Jissen

Some good posts. My take on Ikken Hisatsu is 2 tiered (like everything Japanese) On one level it means you should have ill intentions on every single strike that you throw. On another level it explains why. Karateka (martial artists in general) tend to be, or at least strive to be peace loving people who have a great responsibility that comes along with all that power over other people (the ability to kick their *ss). So when the situation is dire enough for me to actually strike someone....the time for diplomacy is over and it's time to get down to business, so I'm going to try to "kill you" (metaphorically) with each and every strike. As has been said, it's a philosophy and mindset. The "one strike" portion refers to you being clear minded enough to know when that one strike (whether it was the first or 12th) has "killed" the situation, so you don't actually kill someone needlessly. In other words treat your fists as if they were guns. You wouldn't pull a gun out unless you intended to, or were at least willing to use it because the situation has gotten that out of hand. Thus it also stresses the importance of being aware, and of de-escalation, or escape when possible...so you don't get in that situation in the first place.

A teachers job is to teach. He doesn't have to be a good fighter or superior athlete to accomplish his goals. Look at Don Familton and half the other boxing coaches in the world, they're frail old men....with TONS of knowledge to share with those who don't worry about trivial things.

I only do a couple of kata, not a karateka persay but... To me saying "kata" (rather than 'this or that kata') refers to the level of training you're at. For instance beginner kata are not finesse kata, they're usually for developing a strong foundation for power and are pretty straight forward and simple. Your entire training regimen should reflect the same idea that "the kata" you're doing dictates. the techniques will be simple, direct, and powerful. The drills, the sparring, the bag work...all will reflect the same idea..eg...simple, direct, and powerful. If you're doing a kata that's designed more for speed, finesse, or agility...than you're regimen (and performance) should generally demonstrate those qualities. In other words, your beginner kata should reflect the qualities they're trying to instill in you...simple, direct, and powerful in application, as well as performance. For me it's not very important to master "the kata" ...it's much more important to take the lessons contained in the textbook and put it to practical use. Just my two cents, for what it's worth.

there is no such thing as a pure system.

My opinion. 1 the "panther' days are over. you can learn from a well produced and thought out video program, even the Gracie's offer one. but the key is well thought out and step by step taught by belt level. I've talked to many of these instructors and they all say the same thing, their long distance students usually advance faster than their regular students. 2 feedback, 99% of these courses require you to video yourself in a predescribed manner and send it to the instructors for examination. most of them are also available by phone and email. some even require attending occasional seminars, and almost all of them require you to test for black belt in person so they can "feel" you out so to speak. and all of them require you to have at least one training partner...which leads to my next point. 3 you can learn from videos if that's your only alternative (notice i used the word alternative)...but it says nothing of how "good" you will be at it. mainly because you'll be practicing with the same 1 or 2 ppl all the time. make sure the program is designed from the ground up to be instructional, not just a demonstration. make sure you have access to the instructor for corrections. make sure they have good credentials and aren't trying to rip you off. Stephen Hayes' are good. Karate Connection kenpo are good (a good intro to home learning too, only 1 "kata") .. they also have free vids on their site of their teaching process. Chuck and Vic were direct students of Ed Parker. Kobukan has good credentials Van Donk (he and Hayes were both students of Hatsumi Soke) has credentials. Kenpo Legacy also legit background. (if i remember correctly this guy was a direct student of Ed Parker) Shintai Ryu < stay away from these guys!!! it's not the 1900's anymore and you can earn a degree online. why couldn't you learn the basics of a martial art online or through video? that's what a black belt is supposed to represent afterall...you've got the basics down. it doesn't make you some sort of master or expert. in some ways home study can be better for some. but it's not for everyone. the biggest problem with it is that you don't have a multitude of partners to confuse you into learning new things all the time, you'll get used to your partners and be able to read them, thus you'll possibly short change yourself...but you don't care anyway.

You're right, too many people think they (along with kyusho) are some sort of magic formula for winning. They should be used to enhance your art, not replace it. But the same can be said of people who think the UFC is the ultimate in streetfighting. Sport arts have many limitations as well. I don't get why everyone thinks it has to be "one or the other" ..I think both have legitimate gripes about the other to be honest. I have found many useful things from both, however...I think the idea behind these dirty tricks is to end the confrontation and escape BEFORE it escalates into a FIGHT. Some guy gets in your face pointing his finger and running his mouth, wham...eye poke, knee to the balls, take out their knee, slam them into the wall, and I'm already on my way out the back door hopefully without having to "fight" him. I guess that's one of the biggest differences...the goal. Sport arts are concerned with "winning" Self defense is about getting to safety, not vanquishing a foe. Completely different mindset. I agree with them being another tool. But I believe they can sometimes render grappling ineffective, not all the time, but nothing is guaranteed. Last time someone tried to armbar me I bit their leg and they were startled and let go. You can see groin kicks and eye pokes being effective in alot of MMA fights...and they're accidental...with groin protection, and they still work. If the ref didn't stop BJ when he poked Matt Hughes in the eye, BJ likely would have trounced him. That 3 minute time out sure is convenient lol Some, but I prefer not to pidgeon hole everyone together. My purpose is hopefully to not have to "fight" with anyone. Just take em out or avoide it. So far I've always been successful with this approach. I could really care less if I can outgrapple a trained grappler, or out box a boxer. But even so, and the point I think people are trying to make is that the only way I could ever hope to beat Frank Mir or somebody is to cheat, because he's a way better fighter than I am. I think it unwise to say either side is the ultimate only correct way. "There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but we can all see the moon once we get there" Okinawan saying.

I agree with Shorikid. Just because something can't be practiced at wide open throttle doesn't mean it's useless. It means it works. Small joint locks, eye gouges, groin shots (and others) are illegal in just about every competition in the world, including the UFC "as real as it gets" They're illegal because they work, not because they don't. One problem is some people think they can rely only on these 'dirty tactics'...which is of course ridiculous. If you don't have a solid delivery system from which to launch them, they're next to useless. But if you take away weight classes, rules, safety gear,referees, and instead inject PCP, alcohol, insanity, multiple attackers, possible weapons, and a sincere desire to harm another individual I suddenly find myself wanting to kick said person squarely in the pills, and would definately not teach my daughter or sister to fight fairly with this person.

In my sometimes not so humble opinion....a majority of your applications of kata should be some sort of grappling. The striking part is basically out in the open for all to see..not necessarily understood, but seen nonetheless.

It's not uncommon for people to know 30 kata, but keep 3 or 4 as "their" kata. The ones they study deeply.

That's like saying Mike Tyson shouldn't be able to beat his coach in boxing. There are doers, and there are teachers. Rarely do you get both in the same person.

A 'ball of the foot" roundhouse kick, is basically just a front kick turned on its side. Not literally, but it's a good way to begin. It does not go sideways on impact, it goes TOWARD (into) the opponent like a spear. Infact it's easy if you start throwing a front kick...then just pivot on your support leg, allowing your hip to turn over. Btw...Uechi Ryu has always used their shins as well, even though it's not part of their kata

Personally I think everyone should loudly shout their intention to attack me before doing so.

Actually Tuite in karate is not so different than that taught in Jujutsu. The body movement is different but a joint lock is a joint lock. Kata is a great tool for remembering the lessons associated with it. as well as practicing "quality of movement" without a partner. Karate when taught in its entirety is a great art for teaching equal emphasis on striking, and locking/throwing. I don't view karate as a striking art, I view it as a do what needs to be done art. Never met a jujutsu instructor (who doesnt also study a striking art) who could teach the finer points of striking however. It's more of a specialized art, for good reason.

Cool thanks

Ashihara's idea of kata, and what I'm referring to are not the same thing as far as I know. Am I mistaken in thinking Ashihara has no "kata" other than their 2 person fighting kata? For intance you guys don't do Sanchin, Naihanchi, Chinto, Pinan's etc etc.

I assume you mean doing some sort of kata type thing while a sadist gleefully whacks you with a shinai? Ankoh Itosu reference the same basic idea in his 10 precepts of Karate. It may sound mystical, but it isn't. It's a sort of natural tension created by skeletal alignment, and expansion of the muscles rather than contraction (which makes you tired) It's not perfect but its worked for me several times when I got hit and felt only surface pain. Such is the case I was referring to here, it hurt a bit, but didn't do any damage.

As you said, Shu Ha Ri is a Japanese idea. I look at Karate as an Okinawan art. A good way to view training as a whole, but we're talking about karate kata specifically...at least I am. Most Okinawan practitioners I've talked to use a 2 tier approach, and you never intentionally "make innovations" to a pre-existing kata, as this is seen as disrespectful to the person who lived through a bunch of crap long enough to create it. If you must do this, then just create your own kata. They survive the test of time for a reason. There's no need to make any innovations to the kata. Your innovations come in the form of your Oyo...your creative practical applications of the movements. Where you are not bound by the "form" literally. When people started changing things is when it went to h*ll. Of course the two tiers being. Omote, and Ura. Similar idea, different expression.

Kempo is just a general term for martial arts. Almost all martial arts, at least most, have at one time or another been referred to as kempo/kenpo. In Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia they use the term Kuntao. In Mandarin Chinese its Chuan Fa. In Korean its Kwan Bop. I'm not sure I would agree that Jujutsu "came from" Chin Na. I think it's kind of silly to think that Chinese people are the only ones smart enough to figure out that if you bend someone's finger backwards, it hurts, and if you keep going, you can dislocate the joint. Or that if you squeeze a tendon or muscle it can hurt, and this can lead to many techniques. Influence perhaps..."came from" not so much. Kempo Jujutsu isn't really an art in and of itself in my experience. Many people including Hironori Ohtsuka, Gichin Funakoshi, and Choki Motobu have used similar names to refer to their arts. So it's hard to pidgeon hole everyone who uses that name in with all the others (like any art). I use it for several reasons, I'll explain later. I practice a TKD form I learned years ago (dont even know the name of it). Pinan Nidan, and Naihanchi Shodan mainly, but also do a Sanchin type of thing. The kempo in the name I use initially had nothing to do with Okinawan karate, my interest in karate came later through research. Like a few others here, I stared in Gokei Ryu Kempo Jujutsu. We did zero kata at all. I use the term Jissen Kempo Jujutsu because everything I do can fall under that heading. I'm no grandmaster or founder of anything. People ask, so I made up an answer, it's really that simple lol ..I also kind of shy away from the word "ryu" ...I'd rather study "arts" than "styles"...you could say JKJ is a 'system' which incorporates things from many "styles". Jissen: real fighting, the overall direction my training takes. Kempo: comes first in the name because in my opinion 2/3 of all fights (even sport fights) end with striking. Look at MMA, there are 3 basic ways to win decisively. 1 KO (striking), 2 Submission (grappling), 3 Ground & Pound (striking). I also believe you must strike first (pre-emptively) when possible in a real fight. I believe you must strike to set up your locks, and throws as well. So that's why its in the name before jujutsu (and it just sounds better) ..its also the name my teacher used. I also have interest in the arts now "named" kempo, from EPAKS, to Kajukenbo, to Okinawa Kenpo..etc. So it's also used literally, as well as to generally give respect to the chinese influence on martial arts in general. Of course it also generically denotes the striking portion of what I do. Jujutsu: Generically denotes the grappling side of what I do. Philosophically I believe you should only "grapple" with someone when you must, or if you've set it up before hand. Gives respect to the Japanese influence. Also used literally as I've an interest in Jujutsu as an art. They're put together because they were taught together by my teacher, and most who've influenced me. They're taught as "one art" as one Sensei puts it. My goal is real fighting. I have as my main influences, the "kempo arts" and "jujutsu arts"...to put it quite simply. Ed Parkers art changed a lot over the years, as did the name. He didn't always call his art Kenpo Karate, infact the one he settled on was just American Kenpo without the Karate. Most Kempo of the Hawaiian/Western variety (Shaolin/EPAKS/Kajukenbo) is technique based, not kata based. Though you could call each technique kata, similar to Koryu Jujutsu. They learn techniques, variations etc...and this is the bulk of their training. As for EPAKS...the kata are just their SD techniques strung together. Some Shaolin Kempo branches 'bunkai' their forms. Most don't, they just use them for balance, and 'quality of movement' exercises from what I've seen. However so is Karate once you bunkai the kata...you end up with techniques that you practice.

The problem here is that when people here the word "kata" they immediately think "the kata itself" or "the solo performance of kata" Think of it in reverse. Teach 30 of your self defense techniques, variations, principles etc. Now string those techniques together and the kata becomes a culmination of all of that knowledge. each time the student see's a move in kata, he'll remember the lesson associated with it, not just the technique itself. Parts of an article i wrote a while ago. A word on mushin, to me, one way this applies to karate is 'the ability to do something without thinking about it' This ability comes from repititiously doing the actual task. Whether its tying your shoes, evading a kick, or putting on your gi. We all start with a fairly standard way of doing it. Then we teach someone else how to do it the same way we were taught. Thus...we're teaching a kata. But the ability to use these skills does not come from the solo practice of kata. "without 2 person training the mind will never be free" The solo practice of kata (the kata itself) simply teaches certian qualities of motion. and the higher the "quality of movement" is during the solo kata, the more correct it'll be in execution without having to think about it. It just becomes habit to shift your weight via stances, rather than just 'freestyling' everything with no method. Some people didnot/do not understand kata, so they were led away from it. I was too initially, that is until someone reverse engineered the reverse engineering for me. This made me want to find what others (and myself) sought elsewhere, within the kata. The old masters were renown for their fighting prowess, so obviously (to me) there just had to be more to it than i was being taught in TKD. I'm no expert by any means, but I do not believe kata is at all useless, unless it's not understood...then it is useless.

Having not read the entire thread, my two cents. I think karate started losing its efficacy the instant people starting changing it. The 2 most significant instances are 1 when Itosu (and Higashionna among others) introduced karate into the school system, they left out a lot of information...which led to 2 The karate that spread over the world was this "kids" karate. Not to say it was crap, just that it was very basic, and left many things out. From that point on most karate systems were also effected by sportive competition, using high kicks and such. Not all karate was this way, so don't shoot me, but a majority of it is this way in my opinion. Things that were once open hand strikes to the throat, were made into a poorly formed fist aimed at less dangerous targets because even kids can do this relatively easily. But they don't have the maturity level to be learning vicious things like the old days. Also consider the political/social climate of Japan. The warrior class abolished, it was modernizing and interest in the old school fighting arts was dying in a big way. I have also heard that the Japanese government told Funakoshi to make the art less vicious for these reasons, and because they were more interested in "Do" not only "jutsu" to use that old argument. So Funakoshi simply taught them Itosu's school karate. Not so different than what Kano did with Judo/Jujutsu. Today you also have to consider most people are sissies these days. Most parents don't want little billy to get a black eye or busted lip in class. And insurance companies don't want to pay for such things. Most people couldn't handle real training. I think there are relatively few people outside Okinawa that can (or are willing) to teach the "real deal" these days. It's better than it was a decade ago however. As for the whole "lethal techniques" vs "live training"....it doesn't have to be either or. You can do all of the above. Generally I think there are 3 types of situations you can find yourself in. 1 sport fight. 2 street fight. 3 self defense. To me these are 3 different things, that are linked by a common set of principles and concepts. Your art should be able to give you the tools to be successful at all o fthem if you wish. I also think there are 3 basic targets you should attack. 1 vision, 2 breathing, 3 balance. Simply remembering those simple ideas will help alot. Look at Judo as a prime example. It has a great deal of functional live training. Yet retains the more "street" oriented techniques, albeit practiced in a static manner (kata). Best of both worlds. With todays training gear however it's much safer to train sparring in a live environment, and we should. We should not discount modern training ideas just because they're not 'traditional' Most of the things people consider traditional in the karate world were never around until 1960(ish) anyway. Uniforms, belt ranks, the use of a dojo, etc. If you want the traditional gi, just strip down to your skivies and beat the crap out of each other. I also think the situation matters greatly when choosing techniques. Eye gouges are a dumb thing to do at long range, say in a kickboxing or MMA match. But if someone has you shoved up against a wall, and you understand the "psychology" side of things, it's very easy to play the victim so they drop their mental guard, and stick your thumbs in his eyes and tear away. There's a big difference between 2 people squaring off with each other...and a self defense scenario. One problem I have with sport arts is that they not only teach people HOW TO fight...they teach them TO fight intentionally (perhaps unintentionally taught however, just becomes habit) ...most of them don't think about it, they just jump into a live struggle with the person rather than trying to just take em out fast and leave. "all war is based on deception" The Art of War. Ed Parker broke American Kenpo down into 3 areas. 1 basics (forms, sets, basic strikes, kicks, blocks etc) 2 self defense if you stop looking at what the defender is doing, and look at what his ATTACKER is doing, you'll see that the situations are usually more static, grabs, bear hugs, shoves, basic punches and the like. These are common every day attacks, not freefighting. That's why you don't usually see these techniques in free sparring...they're not designed for that environment. Most violence starts verbally anyway, and this type of training allows you to incorporate psychology, verbal defense, and distance control. The ultimat goal being to escape to safety, not jump into a "fight" with someone who you have no knowledge of. He may have a knife in his boot, he may have a gun in his jacket, he may have buddies waiting around the corner...do you still want to "fight" with this person? Would you teach your wife or daughter to 'fight' with this person? Hell no! Self defense is what happens BEFORE the situation escalates into a FIGHT (live struggle between 2 or more people) 3 freestyle this has many uses from sport, to street fighting. Largely it's what happens when your initial defense, and possibly your backup defense fails...youre going to find yourself in a FIGHT very quickly. So you need to learn to do both. This is where mostly...all ideas of preconceived techniques go out the window..it is the use of the principles and concepts of your art at work rather than set techniques. Most people do one or the other, but a slightly different outlook on their art can open many doors. As a student of Hohan Soken once said, we need to bunkai the system as a whole, not just the individual kata.

I have, wasn't too bad. That's what sanchin is for, to protect yourself in case you dont block or evade. (many shuri te based systems use naihanchi/tekki for the same purpose among others)

I don't think they should be mandatory. Japanese people speak Japanese because they're Japanese...it's their native language. We have our own. I do however think a voluntary study of at least the basic terminology can help remove or clear up many misunderstandings. For example if people understood that the term "uke" does not mean "block" but "to receive" (just like receiving someone into your home, the idea is NOT to stop the attackers momentum. but let them in so their energy is still commited alowing my 4 oz, to move their thousand pounds) ....they'd "get it" a lot quicker. It also can help unite people. Especially if they belong to the JKA or another Japanese organization, everyone will be using common terminology. But I also believe that it depends on your goals. If you want self defense only, it's not necessary to master an "art". ..its just necessary to use what works. So really it could go either way.

I only practice a couple kata myself. I'm not a karateka persay. I take that saying to mean you shouldn't be bound by tradition. But it's been my experience, that when studied, the arts "as they are" provide plenty of room for interpretation and personalization. However that being said, there are other ways of training today that weren't around 100 or more yrs ago, we shouldn't deny them simply because they're not "traditional". Like Patrick Mcarthey says its about "keeping the spirit of their flame alight" more than copying them exactly. Where i think many people fall short is they dont get that kata, or their one steps, or self defense techniques, are just "formal versions" that are designed to teach you the mechanics, and allow you to study, targets, angles, etc etc. Then you gotta take that information and put it in a live environment and practice it. I'd rather see people doing that than finding a thousand different applications for chudan uke but never practicing them to proficiency. I often say we study "martial" "arts" ...we are learning how to separate the "martial" from the "art" for self defense, because the "art" of karate (or any other) is not fighting, it's a training methodology, or an "art" that teaches you things ABOUT fighting. Its up to us as practitioners to bring that info into the modern era. I believe this is the way the "art" was designed. just my opinion however.

"without kata you don't have karate, all you have are athletics and tricks" Wade Chroninger

According to Sensei Ron Lindsey, Matsumura Kenpo and Matsumura Seito some significant differences. He only named a few, mostly blocking and stances (he mentioned that Matsumura Seito does not have zenkutsu dachi, and Matsumura Kenpo uses longer stances in general). He said Kuda Sensei named his art Matsumura Kenpo because it's a blend of Matsumura Shorin Ryu and Okinawa Kenpo. For what it's worth.