pros and cons presented in the opening post. I have found that smaller organisations tend to be less vulnerable to politicking and often provide more quality control through direct coaching from the top instructor and seniors. However, the lack of scale often means a lack of broader opportunities, and some times heterodox competition formats, meaning it is can be difficult to expand one's horizons without moving organisation or holding multiple memberships. The benefit of large organisation in contrast is that scale of opportunities, but an immediate increase in politicking and disparity in quality between coaches and students. Costs come down to individual greed in my experience. I have been in larger organisations where I felt there was good value for money, although, in the end I was disappointed with the course quality when senior instructors and the head instructor visited. But I have been in a smaller organisation where I felt the costs did not match the quality of services in the end. The biggest pro for me as a Coach and Instructor is that it takes a lot of pressure off me from dealing with the business side of things. As long as I make sure I fill my forms out correctly, and make payments on time, I can just focus on teaching. But I rent the space out I teach from, and I have a 9-5 day job so coaching is purely a hobby. I only teach because I am the only one doing karate as I want to do karate in my immediate vicinity. In that sense, my view is skewed.

Thank you, I appreciate your words. I apologise for not getting back to this sooner. I believe it important to lay out where one is talking from in topics like this so people have a sense of where the idea emerges. As time goes by I have come to conclude the idea of Traditional and Modern Martial Arts is a farce designed to create two sides for marketing purposes. There are Preservation focused Fighting Traditions and Progression Focused Fighting Traditions. All Fighting Systems come from a tradition prior, and even if the system is only a day old, unless it was created in complete ignorance by someone with no training, it will have inherited knowledge and traditions from its foundational knowledge base. Brazilian Jujutsu is considered a Modern Martial Art but it is older than Tae Kwon Do, which is called a Traditional Martial Art, by nearly 20 years. Arguably 40 years if one argues Modern Tae Kwon Do did not differentiate itself from Tang Soo Do/Kong Soo Do until the 1960s. The traditional knowledge which BJJ inherited as part of its foundation has a straight lineage of nearly 400 years old if we keep in mind Judo was based on Kito-Ryu which was founded in the 17th Century. The forms, or traditional knowledge, of Tae Kwon Do are very young by any comparison with most of the forms coming into existence in the 60s and 70s of the 20th century. The difference between the two is that BJJ goes outside of its own grounds and is forced to progress by the mindset of its practitioners. It has its famous four faces of Self-Defence, Vale Tudo, Jacket Wrestling, and No-Gi competition. Each forces the art to evolve or become redundant. New techniques are conceptualised, tried, and shown to work in competition or not. New knowledge is absorbed to keep the techniques relevant and working. There is a deep tradition on which all of this is grounded, but competition, and facing reality keep the system progressing. Before I continue I am not being expressly critical of Tae Kwon Do. I am simply using it in contract to BJJ because it is relatively young among the Fighting Systems commonly called Traditional. In contract Tae Kwon Do does not have a culture of going outside the world of Tae Kwon Do. The fighting aspect of TKD often amounts to getting good at its competitive format. The forms are learnt to be preserved as forms, but they are very young and do not necessarily apply to effective application. One cannot study its forms as a matter of hoplology and uncover fighting techniques preserved there in. The forms are practiced effectively for the the sake of getting good at the forms and preserving them. But Tae Kwon Do was born out of Okinawan Karate, metamorphised by Japanese demands before it reached Korea, and then modified further by its pioneers. It has inherited knowledge from an ancient tradition, but its traditions are modern. Thus using these two examples we can see the difference between what people call modern and traditional martial arts. Modern are those Progressive Fighting Arts that put emphasis on progression in effectiveness at what one is trying to be good at. Traditional are those systems where the focus is preserving knowledge as one encountered it, and getting good at the traditions as they are taught. But the truth is it is nothing to do with the age of the the art, and the truth is all Fighting Arts are traditional in that they are all traditions passed down. You do have hybrids such as Judo where the Jacket Wrestling Sport pushes the system forward, and allows for progression, but there is a deep history preserved in the Kata, which also have principles and ideas invaluable to modern competition. I try to embody this latter hybrid approach. I keep the kata straight, I keep the kihon straight, and I teach karate within the traditional context I was taught it as best I can. However, I go out of my comfort zone when I can to learn what Karate is good at, and what it is bad at, and try to embrace modern ideas to push my karate forward to get better at what it is already good at. I believe you can preserve the tradition, but progress its effectiveness. They are not mutually exclusive ideas. Thus, to get back to topic, I take forward to others what I find karate is good at within the context of what they are trying to accomplish. They do not need the whole tradition to find skills they can employ and use. But it is all traditional. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants. We are all following traditions.

I have been experimenting with similar ideas, but not with that depth of thinking I must admit. Thank you for sharing, Wastelander. I will definitely steal it.

I have been a Guest Stand-Up Coach at a couple of Gyms/Clubs. I have also been an interim striking coach on and off over the years for a couple of friends Gyms. One is a proper MMA Gym and the other a pro-wrestling school, but they have Shoot-Wrestling Sessions, and some Cardio Kick-Boxing too. My general experience has not been unlike Wastelander’s, which is to say, if you stick to what they will find useful against a resisting opponent they will get something out of what you teach. I have broken down the approaches of fighters such as Lyota Machine, Stephen Thompson, and Katsunori Kikuno. I break down where their techniques come from with regards to Karate Shiai, and how to work those ideas into their own stand-up arsenal with drills. Karate Combat has been a goldmine for me with regards to Sundome Shiai and finding ways to transition those skills to full contact. I have also taken things from Kata Bunkai which apply very well to hand-fighting in both self-defence and a competitive setting, and how the stances can be used as foot-work tools for a variety of tasks. When I have not been a guest, but an interim coach, I am also very focused on context being key. I do not teach them karate, I teach them relevant fighting skills I found through the medium of Karate, and I blend those skills into a session covering the conventional Boxing and Kick-Boxing skills essential in MMA competition. Now I will mention I have competed in Knock-Down Karate, bōgu-tsuki shiai, WAKO Semi-Contact Rules, Low-Kick, International Rules, and under Amateur Muay Thai rules. I was an aspiring Professional Kick-Boxer at one point in my, and during that period I also cross trained in Boxing and Lau Gar Kick-Boxing. The Shorei Kempo I studied in my youth was also an eclectic system which incorporated a lot from Nippon Kempo so I did a lot of Bogu Kumite during my teens and early adulthood. I have also dabbled in Shoot-Fighting, Kudo, Combudo, and Combat SOMBO when I was still competing. Unfortunately, I seriously injured my knee competing in Judo, which required my ACL to be reconstructed, when I was 26 and MMA did not really become a thing here locally until after that happened to me so never got to give it a go, even under amateur rules. Despite the injury, and my lack of MMA experience, the fact I have fighting experience I think does help lend some credibility to when I do go to a Fighting Gym to teach/coach. With my own experience covered I would probably give the following insight in teaching at an MMA Gym: 1. If you are hiring the space to teach, then just teach what you teach. You are a paying customer. As long as you do not make statements about what you teach that are incongruent with reality and designed to try and get customers from other classes in the Gym, then it really is not the business of anyone else (Beyond the purposes of Safeguarding and Insurance) in the building beside you. 2. If you are hired as a Guest Coach to teach novel fighting skills from Karate, then teach novel fighting skills from Karate. Do not go in and try and teach a karate class. The existing audience are not likely to respond well to Reiho, being taught Kata (Without immediate reference to Bunkai), going through repetitions of basic techniques, or Basic Kumite Drills which teach skills they will likely have from elsewhere. 3. Do not pretend to be something you are not. 4. Develop a grasp of the basics of Boxing, Kick-Boxing, and Muay Thai because those will likely be the existing bodies of knowledge in an MMA Gym. It is also not a bad idea to cross-train in the aforementioned arts as they have great tools you can bring back to your karate. I think people tend to have an image in their head about what MMA Gyms are like, and the truth is they are like most Dojo or Clubs you can visit. Karate developed an unfortunate reputation, as did most "traditional" martial arts with the birth of MMA. However, most fighters, or people interested in fighting, are not at all political about styles and systems. As long as you bring functional knowledge to the table, that has an immediate feel of functionality, then where the knowledge came from is tertiary in people's cares.

I have three rules I try to adhere to on the dojo floor: 1. At least 60% of the time in class should be focused on working with a partner. 2. 50% of everything we do should relate directly back to a Kata 3. I as the coach should take part in 50-80% of the exercises. When I began teaching I made the mistake of often focusing on what I wanted to do rather than taking a step back and understanding what my students needed. This was because my motivation was to create a space to train in because the two local clubs I tried disappointed me. We would maybe do some basics to warm up, and then we would work on different drills I had picked up and wanted to work on. To an extent, I let my mindset that a student should work on repetitions in their own time, so they can focus on learning new things in class was probably rigid. I had an unfortunate, but necessary, rude awakening when a student stopped attending and gave me the feed back that there was not enough consistency in classes, and they felt they were not progressing. And that student had attended for over a year at that point and they had previously earned a Shodan in Shotokan, so I took that feedback to heart. However, with that said I do think it important to have an element of change in each class. The way I have found a balance between the two is to have a cycle I go through. It is a 12-Week Cycle based around the Pinangata: Week 1-2: Pinan NIdan Week 3-4: Pinan Shodan Week 5-6: Pinan Sandan Week 7-8: Pinan Godan Week 9-10: Pinan Yondan Week 11-12: Jiyu Kumite, Grading Material Review, and Kata Tutorials. The weeks of that Kata are spent on Bunkai and exercises related to that kata. The weeks also alternate so the first week the focus is on striking skills, and the second on Wrestling skills. Here is an example of the structure using Pinan Nidan. Those parts I have placed an asterisk * next to are where I do something different for that session. The time stamps are estimates I try to stick to during sessions but I am not that strict on them if I think more time is needed spent on something during class, but I do try to run through the sequence in whole. Week 1 Wednesday Sessions: 5 Minutes - Warm-Up: Dynamic stretching, some games with bean bags if we have new prospects. 10 Minutes - Kihon Waza in Naihanchi-Dachi: Chudan Tsuki, Joden Tsuki, Joden Uke, Gedan Barai, Soto Uke, Uchi Uke, Shuto-Uke, and Mae Geri: 60 repetitions each. (I do at least 40) 3 Minutes - Kushin Undo: 32 repetitions. 5 Minutes- Naihanchi Shodan up to three times. 10 Minutes - Renzoku Kumite – strikes and deflections used restricted to those found in Pinan Nidan or the Rolling Bunkai 10 Minutes - *Drilling – Flow Drills, Pad Work, Ude Tanren, or Live Drilling based on what I identified as a general problem during Renzoku Kumite. 5 Minutes Pinan Nidan Rolling Bunkai as a line drill. Students and I form two lines and we work up and down the line until I have practiced with everyone. If a student does not know the Rolling Bunkai for the fortnight, for example if it is a Godan Session but they only know up to Shodan, they will instead run through the bunkai they know as Seme, and will just be directed how to attack as Uke. 10 Minutes - *Partner Practice: I break the class up into pairs or smaller groups and have them practice what they need for their level. Some students may not yet know the Kata or the Rolling Bunkai so will focus on the bunkai they know and need for their level, so they may do Shodan exercises when it is a Yondan session otherwise if they are not ready for Yondan work. The structure is just the basic Rolling Bunkai if they are new to it, or the Flow Drills, more advanced applications, and resistance drills if they are more experienced. 15 Minutes - Pinan Nidan: I pair students up and they take turns to hold a pad and wield a striking stick. As one student goes through the kata the other gives them a target to strike, and tests the quality of their receiving techniques. I go around with a resistance band I tie into their belts, and I test each of their stances and ability to move against resistance with their foot work. As with the bunkai above, students will work on material they know and need to work on for their level, rather than what the focus of the sessions are. After everyone has had a go we run through the Kata eight times. Once with one move at a time to my command and then at everyone’s own pace with me performing the kata too. Then with me observing once a move at a time, once with sequences to my command, once as fast as the student can, once a move at a time but self-paced, and then twice as a standard performance. 1 Minutes - Blocking and Striking Drill I learnt from Aragaki Sensei twice up and down the room. 5 Minutes - Kihon Waza in stance up and down the room: Joden Junzuki, Joden Uke, Gedan Barai, Shuto-Uke, and Mawashi Geri (Performed as in Tae Kwon Do to the Middle and the Head). To the air with me leading once up the room, then I get a striking pad or stick, and make sure everyone strikes the pad, or receives a strike, six times to check the quality of their technique. 10 – Minutes Sanchin: students pair up and do Sanchin once with their partner testing the quality of their Sanchin, and with me going around and giving feed-back. Then we do Sanchin all together twice through. Junbi Undo to cool down. Week 1 Friday Sessions: 5 Minutes - Warm-Up: Dynamic stretching. 15 Minutes - Kihon Waza in Naihanchi-Dachi – Chudan Tsuki, Joden Tsuki, Joden Uke, Gedan Barai, Soto Uke, Uchi Uke, Shuto-Uke, and Mae Geri: 100 repetitions each. (I do at least 80) 5 Minutes - Hojo Undo - 32 Kushin Undo, 20 Split Lunges, 20 Shiko, 20 Hindu Squats, 8 Single leg Squats. 5 Minutes - Naihanchi Shodan up to Five times. 5 Minutes – Drilling: Revisit and Revise Drill done on Wednesday. 10 Minutes - Renzoku Kumite: strikes and deflections used restricted to those found in Pinan Nidan or the Rolling Bunkai 30 Minutes - *Whatever I feel like: I do something unrelated to Pinan Nidan or introduce something new related to Pinan Nidan otherwise not in the syllabus. For example, I might teach an interesting throw I saw watching Sumo, or a striking manoeuvre from Karate Combat, or a suggested Bunkai for Pinan Nidan I found interesting. Generally in week one though it will be related to striking skills. Once a month I do try to do a session of Soft Skills, Self-Defence Drills, or Grappling on the Ground, and it is in these sections I do those things. 5 Minutes - Pinan Nidan Rolling Bunkai as a line drill. Students and I form two lines and we work up and down the line until I have practiced with everyone. 10 – Minutes - Partner Practice: Same exercises as done on Wednesday. 15 Minutes - Pinan Nidan Kata Practice 2 Minutes - Blocking and Striking Drill six times up and down the room. 10 Minutes - Kihon Waza in stance up and down the room: All Te-Waza against the air, and against pads/striking stick up to ten times. 10 Minutes – Sanchin: students pair up and do Sanchin once with their partner testing the quality of their Sanchin, and with me going around and giving feed-back. Sanchin keiko all the way up and down the room, and then once through Sanchin Kata to conclude. Any remaining time we run through the other pinan twice each, and then do three choice kata. Junbi Undo to cool down. Week 2 Wednesday Sessions Warm-Up: Dynamic stretching, some games with bean bags if we have new prospects. Kihon Waza – Same as Week 1 Kushin Undo – 32 repetitions. Naihanchi Shodan up to three times. Kakei Kumite – Grip Breaks and Guard Passes restricted to moves found in Pinan Nidan. *Drilling – Flow Drills, Pad Work, Ude Tanren, or Live Drilling based on what I identified as a general problem during Kakei Kumite. Pinan Nidan Rolling Bunkai as a line drill. *Partner Practice Pinan Nidan Kata Practice Blocking and Striking Drill Kihon Waza in stance up and down the room - Same as week one except we do Mawashi Uke as done in Muay Thai to the middle and the leg. Sanchin – Same as week one. Junbi Undo to cool down. Week 2 Friday Sessions: Warm-Up: Dynamic stretching. Kihon Waza in Naihanchi-Dachi – Same as week one. Hojo Undo – Same as week one. Naihanchi Shodan up to Five times. Drilling – Revisit and Revise Drill done on Wednesday. Kakai Kumite – Grip Breaks and Guard Passes restricted to moves found in Pinan Nidan. *Whatever I feel like – Same as week one but I focus on something related to wrestling/grappling skills. This is when I am most likely to do ground fighting or self-defence drills during the month as they tie in best. Pinan Nidan Rolling Bunkai as a line drill. Partner Practice (Repeat Wednesday Exercises) Pinan Nidan Kata Practice Blocking and Striking Drill Kihon Waza in stance up and down the room: All Keri-Waza against the air, and against pads/striking stick up to ten times. Sanchin – Same as week one. Junbi Undo to cool down. Using this structure I find brings a good balance between working on material in a recurring and consistent manner, but also gives moments of flexibility and change from session to session. I have students improve on a gradual, but measurable way, by having this level of consistency. But everyone also seems to have fun on the regular too. To give a basic structure of weeks 11-12 which are not built around any of the Pinagata: Week 1 Wednesday Sessions: 5 Minutes - Warm-Up: Dynamic stretching, some games with bean bags if we have new prospects. 10 Minutes - Kihon Waza in Naihanchi-Dachi: Chudan Tsuki, Joden Tsuki, Joden Uke, Gedan Barai, Soto Uke, Uchi Uke, Shuto-Uke, and Mae Geri: 60 repetitions each. (I do at least 40) 3 Minutes - Kushin Undo: 32 repetitions. 5 Minutes- Naihanchi Shodan Tutorial and review of Principles. 10 Minutes – White/Yellow/New Green: Jiyu Kimute (Controlled Light contact to the Body and Legs – Threaten with the hand to the head), Green/Blue/New Purple: Bogu Kumite (Hard Contact to the Body Armour – Light contact to the Head and to the Legs), Purple/Brown/Black: Bogu Kumite (Hard Contact to the Body Armour, Controlled Contact to the Head and the legs. 10 Minutes - *Drilling – Flow Drills, Pad Work, Ude Tanren, or Live Drilling based on what I identified as a general problem during Jiyu Kumite 5 Minutes - Rolling Bunkai Tutorial according to Grades present. 10 Minutes – Introduction to Grading Material for each different grade to be practiced in small groups. 15 Minutes – Kata Tutorial according to Grades Present. 1 Minutes - Blocking and Striking Drill I learnt from Aragaki Sensei twice up and down the room. 5 Minutes – Kihon Waza according to Grades Present. 10 Minutes – Sanchin Tutorial and review of Principles Junbi Undo to cool down. Week 1 Friday Sessions: 5 Minutes - Warm-Up: Dynamic stretching. 15 Minutes - Kihon Waza in Naihanchi-Dachi – Chudan Tsuki, Joden Tsuki, Joden Uke, Gedan Barai, Soto Uke, Uchi Uke, Shuto-Uke, and Mae Geri: 100 repetitions each. (I do at least 80) 5 Minutes - Hojo Undo - 32 Kushin Undo, 20 Split Lunges, 20 Shiko, 20 Hindu Squats, 8 Single leg Squats. 5 Minutes - Naihanchi Shodan Tutorial and review of Principles. 5 Minutes – Drilling: Revisit and Revise Drill done on Wednesday. 10 Minutes – Jiyu Kumite 30 Minutes – Free Practice 5 Minutes – Rolling Bunkai Tutorial according to Grades present. 10 – Minutes - Partner Practice: Same exercises as done on Wednesday. 15 Minutes – Kata practice to run through every kata the students should know. 2 Minutes - Blocking and Striking Drill six times up and down the room. 10 Minutes – Kihon Waza: Revisit and Revise as done on Wednesday. 10 Minutes – Sanchin Tutorial and review of Principles. Junbi Undo to cool down. Week 2 Wednesday Sessions: 5 Minutes - Warm-Up: Dynamic stretching, some games with bean bags if we have new prospects. 10 Minutes - Kihon Waza in Naihanchi-Dachi: Chudan Tsuki, Joden Tsuki, Joden Uke, Gedan Barai, Soto Uke, Uchi Uke, Shuto-Uke, and Mae Geri: 60 repetitions each. (I do at least 40) 3 Minutes - Kushin Undo: 32 repetitions. 5 Minutes- Naihanchi Shodan Tutorial and review of Principles. 10 Minutes – White/Yellow/New Green: Kakedameshi-Ju (Grappling Only with no take downs) Green/Blue/New Purple: Kakedameshi-Ju/Go (Striking to the Body but no take downs), Purple/Brown/Black: Kakedameshi-Ju/Go (No hard striking to the head without a helmet) 10 Minutes - *Drilling – Flow Drills, Pad Work, Ude Tanren, or Live Drilling based on what I identified as a general problem during Kakedameshi. 5 Minutes - Rolling Bunkai Tutorial according to Grades present. 10 Minutes – Introduction to Grading Material for each different grade to be practiced in small groups. 15 Minutes – Kata Tutorial according to Grades Present. 1 Minutes - Blocking and Striking Drill I learnt from Aragaki Sensei twice up and down the room. 5 Minutes – Kihon Waza according to Grades Present. 10 Minutes – Sanchin Tutorial and review of Principles Junbi Undo to cool down. Week 2 Friday Sessions: 5 Minutes - Warm-Up: Dynamic stretching. 15 Minutes - Kihon Waza in Naihanchi-Dachi – Chudan Tsuki, Joden Tsuki, Joden Uke, Gedan Barai, Soto Uke, Uchi Uke, Shuto-Uke, and Mae Geri: 100 repetitions each. (I do at least 80) 5 Minutes - Hojo Undo - 32 Kushin Undo, 20 Split Lunges, 20 Shiko, 20 Hindu Squats, 8 Single leg Squats. 5 Minutes - Naihanchi Shodan Tutorial and review of Principles. 5 Minutes – Drilling: Revisit and Revise Drill done on Wednesday. 10 Minutes – Kakedameshi-Ju 30 Minutes – Isolation Sparring/Live Drilling/: Students Paired up to work on faults identified over Week 1 and Week 2 Wednesday from Jiyu Kumite and Kakedameshi. 5 Minutes – Rolling Bunkai Tutorial according to Grades present. 10 – Minutes - Partner Practice: Same exercises as done on Wednesday. 15 Minutes – Kata practice to run through every kata the students should know. 2 Minutes - Blocking and Striking Drill six times up and down the room. 10 Minutes – Kihon Waza: Revisit and Revise as done on Wednesday. 10 Minutes – Sanchin Tutorial and review of Principles. Junbi Undo to cool down. Apologies for the essay. In short, I find having a structure, and more importantly time to review, helps students progress through repetition. However, you need to make sure that they find something new to learn when they attend to keep them interested, and new information in itself is a useful repetition exercise: the ability to take in a retain information is a skill that needs to be practiced just like any other.