RW

To me it means a fundamental question, a desire to understand its true nature, much like the original post in this topic. Certain very legit martial arts schools (no mcdojos) don't have full contact training. They have sparring, but it's either point sparring or "real" sparring with mid contact and protective gear. I am in the latter kind of school. I am in martial arts to develop technique, execute the kata and drills flawlessly and to be competent at kumite. But I am not sure whether that can make a "black belt". I am a year away from getting my black belt, if everything goes well, but I don't feel like I am a much better fighter than I was before my journey. Certainly not "OMG he is a black belt, don't mess with him!" better, but that is not why I started this journey too. What are your thoughts?

We do exactly that. Once you reach the grade of Sandan and have been granted the right to teach you are encouraged to delve deeper into the art. Not to say we are not encouraged before this point but we expect the student to form their own opinions based on individual research, whether it enforces our views or not. We believe it makes for a better, more knowledgeable teacher. To give an example - While I was still a Yondan I was seeking out instructors from the arts that we had been told influenced our art. I happened to strike up a friendship with one instructor that taught Five Ancestor. We exchanged videos of our Kata/Hsing and of their applications as he was several thousand miles away. What I learned is that what we thought was a founders application was altered at some point in our lineage and that the application that he taught was actually 100 times more effective. Essentially we were performing the same posture but in a different/less effective way. Essentially it had been altered at one point for one or another reason. I have, through my own research debunked and proved many idea's that we have about our art throughout the years. Our instructors and students have done the same. Not based on what was passed down as history but in actually studying other arts that were to have influenced ours. And nothing mind shattering like "it's all been a lie" but small details that lead you to what we feel is the truth. Another example - One of our Kodansha studied in Taiwan for two years and came back to teach us Jioa Di(Li) and Qin Na techniques. The techniques he showed us mirrored what we taught and thought was Muto. Again not all techniques but enough to make us take pause and re-look at what we believe. So I agree with your statement and think everyone studying the arts should take it upon themselves to prove or disprove what they have been told and delve deeper into the art to gain a deeper understanding. Actually I feel that this is healthy for both the practitioner and the art. As we all know instructors take a certain amount of control over what they teach and what they feel is right. In doing so things change and techniques and applications are altered. Sometimes the changes make it more effective and sometimes they are not. Either way it's up to the individual to prove or disprove rather than to take everything as the truth. I doubt if any art is "pure", as in no one changed anything in the lineage line that the founder passed down. There is always something to learn that you did not know. The best way of doing so is to discover it for yourself. That is really, really cool!

You know what would be really interesting? If somebody did a comparative study of martial arts trying to find a genealogy of them based on their techniques (not history), sort of like people do to classify animal species based on their body structures. For example, people realized that a bunch of animals have retractable claws and a specific skull shape and decided "well, these must be cats". People could have mistaken a bat for a kind of bird (wings, right?) but they realized that female bats have mammary glands and that bat wing bones seem to be modified finger bones and realized "hey, these are not birds, these are mammals!". I think we could discover a thing or two about the origin of different martial arts based on similar concepts. For example, karate kicks tend to be chambered, as opposed to the muay thai style of kicking. What about chambering? Some styles chamber punches on the waist, some higher than that(ribs). Some styles have deep stances (e.g. zenkutsu dachi), some have similar stances but higher... this is where the nuance begins. This kind of comparative study can also uncover some things that history does not necessarily want to see, e.g. if you look at many taekwondo kicks and other techniques, especially in the ITF style, you will find a HUGE resemblance with shotokan karate, this can be no coincidence.

I have great respect for that guy. He has guts, and an open mind. But with respect to him, he is terrible at aikido. That's why his style doesn't work. One of the core principles in aikido is tai sabaki, or body movement. Basically about always positioning yourself in a way that evades or merges with the opponent, rather than directly opposing. This guy does do this. He also isn't comparing apples for apples. Aikido was never developed for sport. It is simply not designed for the classic scenario of two fighters square up for head to head fighting. It is designed for self defence against a civilian aggressor. Not a trained combat sport fighter. Of course that's not an excuse. Most casual amateur karateka or kung fu practitioners or even your casual 4 hours per week muay thai office worker guy will get knacked by someone who routinely competes. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with they style. It just depends what you're training for and how much you train. If you train for the ring, you'll do OK in the ring. If you train to win trophies for kata, you'll do alright at kata. The trouble with Aikido is that because it's about real self defence, you can't really practice it for real with measurable benchmarks in your goals. The MMA guy can test himself regularly in the ring, to see how he does in the ring. The person who competes in kata can get critical feedback from competition. The person that trains for self defence can't really go round goading random strangers into swinging a bat at them, so it's hard for them to measure themselves. So some step out of their comfort zone into someone else's. The results are invariably the same. The person that has trained for the ring defeats the person that has trained for something else, and then we all applaud MMA as the most effective style. That's my problem with the self defense angle of martial arts. I practice them because I like them and I have a deep appreciation for their technique and health benefits, but the problem with any discipline oriented towards self defense is that you cannot properly stress test many of the techniques. A boxer actually practices trying to punch the opponent as hard as he can, while also trying not to get punched. A Muay Thai is truly throwing his best kicks. But one cannot grab a club or glass bottle and just swing it full force against an uke. The uke cannot really just grab your wrist and flip you aikido style full force because he will probably break the attacker's wrist. When people see aikido demonstrations and point out the fact that the ukes are flipping like in an action movie and that's unrealistic I always point out that the ukes HAVE to go with the throw, or else if they resist they could end with a broken limb. The downside is that stress testing will never be as realistic. That is why I also have doubts about karate's ippon kumite when it comes to self defense applications, who punches in zen kutsu dachi in real life? ANd who will stay stationary after punching in so you can pull one of those takedowns? I like Aikido, and I wouldn't mind knowing more about it, but that's because I like martial arts

There is a series of videos in yotube called aikido quest. Basically an aikido practitioner decided his style was ineffective and is trying to change it. He quit his organization and he's trying to incorporate other techniques to his art. This is one of his videos:

I wonder, what will the criteria be for participating in Olympic karate? It could be something as extreme as only allowing shotokan black belts to participate, or something as lax as pretty much allowing anyone to participate providing they adhere to the competition rules (in other words, and this is an unrealistic example, Johnny next door learned a kata from youtube and spars with his friends at school and somehow he got really good and now he will go to the Olympics). My guess would be that practitioners of established karate styles (e.g. shotokan, shotokai, goku ryu, kyokushin, etc) will be able to participate, and only if they have a black belt. I wonder if people from non-karate schools that use the karate name (e.g. a "korean karate" school, a "kempo karate" school, etc) would be able to participate?

I'm not a big fan of tournament style point sparring when it comes to self defense applications. I feel that when the flow of combat is broken after a point is scored the realism of the "fight" is broken. People can start using techniques oriented towards points sparring that would be terrible ideas to attempt in a real fight, such as "blitzing" . Point sparring does have its benefits, such as teaching reaction speed, timing, distance and set ups, though.

Sounds like fun lol

As you guys might remember, I was asking about Iaido not long ago. So I went to this Iaido seminar taught by a karate instructor and I was hooked. We were taught 2 iaido kata for beginners, which are the 2 first ones you can see in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yywpiIVKioI&index=14&list=PL-dDmh9shz0Nnpd2_djFBlqUXAYqJwSe5&t= I got so into it that I now want to find a iaido/iaijitsu school to really practice it. The issue is... everything I find about Iaido/Iaijitsu teaches these same kata but from seiza. I am not really interested on doing the techniques from seiza (I have bad knees). Many people tell me that the first 4 Iaido katas are taught from seiza, and think that it's really odd that I was taught standing versions, but it's a real thing (look at that video... I am not crazy! ) I don't know much about Iaido, so I was wondering, are there different Iaido styles? How come this video here and the seminar I went to teach these standing Katas? I really want to find this style so I can pursue instruction

Do traditional Iaido practice swords (iaito), made of the reglamentary aluminum alloy metal need maintenance like a real katana? For example, you got to oil them from time to time, etc

I don't think many people would use a block as they're practiced in forms or drills, for example in the case of age uke, you: 1) lower you hand to chest height 2) then you raise it until it's above your head 3) chamber your other hand to the side The problem is that the defender/blocker would be using at least two movements, and he would also leave himself wide open (even if the opposite hand weren't chambered) in case the attack was a feint. i saw a video a while ago, but I can't find it, where somebody had the theory that traditional blocks were meant to be used against weapons. For example in age uke, somebody is coming with a club, trying to hit you in the head with a downward motion. You would be receiving his hand (not the club!) with age uke. Say somebody is trying to slash you sideways with a knife, with an outward motion: you do chudan soto uke and stop his hand before he does the full motion. Things like that.

This is awesome.. thanks guys!

YAY!!! Thank you guys Much honored

thanks!!!

that's a terrible teaching method I think I want to learn iaido! Now I need to find a good school

I was going to say Mayweather too, because he controls timing & distance and knows when to dart in and out.

Yes and no. I started my study of the arts in a style called Fu Jow Pai when I was a young lad so that experience was and was not a contrast to the styles of Karate that I took later. In some instances the differences were huge. The, what I call Japanized, Karate styles are very linear starting out and much more rigid. However some, what I call old school arts, are very similar in that they practice and teach the same concepts. This is due to the fact that they were influenced by the Chinese arts and that influence was still present. The Kata are not related to sparring in terms of the meaning today. However it is very much related to fighting if taught as it was originally passed down. The postures (not all but many) come from Quan Fa and represent combative/fighting applications. If one teaches the Kata with emphasis on the applications you will see that Quan Fa (Kung Fu/Gung Fu) and Todi (Karate) are not that different. Now there are obvious differences in the way the techniques and applications are executed. This is due to the fact that Okinawan's are not Chinese and where first influenced by the indigenous art of Tii and Tegumi and also by Muay Boran. Some use this to make the argument that there is a difference between the arts and that they are not related or where never influenced by the Chinese arts. I hear this a lot when it comes to Bai He Quan or White Crane. However if a person studies (pick and art) for 20 years and then studies another art will the first art that they studied not influence the way that they execute the second art? The argument in terms of modern Karate and Kata is valid. They are not taught in terms of actual fighting so there is no connection. However this is not indicative or factual of ALL Okinawan arts. Sparring as you put it, in terms of today's standards is not IMHO a true test of fighting skills. In fact I think the Kata of modern arts have more in common with fighting than sparring. It develops bad habits. It is utilized at long distance instead of where 99% of all fights happen at close range. It teaches one to pull strikes and therefore ingrains muscle memory not conducive to ending fights or causing any damage. Etc, etc, etc. Kumite (sparring) in today's terms is little more than a game of patty cakes. I have never taken TKD so I can not speak to contrasts between it and Kung Fu. I mean, you're right. But isn't kata even worse in that regard? So is ippon kumite. Say the first move in your kata is a shuto uke in the horse stance, followed by a zen kutsu dachi oi tsuki, with all that it implies (zen kutzudachi position, chambering the other hand on your side, etc). The horse stance is an open invitation for a kick to the groin, while the zen kutshu dachi would never fly in a real fight, and chambering your punch is screaming to get punched in the face. The above would all be bad habits?

Just curious...

NICE!

I used to love MMA. They really had some very interesting fights, like Machida vs Rua. That was basically a karate vs kickboxing saga! Guys like Rampage, Chuck Lidell, Randy Couture, Machida, GSP, etc made it the sport great and very fun to watch. Then Fox took over and tried to turn it into football, and the new generation of fighters are pretty much all cut by the same mold, their gameplan is to try to take each other down and sit on top of the other guy for the entire round *yawns*

@Sensei8 , @MatsuShinshii thanks guys!

I am looking for a sport to follow that's more akin to the old kickboxing competitions of yore, with guys like Superfoot Wallace or Joe Lewis. MMA won't do it for me anymore (it's mostly wrestling with some BJJ nowadays) and K-1 is ok but it's become too much like boxing (lots of clinching) and the K-1 fighters have become so good and they know each other so well that the fighting can get a bit stale. Thanks!

I guess the bigger question here is, what is the purpose of (traditional) martial arts? IMO the guy who can execute a 3rd degree black belt kata perfectly, punch a makiwara full force and is the perfect Yuki might not actually be amazing at actual fighting or full contact, continuous sparring. If somebody wants to fight, and only fight, maybe taking boxing or Muay Thai and then some BJJ and/or wrestling in order to get ground fighting down would be far more effective. Martial arts give you flexibility, endurance, stamina, discipline, and are more about personal growth and self improvement. The guy who can perform a 3rd degree black belt kata perfectly, has the reflexes to be a Yuki for full speed practice and has the sense of timing & distance that come with sparring has a degree of body control and coordination that a brawler or fighter does not.

Where does one draw the line? I have seen plenty of "reality based" martial arts that in my opinion, are not more applicable to reality than some "sport" martial arts. How many can confidently say they would be able to apply the following technique at a bar brawl or parking lot fight? : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iD61bfGHM0 I'd much rather use a flashy, "fantasy" technique from some of the sport-based martial arts, such as this kick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WCrSij0XP4 and surprise, sometimes such sports-oriented techniques transition to MMA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ffk1iErHc In my opinion the line between "real" and "sports" martial arts is blurred and it's hard to tell the difference. Even the most reality-based martial art is subject to rules that do not match reality, e.g. boxers don't kick, muay thai fighters do not fight on the ground, BJJ guys don't punch each other, etc. And then you have martial arts that teach techniques such as groin kicks, eye gouges, throat rips, etc. The problem with them is that nobody can actually practice such moves, at most they can be drilled. A move can't truly be mastered to the point it can be applied in a life or death situation, when conditions are unpredictable and adrenaline is flowing unless such move has been practiced against a fully resisting opponent, with the intention of actually executing such a move (so in other words, actually gouging somebody's eye, ripping his throat or smashing his groin), it's sort of like practicing swimming in land. There is no truly bad martial art

I second that. It's an awesome video. Also it was very interesting to me that I've practiced several of the techniques here (I practice Shaolin Kempo). I guess my art borrowed them from Karate