Wado Heretic

Thank you, and it is what it is. I think to be fair to those I asked I should state what I had planned. I wished for them to visit for a fortnight, or between 14 and 18 days depending on what suited them best. My ambition was to run two weekend courses, likely one in Wolverhampton and the other in Sheffield based on my contacts. These weekend courses would be open to anyone to maximise probable participation. Aside from that I did want them to teach some classes in the week as well. At least one at my own dojo for myself and my students. At least one at the association Hombu, and then one or two at some other association dojo, for association members only. It would have been quite a bit of teaching over the two weeks. Likely somewhere in the realm of 30 hours. I did offer to cover travel and accommodation, and to chauffeur them around the UK and make time in the schedule for tourism. At the time I was looking at an outlay of £3000-5000, which I had a budget for. And I was optimistic I would make the money back and a potential profit based on expected interest levels. This was before Covid, so I imagine now it would be significantly more, and I fear I would not get the interest to justify the financial risk. Another factor as to why I have never tried again really. Thankfully, there does seem to be others bringing Okinawan Masters to the UK. I was very upfront with what I expected and with what I could offer. If they wanted remuneration I was hoping they would tell me. I did not want to lead with it as I felt that would be impolite. Otherwise, the other talking points were very much around association and membership, which I mentioned in my earlier post. And for me that was a non-starter as I did not want a new affiliation or membership, at least until they had visited at least once and thus shown willing. I am not sure if things were lost in translation or there were cultural differences I did not navigate as well as I thought I had, but I just brought the conversations to a close when I felt we were starting to go in circle. But I do want to make clear that I was asking them to do a lot of work in the time requested, and potentially without them seeing great reward for it, so I understood why it stalled. Not to be a pedant but Ohtsuka Meijin was only one of seven to be issued the first black belts by Funakoshi. Aside from Ohtsuka Hironori,Shodan grades were awarded to Gima Shinken, Kasuya, Akiba, Shimizu, and Hirose. Tokuda Ante was awarded a Nidan grade, making him the most senior of these first black belts. He had significant training in Karate before relocating to the Tokyo from Okinawa so may have been a matter of seniority rather than personal skill. Ohtsuka was already accomplished in Shindo Yoshin-Ryu at this point after all. There is also no evidence that Motobu's anecdote is true. The original source is from the work by Nakata Mizuhiko recording stories and anecdotes told to him by Motobu. Therefore, it is a second hand account. Furthermore, Konishi Yasuhiro, who was a student of Funakoshi at the same time as Ohtsuka, states that it was a story he was told and could not confirm nor deny the truth of it. We can also look at time lines to establish context. By 1928, Ohtsuka was one of Funakoshi's primary assistant instructors, and also training with Motobu Choki and Mabuni Kenwa. It was not until the early 1930s when they parted ways, with Ohtsuka registering his Wado-Ryu with the Butokai in 1934 marking his formal break from Funakoshi although their appears to have been an informal break earlier. That said, Ohtsuka is present in the original 1935 print of the Karate Do Kyohan, particularly in the Bukiwaza section. Ohtsuka was formally expelled from Funakoshi's association in 1935 though there are conflicting stories as to why. The official declaration was because he was teaching a style distinct from the Shotokan's. Either way, the idea he broke with Funakoshi to train with Motobu on the basis of this purported witnessed event does not line up with everything else. Anyway, to the broader topic of governing bodies. I do think it is a matter of whether one is an instructor or a student. It frames and shapes one's concerns. As an instructor, my concerns are very much value for money for my students, and access to training to make myself a better karateka. Plus, reassurance that the services that I am a member of the governing body for will be met. In contrast, thinking back to my time as a student predominantly, it was very much about accessing opportunities. Access to courses, the chance to compete if I wanted, and quality of instruction across dojo. However, over all, I think what is most important is access to a sensei. Someone to guide, advise, and teach you on to become better. Other than that, coaches. Even if they are otherwise peers who are better at you then some things that you can learn from. A governing body is ultimately a tool and like any tool it comes down to the craftsperson.

I should mention first that I have only travelled to Okinawa twice and have not maintained ties with the Kodokan directly since 2014, though I have contacts on Okinawa still. Arakaki Sensei died in 2013, and after my second visit and failed effort to find a teacher of equal quality I have not gone back. I admire his son Ryuta as a karateka, and he is much superior to myself, but he is not the teacher his father was and what he knows is more in line with the teachings of Higa Minoru Sensei (Kyudokan). And I did meet some excellent karateka whose time I appreciated deeply and as people I respect, and some I can call friends, but again they could not give me what I found with Arakaki Sensei. My current sensei spent five years visiting Arakaki Sensei regularly, and already had advanced training of over three decades before meeting him. I am also in contact, through the internet, with several other Kodokan groups. Thus, I have a lot of access to what remains of his student base, and our collective memory, without going to Okinawa. Arakaki Sensei did visit the UK in 2010 for a fortnight, where I followed him around for all the sessions he taught, and I travelled to Okinawa for a month long stay in 2011. Thus, I can somewhat address the question of: “It is easier for you to travel to the main school in Japan(or wherever else) or easier to do the opposite(invite/send for the chief to come to you?” From the perspective of a student, monetarily and life impact (Interrupting Work/Education et cetera) the easier of two for me to manage was the visit. It was far cheaper, and between the sessions I managed to work. I did not have to budget for it, significantly, or adjust my life to accommodate it. I think this would be true for most people. What I will say is I had very little one to one time with Arakaki Sensei during the course. But it did give me a taste of the quality of his karate and instruction, which convinced me to go to Okinawa. While there I was able to train with him every day, including classes at the Dojo. It meant helping take care of the dojo for the duration of my stay, but it was worth it. Much more expensive and did take up a whole month of my life, but the training was significantly more impactful. I have subsequently explored inviting some of the sensei I connected with to the UK, but after the third try I gave up. Each wanted different guarantees I could not make, or an affiliation I do not want. If I were part of their organisations, or running a bigger venture myself, it would plausibly be easier but I am reticent to join an overseas organisation with which I will have limited access at the prices required, and with the obligations expected. And for me, I wanted to bring them to help promote actual Okinawan karate in the UK, not for my own benefit so each attempt turned into a non-starter. I decided to stop asking as I felt it was impacting the friendships I had built.

I will have to echo the sentiments of Furinkazan and Wastelander regarding Kihongata. If you have the time to do kihongata, that time would be better served doing other exercises that help improve your fundamentals. Whether that is pure repetition without the distraction of the kata framework, partner exercises with resistance such as Ude Tanren or Pad-Work, or using striking tools such as Makiwara or Heavy Bags. Also, I would agree that one would get more out of the Pinangata with regards to Shuri Te, and that Pinan Nidan/Heian Shodan is more than simple enough for most people to begin with, and it also contains some novel techniques and ideas for Bunkai too. Thus, my least favourite kata thematically are Kihongata. I find them almost wholly redundant. To give a specific kata I would have to say Jitte. It has a feeling of incompleteness to myself, and that it is a collection of techniques spliced together but which have no unifying framework. The Kodokan version does not finish on the four Age Uke/Jodan Uke many styles do, and instead has a sequence from Kushanku spliced onto the end so one ends up facing the way one started. However, I believe that was Higa Yuchoku's innovation rather than it being reflective of an older version. That said, I do find it a useful vehicle, alongside Fyukyugata Ni/Geki Sai Ichi, to start introducing elements of Naha Te to my students at the brown belt level. And it was the first kata I was shown at the Kodokan when I first visited, so it has an emotional connection for me. It is just my least favourite as I always finish it feeling as though there is more to do, and because I cannot grasp its "flavour" I find it difficult to imagine bunkai I am happy with from it. To comment on the Pinangata I think that they are probably the kata with the greatest variety in complexity between styles. Because some have opted to keep them comparatively easy for relative beginners, or make them a more direct line towards the older kata they are drawn from, many modern versions lack novelty or nuance which make studying the pinangata themselves worth studying. In the Kodokan versions, as I learnt them, the sequences taken from Kusanku, Chinto, and Passai are performed in subtly different ways to how they are performed in their point of origin. Which when taken sequentially as part of the whole contextualise the sequences unique to the Pinangata in a wholly different way. Thus, I find benefit in studying them to explore the subtle differences. As one advances and learns how to mature their karate, one can also work back and introduce complexity to the pinangata. Now, in contrast to my study of the Wado-Ryu and Stito-Ryu versions, and being witness to the Shotokan versions, there is an absence of these subtleties and the pinangata lead directly into those styles versions of the older kata. One reason I did swap from Wado-ryu to Shorin-ryu is that I got bored of a sense of sameness throughout the kata, which undermined the sense of value in studying them all. Were I still studying and teaching from a Wado-Ryu base I suspect I would only be teaching Naihanchi, Kushanku, Chinto, and Seishan.

My short answer would be what my Sensei tells me I need to work on. He is the person I go to for insight on where I need to improve. At the moment that is exploring the kata I am considering for my Godan Grading. My longer answer, and considering my own insight, would be in two areas. For myself, it would be structural strength and proprioception. These are two areas I feel I can make progress on despite getting older, but will also give me the best hope of maintaining martial ability into the future. Thus, I am doing a lot of training around strength at points of maximum flexibility and strength under motion. Kettle Bells, Indian Clubs, Resistance Bands, and Body-Weight Exercises are what I am focused on exercise wise. As well as making use of a heavy bag and some other striking tools. Also, doing a lot of pushing/sticking hand exercises in classes too. The other area is as a coach, and what I would say my focus on there is working on my imagination. What I mean by that is exploring other bodies of knowledge outside of my own background, and experimenting more, while still balancing it with a structured approach for my student's to progress through. This is in Bunkai where I have experimented with other peoples interpretation of Kata movements, or adding in training drills to work on things I have identified my students need to work on.

In Kobayashi-Ryu Kodokan Naihanchi Shodan and the Pinangata should be performed deliberately. Which is to say, each move is done individually, with a focus on proper generation power and effective final structure. In that sense, the proper way to practice them is slowly, though the techniques should be powerful and dynamic. With regards to the Pinangata I do take this a step further with my own practice and with my students, and we practice the pinangata in a Taijiquan like manner. We perform the moves one at a time, and each move slowly, to ensure we have connected our waist movement to the technique, rooted one of our feet in a naihanchi manner, and maintained proper postural alignment through out. However, I do not find this approach useful with Naihanchi because the stance reduces the conscious effort needed, though does not eliminate it, to maintain good posture and rooting so one can focus on power generation. But with the Pinangata the complexity of the stance work makes it fruitful because the changes can cause slip ups in posture and rooting. I also teach the Rolling Bunkai (Our formal applications for gradings) alongside the Pinangata, so that my students can reference what they are hoping to achieve with the kata movements in terms of structure, foot work, and power generation. With kata practice I regularly have them do a move at a time, and then test their techniques with striking pads and tools. Essentially, I treat each kata like sanchin where the final posture and structure must stand up to scrutiny and pressure. This is also a useful way to teach proper breathing. Before we start I have everyone take a deep breath, almost like one is preparing to yawn, and expand the stomach muscles, and this helps promote diaphragm use. Then when running through the kata we can practice short exhalation and snatch breaths, which is the nature of breathing under fighting conditions. For myself when I rehearse kata I usually use the 3-2-1 method. Split the kata into three sections and do each three times. Then split the kata in half and do each half twice. And finally one final best effort. My own personal twist though is as follows: Three sections - 1. First time through do everything deliberately. One move at a time, root each time I change stance, and use maximum waist movement for power. Using natural breathing, move as I breath out and hold the technique until I have completed a natural exhalation. I am examining and getting in my mind what the best performance is of each technique. 2. Second time I flow through movements with the smallest amount of fixture between moves. I am testing how quickly I can achieve proper posture and structure, and what the minimum time is needed to generate good power. Basically, Bunkai/Combat speed 3. Balanced between deliberate movement and flowing movement. Working towards the flavour of the kata. Kobayashi-Ryu Kodokan kata should be quite deliberate and "sticky" whereas the Naha Kata I know I try to work to that distinction between Soft and Hard Techniques. White Crane and Koshiki Kata which have a more Chinese influence I try to make flow more, although, with Kihon Waza I always prefer to do those deliberately when they appear. Two Halves - 1. This is where I tend to experiment. The first time I may run it in a slow manner trying to isolate mistakes and take my time to correct any errors as I find them. Essentially a reset back to the first run through in three sections where I am trying identify my best performance factors. I might run it at a reckless speed where I am just trying to get through it quickly, and examine what disappears when I rush. I may perform it in Bunkai informed manner, where I break the sequences down into my interpretations of a potential applications, and perform the sequences in a bunkai like way closer to shadow boxing than a kata performance. Depends on what I am working on for that kata at the time. 2. The second time I will again worked towards a balanced approach reflecting the intended nature of the kata. Final Performance - This is supposed to be a best effort performance so I try to do the kata "straight" as it were. With regards to why Taijiquan practices as they do for the initial taolu, the best explanation I have encountered (In that it makes sense to me) is that it is because it is shadow wrestling. One is developing the proprioception to feel what is good structure when contact has already been established. You are maximising the connectivity of your body to push and pull effectively. If you move quickly and dynamically, that can be good for developing explosive power and striking ability, which is done in later Taijiquan taolu, but it will not build that foundation for sensitivity for posture. As I feel as though a lot of Karate Kata are likely examples of shadow wrestling, and are predominantly reflective of techniques for when contact has already been established, I have some what adopted this mentality. We practice slow for proprioception and structure, and fast for dynamic power.

This is why I introduce students to sumo. In my view it contains the essence of Self-Defence: When you opponent moves forward, move forward. When your opponent moves backwards, move forward. Seth of Sensei Seth somewhat demonstrated my assertion with his ultimate self-defence championship win. I think it is a matter of Miai with regards to the fundamental principle. Position before submission as is popular in Jujutsu circles springs to mind. Retreating by moving backwards moves us from where we can make our techniques effective. I try to drill into my students that when moving backwards it should be to correct distance for your techniques, not to just get away.

This has been harder to formulate an answer to than I thought it would. As a Shorin-Ryu Practitioner my answer would be Higa Yuchoku Hanshi. As the teacher of Aragaki Sensei, with whom I began studying Shorin-Ryu and who was the instructor of my current Sensei, it would be a fascinating way to return to the source. I did initially think Chibana Chosin, but Higa Hanshi's path to studying with Chibana Chosin, was not straightforward. He did not begin training with Chibana until 1948, which was 20 years into his karate training. Prior to that he studied with Shinzato Jinnan, Miyagi Chojun's Protégé, and with Miyagi himself. He also trained with Miyahira Seiei whom is credited for our unorthodox Seisan which is like Matsumura Seisan but follows a distinct embusen and shows influences from Naha Seisan. It would be fascinating to see what changed between Higa Hanshi and Aragaki Sensei, and also to have a chance to ask where some of the kata we practice come from as they are not part of the Kobayashi-Ryu core kata. As a martial artist, I think I would have to choose Matsumura Sōkon. He is an unavoidable "choke point" in terms of lineages, as he instructed teachers from whom much of modern karate comes. He had an undeniable influence on Shuri Te through his instruction of Ichiji Ankō, Yabu Kentsū, and Hanagusuku Chomu. And Tomari Te through his teaching of Kyan Chōtoku and Motobu Chōki. All of who in turn had influences on the founders of Modern Karate. Training with him would potentially solve a big part of my Seisan Research Puzzle, and possibly clarify the origins of other Kata he is reported to have taught. But, as a martial artist, he is credited as a peerless warrior in his generation, and his reputation over shadows others in that field. For learning the historic fighting skills of Te I cannot think of a better candidate. As an amateur Karate History Enthusiast, I would have to choose the mysterious Ryū Ryū Ko. Essentially, he is the biggest mystery in Karate history. Credited as the teacher of Arakaki Seishō, Higashionna Kanryō, Kojo Taitei, and Nakaima Norisato his alleged influence is not inconsiderable when compared to even Matsumura Sōkon. Indeed, he apparently taught a system potentially related to the systems that birthed Kingai-Ryū and Uechi-Ryū. However, considering how different all the systems he apparently influenced have become in the modern era, and indeed, how dubious some of the claims of training with him become under scrutiny, training with him would answer two questions: Did he actually exist and is not some form of cryptid, and what of his actual system survived into modern karate.

I would be reticent to agree wholly with the logic that we can split front kicks into Snap or Thrust purely based on encountering kicks which do not fit either concept wholly. That does come from my understanding of thrust meaning to penetrate forward through the target though, so this could be a difference in lexicon. That said I would make the following arguments. Tsumasaki Geri, or a Stab Kick to use the current Kick-Boxing/MMA Meta, is a snap kick. In the sense that the foot is snapped out to make contact as quickly as possible to cause pain on impact. It is, traditionally, aimed up into the soft tissue of the body most easily struck from below. This is also why the snap motion is functional as it allows the scoop up and under and use at extremely close range. In my experience with the Shogen-Ryu (Matsubayashi Shorin-Ryu) version the foot is also lifted back and under, rather than chambered forward, to minimise the space needed and maximise the eventual snap. Looking at the current Kick-Boxing/MMA approach as well, it is a snap kick too being used for speed of delivery versus the Teep/Front Thrust Kick for distance control or the traditional roundhouse for knockout potential and damage. In my experience, the use of the ball of the foot for a front kick appears to be a Shotokai-Ryu/Japanese Mainland Karate innovation. And although, on the surface, it snaps up the actual motion is to thrust through with the ball of the foot leading. Otherwise, you will hit with your toes or heel or miss entirely. Thus, on the surface the technique is snapped, some what like the Teep uses a lift of the foot to get the heel in line with the target, the snap up is to get the ball of the foot on target when connecting. As a result, it moves like a snap kick but is delivered with a thrust of the hip going forward to push through the target. Thus, I would argue it does not truly fit either descriptor entirely. I had mixed guidance in Okinawa to be wholly honest. I was first introduced to Kobayashi-Ryu Kodokan by my instructors that had ventured to Okinawa and brought back what they learnt. I then had the chance to train with Arakaki Sensei when he visited the United Kingdom, and I also went to Okinawa and studied with him directly. During those experiences I was directed to try and land the kick with the heel, so it is a definite snap of the leg up to get the arc to hit with the heel first. Also, you lead with the hip, so the twist of the hip is used as much to get the leg into the air as it is to follow through to deliver power. The guidance was always to chamber the knee above the waist, and to aim the knee at the final target before releasing the kick. The second time I trained with Arakaki Sensei himself, he was already quite ill, and we spent most of my time there on my fundamentals and Naihanchi Kata. He himself tended to kick low (Except during a demo), but recommended practicing kicking high to develop power and flexibility. Point being, I did not spend significant time on kicking with him to be certain I have been handed down the proper guidance. Furthermore, my instructors who trained him were themselves passed their days of high kicking, or were more focused on understanding the principles and getting the kata correct than kicking. That said, watching what footage of him there is of him doing Sochin he kicks with the heel, and footage of Sempai who spent more time with him also use the heel, so that is what I have settled on. Either way, a snap front kick. On my second journey I had the opportunity to do classes with several styles but eventually settled on a Kobayashi-Ryu Dojo for my second week when I got tired to the tour group. The dojo I settled at, run by Uema Sensei, taught to kick with the toes with a swift snap motion thus different to how I was shown or directed previously. But it was a different line down from Chosin Chibana. One Matsubayashi-Ryu Sensei I studied with, and I am inclined to say it was a Shinzato Sensei, taught kicks I felt were relatively modern in execution. A lot of driving the hip, hitting with the ball of the foot with front kick, and the inside of the foot for round house kick. With regards to Shogen-Ryu and Goju-Ryu I also found some that advocated the heel or the toes but always a snap kick. There did not appear to be a consensus. The only consistent one was Shorinji-Ryu where each teacher advocated to connect with the heel. Not unlike Shorinji Kempo to be fair. Overall, the theme seemed to be to get force up and into the body, thus the more subtle use of the hip. Controlling distance or doing damage through thrusting seemed to be the domain of Sokuto Geri or punching. I have only visited Okinawa twice for a total of six weeks and only trained with Arakaki Sensei for a fortnight when he visited the UK. Much of my knowledge comes from training with others with more time there than myself or relying on public materials.

“Monogoto ni suki konomu koto nashi (In all things have no preference)” – Dokkodo, Miyamoto Musashi It is a long time since I sparred for my own benefit. In the sense that I have not sparred to “win” in a while. We are all on the older side, and spread quite far and wide, in the association I belong to so when we get together sparring is far from our priorities. it is more to focus on refining the fundamentals, as it is easy to let bad habits form when you are not regularly scrutinised by your seniors, and learn new Kata and explore application idea. Thus, all my sparring is with my students who are much junior to myself, and my goal is to help them improve. The core of what I do when we spar is Sen Sen No Sen. Most use Sen Sen No Sen to mean the ability to anticipate and pre-empt an opponent’s action. However, in truth, if one studies the Kata of traditional Nippon Bujutsu, what is at play is guiding your foe towards what you want them to do. This can be seen in the Kumigata of Wado-Ryu and Kumitachi of Kendo to give more accessible, modern examples. With regards to free-sparring or fighting, Bas Rutten talks about this a lot where he works to put into his opponent’s minds an expectation which he then defies when the opportunity presents. For example, throwing low kick after low kick until the opponent starts to flinch in response to the sign of a low kick, and then throwing a high kick over the flinch response to guard low. To apply this to sparring, when I spar my students, I build my tactics and choice of techniques around two questions: 1. What are their bugbears and bad habits? 2. What are their strengths and best techniques? I try to do things which punish their bad habits in a manner that helps them correct them. And I also give them plenty of opportunities to use their strong points, so I am helping them gain confidence. In this approach it is important to consider a student’s level and confidence coming into the spar. A very confident student I may balance my approach to 80% punishment and 20% giving them opportunities to work their techniques. Someone who has little experience sparring before I might invert that entirely and only focus on punishing mistakes that would get them hurt in a competitive bout and otherwise let them practice landing their strikes or making their techniques work. Thus, I try to have no character to my sparring style beyond what my students need at the time. And so it is all sen sen no sen: my aspiration is to make them do what I want to make them better fighters. Which might be tactical, or I might go into it with a strategy based on what I know they need to work on. In terms of types of sparring, I use most of the time it is two forms of isolation sparring: 1. Kakei-Kumite 2. Renzoku Kumite Kakei-Kumite may be best understood as varieties of Sticking Hands/Pushing Hands. I tend to think of them as gamifications of various positions you can end up in during close quarter fighting. Single hand representing a single wrist grab or when your opponent has moved offline relative to you. Double hand representing a double wrist grab or even an attempt at a lapel or throat hold. Collar and Elbow, and backhold representing being caught in a clinch. And so do and so forth. I use them to isolate and practice grab releases and guard passes found in our Rolling Bunkai (We have association wide standard applications for the pinangata), against active and evolving resistance. Once students are confident in the gamified, back and forth, we then move onto versions where one starts in the actual, disadvantaged position the game reflects, and have to learn how to fight out of it. Also, I have introduced Kakedameshi, as mentioned by Wastelander and I highly recommend looking at his material on it, to my more advanced students. I use it as a means to explore applications from kata for which we do not have a set curriculum. Sometimes I also add Sumo rules to encourage active attempts to knock down or push the training partner because I often see a lot of positivity. For more advanced students I also allow them to continue on the ground, though the goal is to be the first to get back to their feet rather than focus on pinning or locking techniques. Renzoku-Kumite can have many meanings because Renzoku is largely translated as Continuous. The version I use in the dojo is a type of continuous, free-moving, isolation sparring. As in kakei kumite, for students, there are five rule sets each corresponding to a pinan kata. The attacker can only use the attacks practiced against in the Rolling Bunkai, and the defender is to try and use the deflections and receiving techniques from the kata and return with the practiced application. Depending on the students level, the attacks either come in the rehearsed order and as done in the basic exercise, or the attacker chooses an attack and may perform a variation on the foot work as long as the angle remains the same. I have other rules I apply as well when I want to get students working on a particular weakness or strength. We sometimes do light-sparring under what I would call free-style boxing rules when I want people to work on their hand techniques. In that if it is done with a closed fist, I consider it legal, and I allow some limited arm control and fighting in the clinch. Though if people are grabbing more than punching, I will pull it back to classical boxing. Coming up to and during gradings, or when I feel it is time for people to learn to spar, we do classic Sundome Jiyu-Kumite. With regards to ground work, we occasionally do a kind of isolation sparring where we start on the ground from different control positions, and the goal is for the one in the control position to work towards a finish, and the one at a disadvantage to escape the situation. For full-contact free-sparring I use Bogu Kumite under Nippon Kempo rules. This I usually reserve for my more advanced students coming up to grading for brown belt or black belt level. Stikes are to anywhere on the body, bar the usual banned targets, and takedowns and fighting on the ground are allowed. I allow controlled striking to a downed opponent, but it has to be to somewhere armoured, and from knee control, standing, or mount, to a maximum of five seconds. The only locks expressly banned are knee bars and neck and spinal cranks, but I tend to encourage my students to stay away from injurious techniques anyway, and when caught to tap before risk of injury. I am hesitant to offer my own selection of toys and tricks, but that is probably the old cynical competitor in me creeping out. One I find useful as a teaching tool is a reverse ridge hand swung up to head height from low. It is good for reminding a student to keep their hands up, because it can come very quickly from a blind spot and has more reach than a conventional hook. I used to use it in competition a lot too. I would throw a lot of straight techniques and get them used to watching my front hand and back foot for a jab or front kick. Then I would throw the ridge hand, let them see it at the last second, apply the Stockton slap to keep the guard high, and then come under it with a front round house or reverse punch. In terms of grappling, a tool I use with students is to brute force my way to controlling a limb or the trunk, make it obvious what I am trying to do, and the moment they fight that slip to another control position or path to a submission or takedown attempt. A hip toss to a body-lock take down is a favourite combination of mine. Mostly because they try to dance around my getting my hip in, which just lets me slip to the back. Anyway, those a couple of things I use as coaching tools.

Thank you for the the kind remarks. It was an honour and a pleasure to be asked to take part. To many more years of Karate Forums

That would be useful information to have to hand, Camotheman. Mark Bishop and Patrick McCarthy both write quite confidently about a Shuri tradition of Seisan, but their sources rely on anecdotal, verbal histories they have uncovered through interviews. It would be interesting to hear what you can trace back. I do have some updates to make to my prior entry. I have posted them elsewhere, but with this topic being revived, I will share them here. Unfortunately, I attributed far too much to Arakaki No Seisan. I have now become aware that the Aragaki No Seisan I am familiar with, and is the one probably practiced by the most people, likely has little to no connection to Arakaki Seisho. Rather it was a kata passed down to McCarthy from Richard Kim, and Mr McCarthy has acknowledged the potentially erroneous attribution, and openly stated that his current Arakaki Seisan is a personal development built upon the original. Plausibly, it came from Arakaki Sadou, a student of Yabu Kentsu, whom Richard Kim studied with in Hawaii. If so, Richard Kim probably called it Arakaki Seisan to say that is who he got it from. Either way, I am forced to discard it as informative of a historical seisan. An interesting side note is that in my research I can find nothing definitive about the Arakaki mentioned at the famous 24 March 1867 demonstration, who performed seisan, as being Arakaki Seisho. Nor can Graham Noble, a much more accomplished researcher than myself. However, it is clear Arakaki Seisho did teach Seisan as pretty much all his students did. Also, I have begun to doubt both the Ryuei-Ryu and Uechi-Ryu origin stories as to how they came from China to Okinawa. Ryuei-Ryu's seisan is suspiciously similar to Goju-Ryu's (Which I believe Miyagi modified based on his experiences in China), and Uechi-Ryu's to To'on-Ryu's. And although Uechi-Ryu's Sanrinryu/Sanseiryu is distinct, it shares many similarities with Niseishi when one studies the content. In short, much of their characteristics and content do not require the respective founders to have ever left Okinawa. It is also very telling that a Chinese form of Kempo has never been discovered that can be mapped convincingly to either style. Nor have researchers ever been able to find Ryu Ryu Ko, Kingai Roshin (Which brings the Matayoshi-Ryu origin story into doubt), or Shu Shabu with convincing evidence to any claim made. Thus, I am sceptical in using them as points of reference for my originally posited Chinese Pattern Seisan. Ultimately though, with regards to a Shuri Seisan I have yet to be able to trace back before Kyan Chotoku and the Tomari Tradition. Thus, the Matsumura branch, which I speculated to be an older Okinawan Pattern, is still bottlenecked at a Kyan origin point. And my Chinese Pattern hypothesis rests on speculation which relied on the Ryuei-Ryu, Kingai-Ryu, and Uechi-Ryu origin stories to be true. I am still moderately confident in my hypothesis that there is an older Okinawan Pattern that likely dates back to earlier Chinese immigration to Okinawa, and a later more modern Chinese Pattern brought back by Aragaki, Higoannna, and Miyagi, but the evidence I have access to is flimsy.

I have limited experience. It is something I have researched in an effort to find the proclaimed White Crane Heritage of Karate. Meaning I can only offer what I know on Fukien White Crane. Shaolin and Fuzhou fall outside my area of study. I will say I have been forced to conclude, based on the evidence I can find, that the only real concreate connection is the Nipaipo/Naipai kata introduced by Go Kenki. It may be a family set or an abridgement of Er Shi Ba, but that is based on a side-by-side comparison of the forms and not historical written or recorded verbal statements. Also, neither version of Nipaipo/Naipai feature the characteristic shaking power of most forms of White Crane. Though, I have seen footage of a Sanzhan Taolu which bears a resemblance to Higoanna Seisan (To'on-Ryu) and Shu Shabu Seisan (Uechi-Ryu), there is no documented proof to make a concrete connection. That aside, the following are usually where the systems differ: Shaking Power - This is characteristics of most modern forms of White Crane., Why I am not sure but I suspect the influence of the centralisation and characterisation of Quen Fa in modern China. However, the different lineages, and different teaches, emphasise it in different ways. Some will only display it with some techniques, and will otherwise flow smoothly from movement to movement. Others will expect some fixture between each technique with some display of power. Another factor is the maturity of the individual student, and the level of their technique. Breathing - Some schools emphasise the stylised and controlled breathing known as Ibuki in Goju-Ryu, and is likely the origin of said breathing in Goju-Ryu. Others focus on natural breathing though with the posture designed to promote breathing without impeding the diaphragm. The latter is my preferred approach, and I liked the logic I was given by the teacher, which is that we do not want our opponent to be able to read our breathing easily. Monkey Steals Peach has some great footage of training with various White Crane teachers. In regards to English Language Source most are quite poor, and some of the easier to find are by people with questionable credentials. Sorry I cannot be of more direct help

With regards to kobudo I would be more inclined to suggest that most differences are superficial. When handling a weapon it will give you a lot of feed back on the best way to handle it. Whether that is swinging it about to figure out how to generate speed and power, or working with a partner and testing structure and leverage. Thus, stylistic differences usually are just that: a matter of style. If one looks at kata you tend to see the same sequences repeat, just in a different order. The best way to handle the weapon usually shines through when tested against reality. In contrast, the human body is individual to each person, however similar the general shape and frame of the human body is to us all. It is also the most fundamental weapon everyone possesses. Thus, unarmed fighting styles have evolved in all cultures, and they are very much framed by the egoism of the teacher. Which is to say that whatever that teacher has learnt, has retained, and has determined works through experience, is what becomes their system. As a collection of levers and pullies built around a bendable structure, how we shape a technique also affects what it can do. As a result, how we choose to perform the technique dictates its tactical utility. Camtotheman and Aurik have already touched on the essential differences between a front kick with the toe forward and one with the ball of the foot forward. Each has a different tactical purpose. One is kicking into the body and the other through the body, and this is an important distinction. One is a tool for maintaining space and distance, and the other for doing damage on impact. Thus, even what looks like a superficial difference on the surface (The part of the foot being used to strike) it changes the techniques purpose entirely. And if a system is built logically, the nature of the techniques of the system will inform you of a system's general strategy and tactics very quickly. Even the hip thrust Wastelander mentioned can exist in many different ways. I will give two broad approaches. It can be used to try and catapult the limb which can lead to a quicker and more percussive strike. The double hip twist being a useful example of this approach's utility. However, it can be easier to see and if the timing is off the power diffuses before delivery. The other is to allow the weapon, in one example the fist, to lead and driving the hip in time with impact. The final structure, if tested is often stronger, and it can be harder to see coming. Michael Jai White's "Invisible Jab" is an example of this principle at work. However, because of the timing it can have reduced power and can lead to the target being pushed rather than hit with percussive force. Jodan Uke is another example where even a small difference changes the utility of the technique. If I bring the elbow up I may cover my head better, however, it is more poorly connected to my body. It opens the ribs up, and twists my trunk in a way that pulls my structure apart and weakens it. If I keep the elbow down only one side of my head is well covered, but my body structure is aligned better aligned for me to have power in the technique. Thus, it has more utility as a potential forearm strike or clearing technique in a clinch, or even a block against something I have seen at the last minute and just want to get something in the way of. And so on and so forth. When we examine deeply how the mechanics affect the final technique, we begin to recognise in what situations a technique is useful. Then the techniques we have in tool box determine our tactics when confronted with violence. Thus, there is no such thing as a superficial difference. There are differences a person has not thought about and so the thinking is superficial, but the results never are.

This is also true. Though, I think this is almost the domain of senior practitioners, coaches, and teachers. Which is to say it is a part of the process of Shu-Ha-Ri. Testing what one has been taught, finding out what works against pressure, and perhaps what must be discarded. For students, I would say the maturing part is gaining confidence in one's ability by seeing the proof one can make the technique work. That said, I agree that this is a key element of the intent of resistant training.

I tend to view the Naihanchi series as a progression in how to generate and deliver power. Shodan introduces us to the fundamental matters of posture and structure, and the turning of the waist to generate power. Nidan introduces power generated by moving up and down, and by bending at the waist. Sandan tests our ability to generate power with small, and flowing movement. Furthermore, Nidan contains the key parts of Shodan, and Sandan contains the key components of Shodan and Nidan. In that sense, I do think they are better practiced separately. However, I have found a benefit of practicing them as one as it highlights their different and shared qualities. Also, when running through them as one I usually do them different orders. Starting at Sandan and going in reverse, or starting at Nidan and then working back to Shodan then onto Sandan or vice versa. I have found it more beneficial, personally, to experiment with Motobu Choki's advice to practice Naihanchi by going forward and back to see the applications. I got to learn a version of Naihanchi Sandan called Motobu Naihanchi which did just that. It came from Steve Cattle, and I suspect he got it from Motobu Ha Shito-Ryu but I am not 100% sure of its origins. I have given Shodan and Nidan the same treatment and it has been interesting. Sometimes I run through them in a manner similar to Sanchin, with a focus on proper structure and breathing. Other times I run through them in a flowing manner, and go through stances which feel natural in the moment. I look forward to the video. There is definite value in the exercise because Naihanchi is a treasure trove, and coming to it from a different angle always brings something new to the fore.