Wastelander

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

I think there are different expressions of styles for different stages in life, mostly. A dojo-mate of mine is also a Sandan in Aikido, and he trained in a system of Aikido that was hardcore, with a chief instructor known to knock people out and break bones in training. That kind of Aikido might be fine for a younger, fit, tough person, but not so much so for older folks, or people who are less fit or more fragile. This can be applied to most other arts, because every school goes about them a bit differently, and every person who trains does it to fit their needs. Even at 30, I don't find myself throwing that many high kicks, anymore, but I don't feel the need to change styles--there is plenty within my style I can continue to explore and develop. The same is true of other styles, as well.

We have had a number of people complain about the length of our syllabus--not just overall, but for each individual rank. We recently went through a revamping of the syllabus, which actually added a few more things. I've heard INSTRUCTORS say that they would rather have less on the syllabus to avoid trying to make students "jacks of all trades, master of none" (nevermind the fact that the full phrase is "better to be a jack of all trade, master of none, than a master of one"). It's disheartening. To me, all a long syllabus means is that it might take you longer to earn your next rank which, to me, doesn't matter.

If you would like to go back to the original black belts, the only criteria was that they knew how to fall well enough to not get injured when Kano Jigoro or one of his Kodokan representatives was teaching and needed someone to demonstrate on. Most people don't like to think of black belts that way, though. It loses its mystique. These days, there are too many criteria to ever boil it down to just one. I couldn't possibly do it, personally.

If I recall correctly, the Shorin-Ryu/Shorei-Ryu divide was Funakoshi's own classification of material, and not a historical one. He didn't even break it down consistently across his books, as he was re-evaluating it over time. He did tend to put Naha-Te kata in the Shorei-Ryu column, though. One of my former sensei’s colleagues* is in the Masaji video. *Would you call a karateka you work out with and exchange information with regularly a colleague? Very cool! And yes, I would call that a colleague

Your TSD background is going to be easier to adapt to Shotokan or a Shorin-Ryu system. Goju-Ryu will be very much like starting over. As for characteristics of Goju-Ryu, I would say it tends to be heavy and sticky. These are components of Shorin-Ryu, as well, but not to the same degree that they are present in Goju-Ryu. It is plenty credible, although as with most Okinawan karate styles, it has a bit of a muddled history, in places, and political in-fighting that caused a good amount of "no, MY sensei was the true inheritor of Goju-Ryu." Even so, every branch of Goju-Ryu has good material stemming from Miyagi Chojun and Higashionna Kanryo. As has been mentioned, of course, every dojo is going to teach things differently. In general, though, if you want to carry over your TSD training, and just make some small tweaks and keep going, Shotokan is probably the better bet. If you want to "empty your cup," so to speak, and start fresh, Goju-Ryu would be the way to go since, if nothing else, you will have to learn entirely new kata, which will help you adapt to the different mechanics and methods. In addition to P.A.L.'s recommendations for Goju-Ryu references, I would add Kuba Yoshio Sensei, and Paul Enfield Sensei. Enfield was a senior student of Higaonna Morio, and acted as his uke and narrator for his instructional videos, before transitioning to the Jundokan and becoming a senior student and translator for Taira Masaji. His take on Goju-Ryu is something like a blend of the two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWIW3xOBdMI

Welcome back!

Welcome to the forum!

Welcome to the forum!

Retreating has its uses, but obviously the over-use of any tactic can be problematic. You did definitely get the chance to play with the benefits of forward pressure, which is good. That kind of thing is exactly what sparring in the dojo is for--trying new things!

I'm a major proponent of ensuring that the knees always track in-line with the feet, since I have pronated feet and bad knees (from birth). You can do that with the toes pointed in but, as you said, you have to turn the femur, not just the feet, and be aware of your structure to ensure that is happening with the inward-pointed toes. Interestingly, at least based on how we do Naihanchi-dachi, I would disagree with your PT friend--I'm decidedly LESS mobile in that stance than, for example, a shiko-dachi with the toes pointed out

Welcome to the forum!

Thank you, everyone, for your replies. @barefoot-kohai - I'm familiar with the stance used in Shotokan--it's the same one used in Shuri-Ryu when I learned Naihanchi, there, and it hurt my knees and ankles. I was really looking for the reasoning behind using the stance, rather than just which stance you use, though @MatsuShinshii - I've seen varying degrees from Matsumura Seito folks, but it does tend to be a stance with the toes pointed outward enough for me to consider it a shiko-dachi, for the purposes of this thread. Do you know what the reasoning is, in your style, for using that stance as opposed to a stance with the toes forward or inward, by chance? @Kusotare - It sounds like you're saying the Naihanchi-dachi you use in Wado-Ryu is purely for biomechanical study purposes? To address your question about the stances, the feet tend to be twisting inward while exerting enough outward pressure to maintain a springiness to the stance, but as MatsuShinshii says, the stance pressure changes based on the applications for us. The solo kata is not divorced from the application in the way we train

Hello, everyone! I apologize in advance for the long post! There are, in general, three stances used in the practice of the Naihanchi/Tekki/Chulgi/etc. kata, which go by different names depending on the style you practice. For simplicity's sake, I will use the names I am more familiar with: Shiko-dachi = Horse stance with toes pointed outward Kiba-dachi = Horse stance with toes pointed forward Naihanchi-dachi = Horse stance with toes pointed inward When I first learned Naihanchi, I was practicing Shuri-Ryu, and they did it in a very deep kiba-dachi. In training on my own for two years, I adjusted it to a higher kiba-dachi to experiment with that. When I started training in Shorin-Ryu, I was introduced to Naihanchi-dachi, which I was allowed to play with and adjust to fit my build and physical limitations. When I started training KishimotoDi, I learned a version of Naihanchi that uses shiko-dachi throughout. From what I have been able to gather, Naihanchi likely went through a progression from shiko-dachi to kiba-dachi to Naihanchi-dachi over time, and different instructors stuck with what they liked, personally, for various reasons. You can actually see these changes over time in historical photos, which is especially interesting. In one of Funakoshi Gichin's (founder of Shotokan) books, he performs Naihanchi in shiko-dachi, and then later photos show him using kiba-dachi, which of course became wider and lower as his son, Funakoshi Gigo, started changing things. Konishi Yasuhiro (founder of Shindo Jinen-Ryu, and a student of Funakoshi, among others) also taught Naihanchi in shiko-dachi, and has photos of him demonstrating applications on Motobu Choki using shiko-dachi. Photos of Motobu Choki (a student of Itosu Anko and Matsumura Sokon), himself, show him using a high kiba-dachi for Naihanchi, although he can be seen using shiko-dachi for some of his applications. There is a photo of Kentsu Yabu (also a student of Itosu and Matsumura) teaching a class full of students working Naihanchi in shiko-dachi. Hanashiro Chomo was a student of Itosu, but taught Naihanchi in shiko-dachi, according to the Bugeikan, which still passes along his material. Some practitioners of Matsumura Seito (which describes its lineage and being non-Itosu Shorin-Ryu) use shiko-dachi in their Naihanchi practice, although I have also seen some use kiba-dachi, and some use Naihanchi-dachi. Various practitioners of Okinawan kenpo or Tomari-te (such as Oyata Seiyu and Yamashiro Yoshitomo) use a stance that I would call barely a shiko-dachi, as the toes point out just slightly, and it is also a style that does not come from Itosu. Kojo-Ryu, at least the version of it taught by Hayashi Shingo, which is also a non-Itosu system, uses shiko-dachi for its Naihanchi kata. KishimotoDi is a style that not only bypassed Itosu, but also bypassed Matsumura, coming from a contemporary of his named Tachimura, and it uses shiko-dachi for Naihanchi. The inward-pointed toes of Naihanchi-dachi start showing up later than either shiko-dachi or kiba-dachi, as far as I can tell by looking at historical photos/footage and styles of various lineages. Possibly as recently as the 1930's, as that is as far back as I have seen photos of it, which show Chibana Chosin (Dai Senpai of Itosu's dojo) using it in Naihanchi. Interestingly, Motobu specifically derided the "pigeon toed" version of the stance that Itosu had started teaching later in life. All three of these stances, while similar in nature, have some slightly different capabilities and limitations, and having played with all three of them, myself, I've tried to explore those and make note of them. I'm curious as to which stances people here use in their Naihanchi kata, and what purpose they ascribe to that stance beyond "it's the way Sensei said to do it."