Wastelander

Trick questions/answers aside, answering just the exact question of a "move," and not something more broad: A punch to the face. There are lots of principles/concepts that can be used to deliver that punch to the face. There are lots of things you can do to make it more effective, or counter an opponent's defenses to ensure it lands, and so on, but when it comes right down to it, a punch to the face is probably the highest percentage fight-ender that exists in fighting, statistically.

Yep, yep and yep. I don't think I conceded many points other than going off the mat. And the head whack. I feel like so far, my Karate has been in defensive mode, and that's kind of fundamental in the art. 'There is no first attack', etc. I'm not feeling so down about it atm, hope to put some stuff together over the next few sessions. Thanks all! The trouble I see with that is an overemphasis on the literal interpretation of "there is no first attack in karate" (karate ni sente nashi). Even other masters pointed out that this is a philosophical idea (karateka shouldn't start fights), when in actuality you DO sometimes have to attack first in order to protect yourself. It's an important lesson to learn, because reacting is slower than acting, and if you ALWAYS train from a purely defensive perspective, then you are ALWAYS putting yourself at a disadvantage. In sport fighting, especially, that becomes a problem

Honestly, while the general response to this is going to be that you need to spar more--and you do--I think the bigger thing right now is that you need to DRILL more. You mention that you mostly spend your time responding to attacks, rather than developing them, and it sounds like you aren't so concerned with your defensive ability as you are with your offensive ability. You need to be drilling offensive combinations and tactics, extensively, and THEN start working them into your sparring. The key to that will be that you have to spar with the intent of trying to use the methods you have drilled, rather than trying to "win."

I'm guessing Kenkasho might be Kanku Sho? If you're Shotokan, that would be your version of the Kusanku Sho kata that I practice. If you want to clean up and correct your kata to fit modern Shotokan, there are lots of videos available to reference. If you want to go more old-school, you can look at Funakoshi's old books, but if you have been doing modern Shotokan basics then that can be a tough transition. The most common kata in karate is Seisan, technically. In Shotokan, it's called Hangetsu. Naihanchi is the runner-up, and is called Tekki in Shotokan. The Pinan/Heian series is pretty ubiquitous across Shuri-Te systems, as are variants of Passai/Bassai and Kusanku/Kanku. Still common, but less consistent, are Chinto/Gankaku and Useishi/Gojushiho. What you want to use for your curriculum is kind of up to you, but I highly suggest you work on developing a solid understanding of the "new" versions you want to teach BEFORE you start teaching them. I also highly recommend you look into the practical application of them, so you can answer questions you will inevitably get about why you are doing certain movements and poses. If I were to give you a small suggested list to work from, for what you want to do, it would be this: 1. Pinan Nidan/Heian Shodan 2. Pinan Shodan/Heian Nidan 3. Pinan/Heian Sandan 4. Pinan/Heian Yondan 5. Pinan/Heian Godan 6. Naihanchi/Tekki Shodan 7. Naihanchi/Tekki Nidan 8. Naihanchi/Tekki Sandan 9. Seisan/Hangetsu 10. Itosu Passai/Bassai Dai 11. Itosu Kusanku/Kanku Sho That gives you a solid collection of Shuri-Te material, covering a wide array of methods, which will provide your students with a solid base to work from if they move or transfer. They may have learned them "out of order" for the school they transfer to, but these are at least very common, very well-known kata that can be easily referenced and adjusted, as needed.

Yes, that's correct. There is an Okinawan-English dictionary on Amazon, but I haven't purchased it, yet. You can find an Uchinaaguchi booklet online from Samantha May, though.

Slips, trips, and falls are the leading cause of accidental injury and death--the average person is FAR more likely to slip, trip, or fall and be injured than they are to be attacked. Knowing how to fall safely is probably the most important self defense technique you will ever learn. Doing it in a fight? Still better than cracking your head on the ground, or breaking an arm that you still need to use for fighting.

"Oyo" literally means "application," or "to put to use," so that is VERY open to interpretation "Tichiki" is an Uchinaaguchi word meaning "what the hand is doing," and the hand could be doing a lot of things "Henka" is "change" or "variation" so, again, very open to interpretation This is why there is no universal terminology for what type of applications are what--there simply aren't words that are specific enough, that I'm aware of.

We do not allow anyone to test for Shodan before the age of 16--and we have only had one person test at that age. He tested right alongside me, and had to do everything I had to do, but he did it with a broken foot (broken outside of the dojo, before the test). Hardly a typical teenager. We do have a "jun-shodan," or junior black belt, which they could potentially earn before that, and we have done a few of those, but not many. Obviously, black belt ranks mean different things to different styles/orgs/schools/instructors, so there is no standard. Additionally, in the Western world we have elevated the black belt and put it on a pedestal that it was never put on in Japan or Okinawa. Personally, I'm quite happy with our standards, and all you can control is your standard.

I think you are misinterpreting a little--the kata does not care what the attack is. In a kata application, you can be defending from LOTS of things. It is just generally TAUGHT (at first) against basic, simplified karate techniques because it gives everyone an easy example to start with. As MatsuShinshii and I have tried to point out, a few times, this is a beginning stage, so they get comfortable with the idea. After that, you start working it against all sorts of common/habitual acts of violence, and in a number of skill-building drills, and in resistant training like randori/kakedameshi. Just because you usually see it demonstrated against an unrealistic attack, does not mean that people only ever train against unrealistic attacks.

In my opinion, when you are more concerned with the way something looks over how it works, you've lost the form/function ratio that makes karate a martial art, and not a performance art. Zenkutsu-dachi, in particular, is actually something I've been meaning to put together a video on. I actually started recording it on Saturday, interestingly enough. Hopefully sometime this week I can finish that up. I did somewhat cover it as a topic in a recent article I wrote, though. To just quickly address a couple of your points: There is a difference between the rear leg in zenkutsu-dachi being "straight," and the leg being "locked." You should never lock your joints--it's unhealthy and you can't move again until you unlock them. The longer/lower your stance, the less rotation of the hips is possible, so a long/low zenkutsu-dachi is going to severely limit your rotational power. It accounts for this by moving your bodyweight forward/downward, instead.

Not the way that we do it!! The initial is known, but after that, it's not, hence, the battle isn't known by either student, nor is the outcome. And yes, that's the MA...performing a specific action is expected...TECHNIQUES, whatever that might be at that particular moment. Please don't group all of us traditional MAist together on the same cloth and/or with the same broad brush stroke!! I was raised, and am still, a traditional MAist, but the manner of which we/I was/were trained by Soke and Dai-Soke, is very much realistic and practical. Why?? Our lives depend on it each and every time!! The MA is an ongoing testing ground, in which I'm still an active participant of because NOTHING is written in stone...NOTHING!! Therefore, it's up to the student to take what they've been and/or being taught, and greatly expand upon it because, once again, their live depends on it. What the student is taught is how to give that door of opportunity that swift kick to get that door opened, but that student must be willing to have the guts to first go through the open door, and then to bust that door wide open with their own testing grounds. Students are given the tools, but how the student uses them is up to that student, traditional or not!! I'm a Senior Dan, but what I've given to my students is the free will to expand what it is that they've learned from me. But they have to have the guts to accept it or discard it for their MA betterment. I've given them all of the puzzle pieces but it's up to them to put them all together so that their picture becomes much more clearer to them, not for me, but for them!! How will the student learn to use the tools? How will they expand upon what you've taught them? When will they get that opportunity? Should they go out to bars and deliberately cause trouble so as to create the opportunity to practice? Should they beat up random people? Probably not. As students, we pay someone money to train us to fight. I'm sure some might go to learn kata, but very often people go with the exception that having spent many thousands of pounds/dollars and several years saying yes sir and bowing and placing their full trust in the guy at the front, they'll become proficient fighters. The posters and adverts usually imply that too. The reason to keep going to a class rather than just copying YouTube demos is to have an instructor see and correct you, but perhaps even more importantly, to have a room full of like minded people to practice against and with. It's not unreasonable for a paying student to expect to be taught what was promised. To say that kata should be taken literally, then it's up to the student to expand upon it, without creating that opportunity in the training hall, is effectively only given them half of what was promised or alluded to at the time of accepting their money when they first come to train. IMO the only martial arts that should be taken literally are actually fight sports and not traditional martial arts: Boxing, Muay Thai and BJJ. When you're throwing a jab in boxing, that's the way you should use it in the ring. When you're throwing a kick in muay thai, that is how you're supposed to do it in the ring. When you pull an arm bar, that's how you're meant to do it. But any other arts? Not really, no. You're not supposed to chamber the non-punching hand next to your wrist or ribs in a real fight. Who would ever get in a super low zenkutsu dachi or shiko dachi stance in a bar fight? I, for one, would never think "incoming punch! Better put my fist next to my ear so I can then perform an ude uke block!" No karate practitioner out there will tell you "you should chamber your hand next to your hips on a real fight, and you should definitely punch in using zenkutsudachi". And that means... you're supposed to adapt said techniques, making them not literal. That's exactly what several karate folks here and telling us. They are saying that kata and their bunkai are literal. I thought they meant that in the sense of "that age uke is actually an age uke" I made the point earlier that attacks may come from different angles or may be in many ways slightly different to how the kata has you position yourself, and therefore kata can only work if it's principles rather than literal. I was told I was wrong. I sought further clarification in several ways. Same answer each time. My point, and I believe the point of others, seems to have been glossed over, here, a bit. That may be my fault for not being clear enough, so I apologize if that's the case. I'll try to be a bit more clear: The kata are originally/intentionally made up of specific technique drills These technique drills are representations of principles, because principles are what make techniques work Transitively, kata are made up of principles You have to start with static, compliant technique drills that are specifically structured for learning, and then go through a process (which I briefly described) to make the techniques more widely applicable. That doesn't mean they aren't applicable to begin with but, as you pointed out, you have to be able to adapt. This is the case not just with kata, but with pretty much any technique you drill with a partner. You aren't going to understand the principles until you understand the technique, in general. That's all.

As MatsuShinshii points out, these are demonstrations for teaching/illustration purposes--they are simplified and "cleaned up" so they are easier to see, understand, and begin to practice--but they are not examples of the full training process used to make them applicable. We generally do start people learning techniques against simple attacks, which are often straight punches. From there, we have them drill those techniques against a variety of different attacks, from grabs, to shoves, to haymakers, and more. Additionally, we have them drill the techniques from a number of different platform drills, so they get used to entering into the techniques from various different positions, points of contact, and directions of movement. Then, we get into kakedameshi and randori, where they have to find ways to enter into the techniques in the midst of the chaos of striking and grappling with a resisting partner. Without a process like this, you will never get from the demonstration/example to a point where you can actually use it. As for whether the kata teach techniques or principles, the answer is "yes," but I think it is a mistake to suggest that the kata were originally developed to record principles, with the exception of a few kata, like Sanchin. Principles are expressed through techniques, and techniques only work because of the principles behind them, so they go hand-in-hand. The majority of koryu kata contain VAST amounts of information, and I think that to suggest the creators of the kata intentionally formulated a perfect representation of all of those concepts is to attribute supernatural foresight and understanding to those who, while skilled and knowledgeable, were still human. The kata were created by connecting proven fighting techniques together, in a logical sequence, for practice without a partner. Those techniques are the embodiment and physical representation of a number of principles and concepts, just by virtue of how techniques work. Those principles and concepts can then be used to reinterpret the movements and postures of kata, because in solo kata you have no true physical points of reference for what those movements and postures are being used for, so you have the freedom to explore options beyond the intended techniques/examples.

At the risk of this becoming a semantics argument, I think the terminology that gets used with this saying can be a bit misleading. When people say that a kata is an entire system or style, I don't think it is accurate to say that they are a "system" or "style" in the sense that they are a complete, well-rounded fighting art unto themselves. It is a "system" in the sense that it is a systematized collection of techniques and principles, and is "complete" in the same sense that you can have a "complete breakfast"--it has all the components that the person who made it thought were important enough to include. Obviously, this doesn't apply to all kata, because there are plenty of kata that were created for purposes other than passing on fighting techniques, like the Taikyoku series, or Fukyugata Ichi, or (debatably) the Pinan series.

To be perfectly honest, unless you are already close to your instructor's skill level, then as long as they continue training and learning, you should be fine in either place. If you really think the instructor who is leaving is better, at least at certain things, maybe you can talk to your CI about occasionally visiting the other instructor for specific classes or lessons.

Well, for starters, we have issues with terminology because Westerners didn't understand Japanese or Uchinaaguchi, and Japanese and Okinawan instructors didn't understand English, so there was miscommunication and misinterpretation that got spread around and popularized. The word "bunkai" in the context of karate is almost universally translated to mean "application," but that is not accurate. The word "bunkai" means "to take apart/analyze," and is a process, not a result, while "applications" are the result of the process that is "bunkai." We could get into all the other terms, like tichiki, or oyo, or henka, etc., but they all have similar problems to what we see with "bunkai," so there are a lot of different interpretations of them out there. Your "renzoku bunkai" example would translate as "continuous taking apart/analysis" of kata, which is typically how you would refer to some sort of drill that explores the kata in its entirety in one long, continuous exercise. This is what Taira Sensei's drills are. Most people, though, would translate it as "continuous application," because it is a drill comprised of applications for the entire kata strung together in a continuous pattern. Bunkai, as a whole, is a process by which you take something apart and analyze its components to determine how they work, how best to use them, or how to fix something that is broken or not functioning optimally. This means that it encompasses a wide array of goals. Someone who is breaking down their kata movements and trying to determine exactly which muscles engage, how much, and when, is doing bunkai. Someone who is breaking down their kata movements and trying to figure out how to most efficiently get from one position to the next, with a minimum of effort or movement, is doing bunkai. Someone who is breaking down their kata movements to figure out how to use them--whether it is the impractical, literal applications that have been popular since the modernization of karate in the early 1900s, or practical, effective fighting methods. Someone who is breaking down their kata into pieces to drill specific movements or known applications is doing bunkai. All of it is "bunkai." Now, how you go about bunkai, as a process, depends on your goals. If you're wanting to study biomechanics, you are going to have a different approach than if you are wanting to study combative applications.

Let me see if I can distill this, a bit When most (not all, but most) karateka are taught "bunkai," they are taught something like this: That is what MatsuShinshii is referring to as "literal" applications. If you were taught to call a movement a "block," you probably just use it to block. If you were taught to call a movement a "punch," you probably just use it to punch. Etc. The vast majority of this is modernization and simplification--it is a teaching tool, but it is not what the movements were intended to be used for, and in my opinion it mostly just leads to confusion. Then you have more old-style applications, like this: This would be along the lines of what MatsuShinshii is calling "the founder's applications." They may or may not be the "original" intended applications of the kata, but nonetheless they fit the kata movements exactly and embody the principles of the art. The entire movement in the kata is important, rather than just the final posture. Then you have techniques that are based on the kata, but come from an individual's study of the movements and adjustment to fit their body and preferences, rather like this: This would be what MatsuShinshii is referring to as "developed" or "practical applications." For some people, these may just be the "founder's applications" they were taught, but adjusted slightly to fit them better. For others, these may be completely different, because the karateka has a different background, build, physical limitations, etc., that inform their interpretation of the movements in the kata. ----------------------------------------------- Now, as for Okinawans teaching effective applications, not just the "literal applications," there are plenty that do, and there are plenty that don't. Even on Okinawa, there are a LOT of people doing karate just for the enjoyment or health benefits, and they don't care in the slightest about the practical side of it. This leads to them teaching either the "literal applications," or sometimes no applications, at all, even within the same styles/organizations. For example: At a training camp for our organization a couple years ago, the head of our organization (Nakazato Minoru) taught an application for the "elbow wing" movements in Pinan Sandan that was a combined elbow wrench and takedown. At the same training camp, but a year later, one of the 8th dans from Okinawa came out, and when asked about that move, said it was for blocking straight punches to the body with your hands in your pockets. So, in the same organization, two instructors with decades upon decades of experience gave drastically different types of applications. Now, I will say that even the head of our organization has been simplifying and toning-down his applications over the past few years, at least when he teaches Westerners, which is a bit sad, but even so, he's teaching it. It's up to the individual to train the techniques effectively.

Static, compliant reps of a technique must be done enough to be able to perform the technique correctly on a consistent basis. At that point, resistance and unpredictability should be slowly incorporated into training so that the techniques can actually be applied under pressure. Revisiting the static, compliant drilling of the technique periodically helps ensure that the technique stays efficient, as solely working against resistance can lead a practitioner to become sloppy. It's a constant tuning process of trying to make the applied technique as effective and efficient as possible. How many reps, or how much time that takes, is going to be very dependent upon the practitioner.

I'm by no means an expert but isn't the idea of traditional karate one strike, one kill/KO? So leaving yourself open wouldn't necessarily be a problem, because theoretically the opponent would be down before he can counter. If you look at it that way the centrifugal force idea could make more sense. Whether or not the idea is actually valid, I don't know, but it would make more sense in karate than in boxing IMO. That idea originally comes from Japanese swordsmanship, as best as I can tell. In karate, you will often hear "ikken hissatsu," which means something along the lines of "one fist (strike), certain death." In traditional Japanese swordsmanship, they refer to "ichigeki hissatsu," which means "one strike, certain death." In the use of a sword, that is a very literal maxim. With empty hands, it is simply not nearly as realistic. You should strive to end the fight as quickly as possible, yes, but you can't EXPECT to. You have to train for failure, not success.

Originally, I was taught the typical "it teaches you to turn your body for more power" and "it acts like a teeter-totter as you punch" and "you punch faster from there" stuff. That did come with the occasional "oh, and you can use it to elbow someone behind you." When I moved and started doing my own research, and then got involved in Shorin-Ryu, I learned that it worked a lot better when you used it to grab and control some part of the opponent. It can pull the opponent into strikes, and make it harder for them to deflect your strikes, as well as off-balancing them, and controlling their limbs in order to apply joint locks or takedowns. That said, I have also seen some cases where hikite/fichidi positions are simply telling you that the technique in use does not require that hand, so you can do whatever you like with it. In application, I generally keep it in a covering position, in those cases.

We do private lessons pretty frequently at our dojo--people often do them to prep for tests, or to get caught up after being out for a while, but sometimes just to work on specific things they want help with. We also have some people who can't attend regular classes, for various reasons, who do private lessons, instead. Personally, I haven't done that many formal private lessons, but I've spent a pretty good amount of time informally training with my Sensei, and others. Now that my Sensei has passed away, I really wish I had done more private lessons/training with him. I don't know how "famous" they are, but I definitely have a list of people I would consider "high profile" that I would love to get private lessons with. For Okinawan martial arts: Nakazato Minoru, head of the Shorinkan Higa Kiyohiko, head of the Bugeikan Bill Hayes, head of the Shobayashi-Kan Shimabukuro Zenpo, head of the Seibukan Shinzato Katsuhiko, head of Kishaba Juku Taira Masaji, head of the Okinawa Goju-Ryu Kenkyu Kai Hokama Tetsuhiro, head of the Okinawa Goju-Ryu Kenshi Kai Shinjo Kiyohide, head of the Uechi-Ryu Karate-Do Kenyukai For other martial arts: Chen Xiao Wang, Chen Tai Chi Yang Jwing-Ming, Yang Tai Chi Maul Mornie, Silat Doug Marcaida, Kali Buakaw Banchamek, Muay Thai Dieselnoi Chor Thanasukarn, Muay Thai Hakuho Sho, Sumo Osunaarashi Kintaro, Sumo Jimmy Pedro, Judo Kashiwazaki Katsuhiko, Judo John Danaher, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Mike Winkeljohn, Kenpo/Mixed Martial Arts Lyoto Machida, Shotokan/Mixed Martial Arts Georges St. Pierre, Kyokushin/Mixed Martial Arts

Nishiuchi Sensei has some very thorough videos that used to be on YouTube, but have since been taken down. I imagine you could pick up the basics from such videos, along with corrections from the instructor. You won't get to the same level of skill, and your progression will be slower, but if it's all you have, it's all you have. For what it is worth, I know that Neil Stolsmark Sensei has also set up an online training program for kobudo, and my Sensei thought it was pretty well done.

We use some Uchinaaguchi terms, as well, which I know probably confuses some people. I have to say, though, that it really excites the Okinawans in our organization when we use them

I've heard of it, but mostly only because I have seen some of Bruce Tegner's work. I'm not all that familiar with the style, itself. As for the name, I think people get too caught up on who named what first. In the 60's and 70's, the internet wasn't around yet, and it's entirely possible for two people to name their style the same thing, using what they know of Japanese. Notably, I know that Robert Trias, founder of Shuri-Ryu, had been calling his style Shorei Goju-Ryu for a while, until a Goju-Ryu school in Japan complained about it. He had no idea there was already a school using that name for their style.

As singularity6 said, adrenaline does a good job of getting you ready for fight or flight, so warming up isn't as much of a concern. Even so, most of what I do doesn't require warming up, anyway, unless I'm playing with high kicks for fun

Most frequently, the interchanging of chudan-soto-uke and chudan-uchi-uke, and their accompanying English terminology. Chudan-soto-uke = Middle level outside receiver/"block" Chudan-uchi-uke = Middle level inside receiver/"block" Now, at first glance, you would not think these could ever be mixed up--one is outside and one is inside, right? The trouble is that some people name the technique based on the direction it moves (inward, toward the center line, or outward, away from the center line), while other people name the technique based on the part of the arm being used (inside of the wrist or outside of the forearm). This means that one person will call it an "outside middle block" because their arm is moving toward the outside, while another person would call that same movement an "inside middle block" because it is the inside of their wrist that makes contact. Personally, I believe that those referring to the part of the arm being used should label it as such--either chudan-soto-ude-uke or chudan-uchi-ude-uke, with "ude" meaning "arm." I have seen a few schools do it, but it's not common, probably because it takes so long to say