Wastelander

I used to train in a style that was very exacting with positions--feet had to be at exact angles, body parts had to be at exact distances from other body parts, etc. This is something I have found to be a very Japanese approach to karate, and is mostly for aesthetics, or for their understanding of the mechanics of a technique, which is often (as Wado Heretic suggests) based on the wrong context. Now, there are certainly some important angles and positions in Okinawan karate, and they will be checked and corrected as needed, but I have found this to not happen at the same extremely granular level that Japanese karate does it. With regard to application, specifically, it's important to remember that the "stances" of karate are not like a "fighting stance" that you use in sparring. You aren't supposed to maintain the stance and move around like you do in jiyu kumite. You are much more likely to have to transition from a natural standing/walking position quickly into one or more stances as you perform defensive techniques that require certain types of weight distribution or structure. The stances are meant to facilitate the applications, which means they are transitory, and meant to tell you how you need to move your body in order to get the technique to work. They are also often exaggerated in order to ensure that the student moves their weight in the proper manner without losing structure. It's also important to note that, under stress, movements tend to get smaller, whether you like it or not, which means that some degree of exaggeration in training is needed to account for that and make sure the technique will still work.

Welcome to the forum!

Not to sound ignorant but what is a Kane and wilder book? Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder, who practice and teach Goju-Ryu, and both have a good deal of experience doing security work of various types, wrote a book called "The Way of Kata," which goes over some fundamental concepts for bunkai.

Everything has its place, and "sparring" is a pretty varied category of training methods. I would agree that too many people train to deal with unrealistic attacks, or even if they work against realistic attacks, they may not move from compliant drilling to resistant drilling to free practice. We have some formal drills in our organization that use the typical "step back, down block, step in, lunge punch" types of attacks to introduce some basic concepts and techniques, but we don't limit ourselves to that in our practice of those drills. Additionally, since we have a heavy emphasis on bunkai and kata application, we do a lot of training with that material using some simplified attacks for introduction purposes, and more realistic attacks as well. From compliant drilling, we move on to semi-resistant drilling, where the uke may block, or fight back out of the joint lock, or not fall down, etc., so that the technique was mostly successful, up until the very end. This gives students an opportunity to learn how to counter such resistance, and how to continue if their technique fails. From there, we increase the resistance in two ways. Sometimes, we simply have the uke attack again in some way after doing what I previously described, so the student has to learn to deal with that type of failure. Other times, since we know the technique they are trying to do, we will do something to stop it earlier, or throw it off--moving differently, grabbing when there wasn't a grab before, throwing an awkward strike, or a flurry of them, etc. From these, you get a pretty good base of skills to work with. This feeds into kakedameshi, kata randori, and "bully sparring" as I call it, as well as giving you the skills to cross over some of that material into more MMA-style sparring. These are sparring methods that allow you to work your techniques against resisting opponents in relative safety. Of course, everything I've described can only work in conjunction with supplemental training methods for developing the skills to actually use the techniques you learn in these types of sparring. I find that this varied approach addresses a lot of the shortcomings that come from more rigidly-structured methods.

Welcome to the forum! Personally, given that your current options seem to be "current dojo" and "nothing," I would stick with the current dojo until you move. When you do move, I would try out all of the schools you are interested in--do a couple classes and see what you like. You may find that you love Uechi-Ryu, or hate Goju-Ryu, or the Muay Thai school is a great fit, or you just want to go back to Shotokan, etc. You'll have to try them to figure that out

That would be the "block/punch/kick" type of application, yes. Old-style Okinawan arts commonly use the elbow movement you use to block to apply an armbar, as a comparison.

Some instructors did not teach the applications and others would not teach them until a student was awarded Yudansha. This was for a multitude of reasons, for which I've heard plenty. We teach along with the kata. Hachikyu start learning Pinan Shodan, and immediately learn the applications and are taught two person drills so they can apply what they've learned. To each their own. I feel that teaching the applications while learning the Kata gives the student a deeper understanding. Just for the sake of information... Oyama was reportedly nanadan (or possibly hachidan) under Gogen Yamaguchi when he left to start the Oyama dojo. I highly doubt Yamaguchi would bestow that rank on anyone who didn’t have a through understanding of bunkai and how to teach it. Why he abandoned bunkai really makes me wonder. Oyama had hundreds, if not thousands of high ranking yudansha under him at the time of his death. Yet there’s not a single report of him teaching bunkai that I’ve seen nor heard of. Everyone’s got their own philosophies and methods. For what it's worth, some people simply don't care about bunkai/oyo. Oyama liked his kumite approach, and perhaps enjoyed the practice of kata for health and personal development, but didn't care about how the movements were supposed to be applied. The modifications he made to the kata certainly seem to suggest that, since the motions no longer fit Okinawan methods. It's also possible that Yamaguchi didn't care that much about the application, and didn't teach much of it. It's also possible that Yamaguchi didn't learn much application in his time with Yagi and Miyagi, and therefore didn't teach much of it. There is a whole chain of possibilities, but I doubt we will get a definitive answer. Even within my organization, you can ask the head of the organization what the application for a move is, and he will show you a practical self defense technique, and you can ask one of his Okinawan 9th dans and get a basic block, or some such thing.

Just as different instructors do things differently today, different "founders" did things differently back then, too. Was kata a huge part, historically? Yes! The thing I feel the need to point out is that the 3K division (Kihon/Kata/Kumite) was not a standard practice back then, and certainly nowhere near as popular as it is, today. Many instructors considered kumite to simply be part of kata training, because the kumite came from the kata. Kihon was similar. Some instructors chose to heavily focus on physical development before ever getting to the fighting methods, which is what you have essentially described with Miyagi. Others did not, although you will often see statements about having to study certain kata for a long time before learning anything else--as I mentioned, though, that kata study INCLUDES application and kumite, rather than being separate from it. Each instructor had their own reasons for doing things the way they did. Some focused heavily on physical development. Some focused heavily on the practice of solo kata with no application. Some focused heavily on kumite of various types. Etc.

That ligament sometimes gives me trouble, but so far not too bad. I'm sorry to hear about you having to go through this! That said, 3 months isn't that long in the grand scheme of things, and I know you'll get back to training as soon as you can

It is going to take time. There are plenty of things you can drill, and I'm sure your instructor has you drilling them, but it will still take time and practice to develop the skills and reactions you need. You'll start learning how to set up your combinations so your opponent moves their guard for you, or how to slip past it when they don't think you can. As far as sparring with women, you aren't doing them any favors by only using kicks and mostly blocking--they are there to learn martial arts too! Every person is different, regardless of gender, and some will be okay with higher levels of contact than others. Just talk with them, and maybe ask them to hit you in the arm or body as hard as they are willing to get hit, and go from there. You are still new, so you will still have to be very cautious with your control, both with men and women.

Those kids aren't too terribly young, so you can sneak in some talking, but don't lecture--make it fit with what you're doing. This means you can get in little snippets of cultural and style information. Not enough to bore them, but enough to give them an idea if they decide to look into it further. This is generally what we will do. We tell them to bow in, and quickly say why we do that. We take them through simple warm ups and say why we are doing them (make your legs ready to kick, make your arms strong to block, etc.). As far as technique goes, for kids that age, we would usually go through how to stand in a basic "fighting stance," how to do a basic middle "block," how to throw a basic straight punch, and how to throw a basic front kick, and have them do that on pads. Making it a game by moving the pad, or doing "Sensei Says" makes them forget they are learning stuff, which is helpful. This also gives you time to tell them this is kihon, and briefly what that is. From there, it's on to the first kata we teach, which is very basic and uses the punch and block ( ). That obviously lets you mention what kata are for. From there, we usually show some sort of application for the kata, and if they do well with it, add some sort of gentle takedown. Inevitably, the kids get a kick out of the takedowns. This also lets you introduce the idea of kumite, as well.

I do, and although I'm sure I have bowed "incorrectly" at various dojo, nobody has ever said anything about it to me. We also don't say anything if visitors at our dojo don't bow where/when we do. The intent of the bow is the same, whether it's at the door, at a designated mat, in a certain direction, etc.

Welcome to the forum!

The elastic band he is talking about is just a hair tie of the same color as the belt--for most people who do this, it's red or blue for WKF competition. They seem to like having extra thick, stiff belts in that circuit, so breaking in the belt and cinching it tight doesn't seem to be all that popular.

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a big trick to this--you tie the belt in a normal knot, and then you just hold the ends together, slide the elastic band up to the knot, and secure it behind where the ends come out of the knot. Now, since I don't compete I have never done this, and nobody in my dojo does this, but I've seen it done by WKF people. I just tie my belt tight enough to stay put, personally.

Well, as sensei8 suggests, I would do what your instructor says. That said, I'm also not entirely sure I understand what you're describing. Even so, your chief instructor is the one who sets the standards for your school

Train? No. Aid in recovery? Possibly. It's used by physical therapists the world over, at this point, and I felt that it helped me recover from my last knee dislocation. I know a number of athletes who use it to add in recovery from DOMS as well. It's not going to make your muscles stronger.

While I would say that karate has been too political for a very long time, I think what you described is less politics and more ego. There are plenty of people out there ready to rip you apart for how you do things, but they are also not willing to post a video of themselves for comparison. Keyboard warriors and kuchi-bushi (mouth warriors) show up all the time on the Internet. As someone who posts videos of himself doing karate pretty often, I get some of that, as well. Thankfully, that can usually be resolved by ignoring it, or responding with WHY we do something the way we do it, because most people making those types of comments can only answer "why?" with "because Sensei said so."

We only do light contact to the head, and we require everyone to wear gear on their hands and feet--headgear is required for everyone under the age of 12, and optional above that, although I have pointed out that studies show headgear only protects from aesthetic damage, and may actually increase the risk of concussion. Even so, concussions have been VERY rare in our dojo. In the 7 years I've been training with my current Sensei, there have maybe been three concussions, and none of them were Grade 3 that I know of (loss of consciousness). Accidents happen, of course, and its a martial arts school, so that is a risk that must be assumed. Despite that, it is significantly safer than football, or boxing, which are both quite popular.

I find that the vast majority of people who say that knowledge of the applications comes naturally through practicing the kata have no idea how to apply the kata. I'm sure there are some out there who were able to do that, but I would say that most people do not get revelations on kata application without putting conscious, structured thought into it, and they certainly don't develop the skill necessary to apply the techniques under pressure by practicing the solo form. There are also people out there who might know applications, but insist on holding them back until a certain rank, or holding them back entirely and telling their students to figure it out themselves. I do not find that to be helpful for karate, or karateka. On the other hand, there are instructors out there who teach applications, but don't teach the underlying concepts, or how a student could have found that application by following certain guidelines, so the students may be able to repeat applications by rote, but not figure out alternatives for themselves. I don't think that is helpful, either, although it does at least give students SOMETHING to work with. The kata give you a method of practicing the applications without a partner, which has a number of benefits. First, and most obviously, you don't need a partner for it, which means you can practice at any time. Second, it means you do not have to have concern for a partner's safety, so techniques you would normally have to do carefully, slowly, or incompletely, can be done full speed, full power, with full intent. Third, it gives you a method of practicing the ideal form and body mechanics to make the technique work as efficiently as possible, without having to make adjustments for an opponent's body weight, height, strength, etc. I think asking your Sensei for applications (if they know them) is a great idea, as is seeking out seminars from other instructors in various arts, and looking at examples in books and videos to bring back to your own training. This should all be building toward a conceptual approach to karate and the application of its kata, though, and you should work to build an understanding of how kata can be broken down and analyzed for potential applications.

I have had this problem with every gi I have ever owned, so far, except for my Century Kata Elite gi, which has very soft, thin webbing for drawstrings. That said, I solved it pretty easily by just taking out the drawstrings and replacing them with rope.

No disrespect JazzKicker but your understanding comes from modern day examples of the art and is not based on historical truth. The means of trasmittal was the Kata. The Okinawan's did not write down the techniques and applications but created a means by which to transmit them which we call the Kata. Prior to Modern day Karate Do, Toudi (To-Di) was passed down by means of teaching the Kata. This was done so not to teach students a neat form that they could win tournaments with but rather to teach soldiers to fight. This whole concept that Kata is worthless goes along with the theory that poor farmers created Toudi (Karate) or Buki-gwa (Kobudo), when it was actually the warrior class (think Samurai). Just like Kenjutsu or Jujutsu, Toudi and Buki-gwa were created to teach warriors to defend the country and to be used in Battle. Again no disrespect but history refutes the notion that Kata is nothing more than a Dance. It really depends on how it has been transmitted down from the founder and how it is taught. So in saying that, I will agree in terms of how Kata is taught in most schools today... you can't learn how to fight by studying the Kata. But... if taught the way it was taught, you can learn to fight by studying the Kata. None taken! I wouldn't say the origin of kata with soldiers vs. farmers validates it one way or the other. If you go back before the late 19th century the history isn't really there, anyway, except for documents like the Bubishi. But if you've studied Ryu-Kyu Kempo and Tuite, you probably know that movements in the forms can be interpreted as pressure point strikes, joint locks, etc. and not simply blocking and punching. That adds a lot of depth and meaning if you can "unlock the secrets", but learning how to do those techniques is even harder, and without a partner you're simply "going through the motions". Agreed. And there is no such thing as a block in Toudi as there is in Karate Do. I have heard this argument from others including those within my own art. However Ti or Ti-gwa was influenced by Muay Boran which is the predecessor of Muay Thai. Muay Boran like Toudi or Ti-gwa incorporated weapons as it was for combat. If you research the Tonfa or Tuifa in Saimese or Thai weaponry you will find a weapon that predates the Tonfa. For the life of me I can not remember the name, but it is a tonfa with a strap. It is used differently than the Okinawan version. My Shinshii had a photo in his personal collection that clearly shows this Thai version and I was told but have never confirmed it, but I believe this photo or one like it is in a Okinawan museum. My personal opinion in the matter of the Tuifa is that it does not come from a mill handle as we are led to believe but from this weapon (again I apologize but my old brain is having a senior moment). Sai and the version of the sai is found throughout Asia and even in India in different forms. I have heard the theory of it being used to plant rice along with other theories. None make any sense. If you research ancient weaponry you find this form of weapon in China, India, and most Asian countries. Japan has the Jutte. If it came from a farm implement please show me an early example of it and what it's use was because in my years of researching my art and the origins I have yet to find more than theories. I believe necessity is the mother of all inventions. Simply put if you are fighting a foe that wields swords and other bladed weapons superior to yours you invent something which will protect you from it, even capture it and un-arm those with it. If the farmers and peasant class of the day had no education and little in the way of tools, especially steel/iron (they were poor) but the warrior class did, who do you think would have or could have created such a weapon? Personally I have my money on the warrior class. The Nunchaku... well I can't argue with this other than to say that the three sectional staff was around far longer than the Nunchaku and we know from history that the Okinawans adopted many Chinese weapons. I guess I am a skeptic when it comes to this subject because of the way the argument is presented. First you heard every western instructor saying that Toudi (Karate) came from peasants and farmers. Well that is not true and it has been proven without a doubt. Then the next theory is that all Kobudo weaponry was created by these same peasants. Well here is a little tid bit of truth and a theory debunked. Sakugawa was of the Pechin class (Warriors) under the employment of the king. The theory you find or hear about the Rokushaku Bo (Kun) is that is was the stick that peasants and farmers used to carry their buckets of water. Well a stick might have been used for this but the art of using the staff did not come from peasants. There is documented proof that Sakugawa and others in that time were masters of the staff. Matsumura himself was a master of the staff. How then could it have been created by uneducated farmers and peasants if the military of the time had a long history of it's use? I will buy the Kuwa, Kama or Eku as farmer/fisherman weapons. Kuwa is all the way a farming implement as well as the Eku is all the way a fisherman's implement. Kama is a tool to cut rice but where then did Nichogama come from? Farmers had no need to carry two sickles. it would not only be cumbersome but impractical to carry what one tool could do. Better yet were does three Sai come from? If it was a farming implement they would only be carrying one so were does the pair come into play and further more why would anyone except a soldier need a third to throw? Wouldn't the farmer just carry two and throw one? However let me interject a theory and maybe a little insight into this mystery. Just like the Japanese Samurai, before it was banned, the Okinawan classes were adept in the arts of farming, carpentry, fishing, etc. Is it more plausible that these weapons were then picked up by the peasant/farmer/fisherman class when seeing the land owners utilize them? And lets take it a step further and let me ask you where the Timbe and Rochin came from on the farm. Better yet when weapons were banned, supposedly the reason that the farmers created these weapons where did they get short spears for Rochin, iron for their Sai. Look the Sai is not orginally from Okinawa. Again if you look it up you will find examples of the weapon throughout the Saimese empire, Indonesia and Asia. It's not an Okinawan creation but a weapon that was incorporated. Just like the mxing pot that turned into what we now call Karate, Buki-gwa (kobudo) weapons were incorporated or influenced by other countries. The Okinawan's took fighting traditions from other countries and incorporated them together with their indigenous arts. Basically taking all techniques that worked best for them and melded them together to creat what we call Karate. Kobudo is no different and neither is it's weapons. In fact you can find examples, as I have already said, of different weapons from other countries that predate their use on Okinawa. I could fill many posts with examples and questions but suffice it to say that I do not buy the peasant/farmer theory when there are too many historical examples and logical deductions to accept what most likely came from a westerner's lack of understanding and history. Most likely the same person that pushed the theory that the empty hand fighting art came from farmers or one of his students or acquaintances who hear his theory. You say that there is little historical evidence but there is no evidence, except modern examples, of this theory that the peasant class created a systematic form of learning to utilize weaponry. Here is one last thing to ponder... ever wonder why Kobudo Kata resembles Karate Kata? Think about it. For me I will believe what years of questioning and researching has led me to believe. Toudi/Ti and Buki-gwa came from the warrior class not the peasant class. This is a myth I have been trying to dispel for quite some time, and I actually made a video going over it earlier this year, for anyone interested ( ) but I will go over it a bit here, too, as an expansion on MatsuShinshii's posts, which my research leads me to completely agree with.As you say, we have plenty of documented evidence showing that karate and kobudo evolved from the arts of the Udun and Shizoku classes--take a look at this Wikipedia article for a simple breakdown of the caste system used in Okinawa prior to the Meiji Restoration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukatchu#Ryukyuan_Caste_System By contrast, we have NO evidence showing it being developed by peasants, fisherman, and farmers, except for Okinawan masters telling us so in the 20th Century. Even then, they don't have their stories about it straight. It makes for a very compelling underdog story, and the Okinawans do seem to love such things, but there is very little fact behind it. As you say, kuwa and kama are clearly farming implements, but I would point out that many Shizoku-ranked officials were in charge of royal gardens and burial grounds, so they would have had such implements available, and time to work with them. Eku, while certainly an item common folk would have had available to them, would also be present on other types of ships--say, for example, the envoy ships sent between Okinawa and China over the course of their long trading partnership? Ships which, as we have documented proof of, carried Shizoku-ranked officials as well as regular military men. Sai, as you point out, is a weapon that exists all over Asia that has long been used as a police weapon, and Okinawa is the only place to claim it was something other than a weapon. Tonfa, as your latest post points out, are slightly modified mae sun sawk from Siam/Cambodia--I actually made a pair for my Sensei, some time ago. While there is a passing resemblance to the handle of Okinawan grindstones, I could just as easily say they resemble the handles of large doors, never mind the known exchange of martial arts between Siam and Okinawa that is even documented in George Kerr's book on the islands, and the fact that Hokama Tetsuhiro Sensei has at least one pair of mae sun sawk in his Okinawan karate museum along with all the tonfa. To top it off, there was never a "weapons ban" on Okinawa in the way that everyone thinks of it. That idea was based on a loose translation of texts by one scholar, and people ran with it, but more modern translations have disproved that. The supposed "weapons ban" by King Sho Shin was actually just an order for the military to stop keeping their weapons on their personal property, and store them in armories, the same way pretty much every other country manages the weapons of their army. The second supposed "weapons ban" by the Satsuma samurai clan specifically banned firearms, and commoners from having weapons, but the Udun and Shizoku classes were explicitly allowed to continue keeping, carrying, and training with weapons, as was the Okinawan military, as long as they didn't use firearms anymore. The Okinawan military picked up firearms quite early on--we can even see illustrations of them in some very old scrolls--and that was the only weapon the Japanese were really concerned about.

The impression you got is exactly why I get frustrated with the kata applications and "story" shown in pretty much every karate documentary and book. Sometimes the instructors simply don't know better, but sometimes they do, and are just adhering to a sense of secrecy that is harmful to karate. If we keep showing people the super-basic applications of kata, and telling people that just practicing kata will make you skilled in fighting and self defense, then karate will continue to lose respect as a martial art, and people will stop practicing it, and it will die. The practice of solo kata is meant to develop timing, movement flow, and body mechanics associated with the applications. You can do it at full speed, with full power, and not worry about your partner's safety. You also don't need a partner to practice, which is handy for when one is not available. If a partner IS available, though, you should be drilling the applications of the kata with them, and the applications of kata are NOT the super-basic ones that are so frequently shown. If you train practical applications, practice them with increasing levels and types of resistance, drill for failure and contingencies, incorporate them into pressure testing exercises ("sparring" isn't exactly the best word in every case, but that does come into play here), and properly visualize them while training your kata, then it is certainly beneficial and effective. Admittedly, I would say that most karateka these days do not do that, for a variety of reasons.

As a 6'1 205lb guy, I get the same thing in the form of a statement, rather than a question, essentially. I get "oh, better not make you made, or you'll kick my butt." My response is generally to laugh it off and use a very sarcastic tone to say something along the lines of "you know it!"

Welcome to the forum! And old-school indeed--I caught the a/s/l you put in there