Wado Heretic

I would be hesitant to call the Japanese variation "watered down" largely because of the history of Goju-Ryu after the death of Miyagi Chojun. There are many variations of Okinawan Goju-Ryu, and each with its own particular flavour; depending on when the founder of said branch trained with Miyagi, the kata and variations of said kata they were taught, and the hojo undo that was emphasised. Japanese Goju-Ryu, or Goju-Kai (one of the tell tale signs by the way), in contrast was essentially the work of one man; Yamaguchi Gōgen. The main differences are the introductory kata; Okinawan Goju-Ryu largely uses the Gikisai/Fyukyugata kata, where as Goju-Kai or Japanese Goju Ryu makes use of the Taikyoku series as modified by Yamaguchi. Japanese Goju-Ryu also tends to favour conventional Jiyu Kumite as would not be unfamiliar to a practitioner of Shotokan or Wado-Ryu, as well as Yakusoku Kumite. In contrast Okinawan Goju-Ryu favours Kakei Kumite, Bunkai, and its own form of of Free Sparring known as Irikumi, which can either be light-contact (Ju) or full-contact (Go). Edit: I have also noticed that Okinawan Goju-Ryu schools are more likely to offer kobujutsu, or require some familiarity with weaponry as a grading point. However, that is far from universal, as I know of a Goju-Kai affiliate who does teach Kobujutsu.

So long as you keep your muscle mass proportional, then gaining muscle mass is not actually a bad thing. It is about a balance between body-fat ratio, flexibility, and muscle mass then anything else. It is gaining so much muscle as to lose flexibility, or gaining mass without reducing body fat that is troublesome. If you want to lose weight, then you do need to do some degree of resistance training. Yoga, callisthenics (without and with weights), and light weights at your maximum range of movement, are perhaps your best bet for losing weight and improving your martial arts performance at the same time. You should also favour compound movements, though curling is good for grappling techniques, and perhaps use the Bruce Lee approach of sets going light-heavy-light in pattern. It is a useful method for developing strength without excessive muscle mass again.

Yes, competition can feed the dangerous illusion of a "strongest"; when the reality is that some one out there will have the skills to beat us at physical chess eventually, that age will begin to rob us of ability, and that when no one is playing by the rules there are many equalisers out there. However, saying that, competition can have a positive effect on big fishes in small ponds. Being the best fighter in the dojo/gym but then getting yourself checked at a competition can be a useful learning experience.

I think this is a fair point; the rules do protect one from certain tactics, and techniques. If one looks at Pancrase, and those who moved from Pancrase and Hybrid Wrestling, to actual MMA; even the best among them struggled with the issue of positioning to deal with striking on the ground (as gentleman's agreements, and crowd opinion had rendered it de facto illegal at Pancrase's height), and also the fact the restrictions on face punching in Pancrase had left them in the dust with regards to boxing acumen in MMA. Also the early years of the UFC, and the days of Pride, which as events were essentially Vale Tudo with only the classic courtesy rules; no dirty fighting such as eye gouges, fish hooking, or groin attacks, but otherwise no holds barred, and full contact striking. There were a couple of early UFC where the groin attack rules were relaxed (As Keith Hackney and Dan Severn can attest), but they were in the minority, and when someone tried said tactic it was the exception not the rule. However, I think the reality is that even combat sports demonstrate who is the better fighter between the competitors. Regardless of rules; it is whom takes the opportunities presented by their opponent's mistakes, and creates their own opportunities to use, and avoids making the most mistakes that will win. This is also true of mutual combat/street fighting; who ever makes best use of their chances will walk away the victor. Speaking of psychology as well, in the realm of mutual combat people will usually fight "fairly"; that is fight within the realms of society's perceived notion of clean fighting. This can be seen in trends in violence where in the past a clean fight was to put up your fists, and essentially box to the finish, as boxing was the de facto combat sport as known to the public in the west. Now with the advent of MMA, tactics such as tackling or kicking which might once have been seen as "unfair" are now often seen as fair game in mutual combat/street fighting, as MMA is the leading combat sport in terms of popularity. People generally also hold back from striking where they are most afraid to be hit, when fighting cleanly, as the moment you attempt what society considers "dirty" it is essentially open season on those tactics. Also there is a fundamental difference between self-defence and mutual combat. In self-defence one is often seeking to regain the initiative, as you have been attacked, or to escape combat altogether with minimal harm; where as a street fight is mutually agreed upon. In self-defence you might jump straight to striking the vitals as you may have only milliseconds to judge how to defend yourself, or indeed you might be outnumbered, in a vulnerable position to begin with, or your attacker is armed. There is no pacing, feeling your attacker out, or other elements common to a combat sport bout; it is roughly do or die. In contrast, in mutual combat, although the rules are not concrete, or necessarily existent, the combat is consensual; both sides have agreed to it. Thus both sides will generally follow societal norms regarding their conduct, there will be a concrete starting point to the fight, and excepting extreme cases the combat will usually end with surrender or at worst one party knocked out. Thus street-fighting is somewhat similar to a combat sport in these regards, as one can pace one-self, feel the opponent out, and so on and so forth. Now, there are differences in weapons and techniques between mutual combat/street fighting and combat sports; a bare-knuckle more readily cuts the face up, and is more easily broken as well, plus clothes can provide handles for grappling techniques which one might not encounter in combat sports outside forms of Jacket Wrestling. Clothes could also be used as a weapon as well; smothering someone with your t-shirt by holding them in a face-lock just as an example. Similarly, if shoes are worn, which is to be expected, they can be used as a weapon in them-selves. Thus in mutual combat/street-fighting there are non-implicit weapons, which might only become a weapon due to necessity or opportunity. So, to put it in a short fashion; it is all down to taking and creating opportunity. So the underlying formula between winning a free-fight, no matter the rule set (so long as it is a relatively liberal rule set) is no different than winning a mutual combat in other circumstances. However, if the rules are strict, then it does create a maladapted approach to fighting, and that is the danger of rules sets with regards to training for self-defence.

The short answer; Competitive sports sink or swim by entertainment value, and the leisure of the sporting commissions. A longer answer; A reduction in weight classes would lead to less competitive (read as entertaining) fights, and probably would not sit well with the commissions. The introduction of weight classes was one of the factors which lead to greater acceptance of MMA for example. As little as a seven pound difference in weight can make all the difference over a prolonged bout, and when it comes to two fighters of equal skill it is the stronger that will generally win. At the highest level where most fighters have an elite skill level, weight is one of the few factors between fighters. To be fair, there are catch-weight bouts, which accommodate differences in weight that fall outside of conventional boundaries, in most combat sports. Plus, one can still find open-weight bouts and tournaments in Japan easily enough, and there is always Brazil's Vale Tudo scene. Anyway; yes, weight control is unrealistic in terms of self-defence training, but alive training which introduces unfair factors is for the dojo, or the gym as the case may be. Combat sports are sports first, and thus should aim to offer fair opportunities to successfully compete to everyone. Weight classes, although not realistic when compared to the realities of self-defence, are just an aspect of fairness.

I research them, and use them as a guide, but I place more emphasis on results than recreation or rediscovery. If after research and pressure testing, we find they work in a semi-controlled situation we will codify and maintain our discoveries. Hojo Undo is an integral part of our training regime and we do focus on conditioning all our tools, and we do contextualise the techniques by working them against kigu. A lot of the more unusual looking waza after all make little sense without testing and seeing how they can work. Plus, I take a homogeneous approach to conditioning; the smallest cogs in the wheel must work as smoothly as the largest. Plus, even in doing a "safe" technique which does not use a conventionally vulnerable body part, in the chaos of actual combat the difference of a millimeter can lead to one hurting them self. So one cannot realistically dismiss any part when it comes to conditioning. When it comes to Bunkai; I might give hints as to ways to implement certain techniques, with relation to the ideas of koppo or kyushu, but I generally favour a "flinch" response, and retaking the initiative approach to the kata. To paraphrase Motobu Choki, the kata were not intended for the battlefield nor to face an opponent in an arena, and that they have limitations. Also, Mabuni Kenwa emphasised the ideal of spontaneous defences that can arrise from the kata. I do not know the original intents of the kata movements, and I am not sure any one does; so I prefer to experiment, find my uses, and then help others in finding their own. In terms of structure of teaching; I do generally introduce kihon waza, where the analogous technique has been covered in the kata now being worked on. However, I do generally view kihon-waza as hojo undo; techniques to improve physique, hence the often exaggerated movements of kihon-waza. I prefer to refine the actual techniques for combat through pad-work, and through testing the kata movements.

Piece of advice one: Never get caught in a hammerlock; the reality is that once it is in, it is hard to do anything about it. Two: Standing arm-locks of all varieties have one general weakness; muscle on muscle is weak versus bone on bone. If you can force a muscle on muscle connection, that will help. Especially do not let them get hand control if you can help it; being controlled at the wrist is bad enough but you will still have a chance. Three: The two hands on one rule; if this is how they have achieved the lock, instead of going for a chicken-wing face-lock or other form of head control, you will still be free to move your head, and will have your other arm free. To reiterate Wastelander's point; using your free arm to resist can buy valuable time. Whatever you do, do not reach around your back to resist, but around the front.; also try to reach for hair, or punch in the face if you can. Four: Maintain a strong base, and attack their base; if they cannot topple you, or feel they are at risk of being toppled by maintaining the lock, they might voluntarily let go to go for another technique. The important thing is to move, and this to again repeat a point is where limp-arm can be a valuable tactic. Save limp-arm for when you plan to act. Also a roll out, especially if you can get your attackers leg caught up can do the trick. However, do not try a stomp or other base sacrificing attack, it will just end badly, and keep your weight centered, until you intend to act. It will come down to finding the opportunity. Five: Never let someone get a hammer-lock; there are no quick solutions if someone has gained that level of arm control, and your chances of failure are much higher than success even with the best advice. Now I realise I have made this point twice; but I feel it is so important it should be made twice.

Self-defence starts with common sense; you should probably have your introductory session start with statistics, and discussion. What are the primary dangers of your society and community, and in what ways are the people coming to your session making themselves vulnerable. Then you need to address the common forms of physical attack from a stranger, and how they initiate their attacks. What sort of deceptions are often used or in what ways to might make yourself vulnerable to an ambush. After that is established you can work more towards the technical side. I would say that I would place emphasis on the grappling or body-to-body range; how to escape when someone is trying to restrain you or has already initiated their attack, and of-course include "dirty" fighting tactics in these methods but remember to emphasise technique over quick solutions. Maybe include some methods of restraint that do not require excessive use of strength and energy; such as the ashi sankaku garami (omoplata to use it's better known name). You do not exactly want a criminal getting away if you have the opportunity to stop them after all. In terms of 12 techniques; hammer-fist, palm-strike, fore-arm strikes (Tools which you do not have to harden or condition to hit hard with), basic deflections with the arms, the outside 90 (S.P.E.A.R), how to clinch and break it (with an emphasis on arm and head control over head control alone), how to sprawl, how to pull guard and use it to dissuade an attacker if you are knocked to the ground, how to escape being mounted, the technical stand-up, the omoplata and other restraints from similar positions (as mentioned prior), and maybe one or two very simple take downs or sweeps to force an attacker away and off of you. I concede the above is probably best geared towards younger adults than those on the older spectrum, but I would say conceptual based teaching will help better than focusing on specific techniques. The issue I take with specific techniques is that the training experience does not always scale to reality; plus refining techniques takes a huge investment of motor memory. However, broad ideas and drilling said broad ideas are often more quickly absorbed. Plus, you reduce the burden on techniques if you spend time on educating the group on how to reduce the chance they will suffer a physical attack to a minimum. Weapon awareness could also be a factor, and thus training with regards to weapons should be implemented, but with regards to knives and hand weapons. Every time you cover a new technique you should cover how knives and other weapons inform the use of the technique. Saying all that; your original concept, and what is suggested by Nidan Melbourne, are not a bad direction to go with the time you have available.

I would argue as soon as possible; weapon training helps in developing o-waza, power, speed, and with regards to partner work helps develop timing, distancing, and the principles of tai sabaki in general. Plus, it helps develop a healthy respect for the danger of weaponry, and pain, early on. However, I would also state that sometimes it is wise to forbid weapon training until later in training. Sometimes people just do not wish to do weapons, and will not consider them a worth while venture, until after a degree of investment in training. Also, until you are sure of a student's innate competency and ability, you as a teacher might not wish to put anything as dangerous as a weapon in their hands. Annoying; as usual, it will come down to the individual student. The best compromise I ever found was to make the minimum age to train with weapons 14, and offer kobujutsu as a session in of itself that people could come to if they wanted to put the time in. I also do not consider weapons "mandatory" until Sankyu, but that it will not be grading material until Ikkyu.

I would say the positives and negatives of Aikido can come down largely to the "style" of Aikido one encounters; There is the aforementioned Yoshinkan, which places great emphasis on self-defence techniques, and is used by several Japanese police forces, runs the infamous Senshusei course, and has influenced other approaches to civilian self-defence programs. However; should it be judged by the Senshusei course? I would consider it up to debate as intense training will usually produce intense results, plus most police officers train in numerous models of self-defence so the effectiveness of the style should be judged in that context. There is also Yoseikan Aikido; a system within Yoseikan Budo, which incorporates techniques from Judo, and has a significant body of Atemi-Waza lacking in other Aikido schools. Again though, the question becomes whether it is effective as a stand alone discipline, or whether it should only be studied as an aspect of Yoseikan Budo; this then further blurs the line between how effective the Aikido training is. Could also add to the discussion the Shodokan style. It incorporates randori against unarmed opponents, and versus an opponent armed with tanto (a rubber one ofcourse). Although the point is to be better prepared for self-defence, rather than as a combat sport, the question remains whether the simple introduction of alive training makes up for any technical deficiencies in Aikido. Although loath to add it due to Seagal's reputation there is also Tenshin Aikido. It practices Randori, and emphasises realistic attacks at speed, and allows the use of punching, kicking, and grabbing at speed. Again, one has to debate effectiveness in context. From memory I have just listed a few examples of Aikido which might produce results applicable to self-defence. It does also largely come down to the individual with regards to effective self-defence. As I have said to students; I can teach you the techniques, how to improve them through exercises, and how to in theory apply them. I can drill you with anti-flinching drills, condition you to being hit and fighting a resisting opponent through sparring, and we can do awareness and de-escalation training. However, I will never know nor can I teach someone to be ready to fight; they will sadly only know if they are a natural fighter when they finally get into a fight. Whether they have the mentality to put it all together in reality is up to them, and out of my power. Saying this, a huge negative in general of Aikido is the lack of alive training and adaptive models of training. Although it is not a magic bullet, reality based training with a high level of aliveness does far improve the chances of a student to apply their skills when needed. A positive of Aikido is that it will teach you the value of Ukemi-Waza, and will hone your reaction skills, hand speed, and foot work. Also, as unhelpful as anecdotal evidence can be, I have picked up a number of useful passive locks and pins from Aikido; which in the event I ever need to detain someone I would use over any number of the wrestling and jujutsu holds I know. A main issues I think most Aikidoka find in expanding their arts is two fold; 1. The question of "when am I no longer doing Aikido". The idea of what Aikido is and is not is quite simple but has been rendered complex. To Ueshiba it was a matter of the path of least resistance; to use your opponent's force against him, and to retake the initiative. As the rough translation goes; the majority of aikido is atemi. 2. Where do techniques which take the initiative, such as tackles and means of striking, fall within the scope of Aikido ethos; to not engage in aggression. Some incorporate many new techniques, and I have seen it more often than not, identify what they are doing as some variety of Gendai Budo Aiki-jujutsu, simply to avoid these questions. Abandon the name Aikido so one does not need to defend one's own interpretation, and do not confront the moral questions by again disregarding them. This I would call the final negative; Aikido is very difficult to navigate.

Yes, that was my main problem with the anti-grappling material. It is against a complacent opponent, and against a Wing Chun Student, who has watched the techniques and knows how to do them; but has never done them against a resisting opponent who knows what they are doing, nor has actually used them to finish a spar on the ground. It demonstrates some interesting ideas about applying Wing Chun to that dimension of fighting; however, a lot of it we can see is non-functional simply by observation, but I think some might be worth trying through pressure testing. Just to see whether the idea of Wing Chun Anti-Grappling actually has any basis in reality, and if turning the idea into repeatable and practicable drills is possible and worthwhile. I would take any of the Koppo material with a pinch of salt, but some of it is interesting, and thought I would share as it seems applicable to the topic. As mentioned it had moderate to almost no success in the early days of Vale Tudo and free-fight, and Seishi Horibe definitely overestimated what he was teaching. However, it is very close to what I imagine full-contact Wing Chun sparring might look like, and does work from a similar range; so beside Jeet Kune Do it is perhaps the closest a Wing Chun student might find to applied Wing Chun. Glad it has been appreciated. I would say every art has a specialty; something its founder and then following propagators emphasised as the most practicable tactics or tactics for combat. For Wing Chun this would be the blitz, for karate that would be Ikken Hissatsu, and for Brazilian Jujutsu eliminating advantages by forcing the fight to the ground where skill matters most. Should every art be adaptive or specialise is a question for those who propagate the art, and I think the age of the one dimensional art has come to a close, but it is a fair point that no single method of instruction should attempt to a be a 1 shape fits all. Flexibility in self-defence, and flexibility in free-fighting are quite different, and should be accounted for. All I would say is that when it comes to grappling, you do need to roll with people who know how to grapple; it is the only safe way to practice grappling against a resisting person. Grappling in a resisting manner when you have two people with no clear idea is just dangerous, and inviting injury.

It would not be all that difficult for an experienced student of Wing Chun to include or add grappling to their repertoire. After all they would not be the first to begin the process; The late Larry Hartsell's work, and the on going work of the Jun Fan/Jeet Kune Do Grappling association is one. Yes, it is not strictly Wing Chun, however the entering into trapping and grappling material is very applicable to the signature range of Wing Chun, and can be used as an extension to conventional Chi Sao and Chi Gerk with some imagination. Here is a link to the website; http://www.jkdassoc.com. There has already been a movement of so called anti-grappling in Wing Chun, and from my taste of it and what I have seen, it does not live up to its expressed goal and aim. Mostly because it has been created by Wing Chun purists who have a concept of grappling based on observation, but not experience or actual experimentation. However, I believe some of it could still be used for inspiration if put under appropriate pressure testing; one could possibly eliminate the absurd from the plausible, and create workable "sprawl and brawl" tactics. Here is a you-tube example of some of it; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBhkm9copcA. It is actually probably one of the better examples out there, and even then it is somewhat lacking in sense when one understands what grappling with a non-passive opponent is like. Another source I am hesitant to add as it is not strictly Wing Chun is the Koppo of Seishi Horibe. As seen in this video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ux0VzIA8, Koppo worked from a range very similar to that of Wing Chun, and includes a degree of sohpisticated grappling. I suspect it could serve as a springboard to some ideas. It was somewhat road tested in Vale Tudo at the Koppo vs Keisyukai events; with one loss and one win to the Koppo fighters at the first event, and a collection of draws for the second event. Though, it must be added that the two Koppo fighters who partook in the Universal Vale Tudo 2 were defeated in their first fights. However, a few early shoot-fighting/Hybrid wrestling pioneers including Funaki Masakatsu, also trained in it. The main problem though is deciphering the material if one is not a Japanese speaker, and the material that exists in video is not of great quality nor easy to access even if one is. However, there is a number of videos on youtube, and if one is only using it for ideas rather than to follow faithfully it could still be useful. The issue with Wing Chun, or any traditional martial art, and the addition of sophisticated grappling is that in many cases it does fly in the face of K.I.S.S; keep it stupid simple. A principle most pragmatic self-defence arts were built around; barring only to an extent the arts as developed and maintained by the warrior classes, for use on the battlefield which required sophisticated skills which acknowledged different dangers than civilian self-defence. Wing Chun though, has largely been a vehicle for civilian self-defence, and relies on the simple tactic of the blitz at its most basic level. The blitz is one of the favourite methods as used by muggers, a vicious continued attack to overwhelm their victims defence. It is also one of the more instinctual methods as employed by the untrained in a physical confrontation; in an average fight around 8 punches are thrown by either fighter, and the fight lasts seconds. Wing Chun merely refined this into a tactic based on quickest point from A-B to outpace the common attackers untrained offense, and integrated the other basic premise of pragmatic self-preservation; attack where you are most afraid to be attacked, in other words the easiest to hit vital points, while defending your own vulnerabilities. Its third, and most advanced tactic, is to undermine the attackers footing, and to prevent him moving forward, or out of combat. Sophisticated grappling does not naturally come into this way of thinking, when the point is to outpace an attacker and recapture the initiative; compared to combat sports or combatives where gaining the priority is as important as recovering it. This defensive way of thinking can be viewed in Karate, Kempo, other schools of Quan Fa, and other forms of pragmatic self-defence which developed in relative ages of peace or within the realm of civilian violence, rather than in times of war or among professional soldiers. Can one add sophisticated grappling to the traditional arts, yes, but one must beware not to tack it on, and also keep one eye on the original goal of the art. However, I would argue it would take one becoming obsessed with grappling for at least two years, if you have any talent for it, and getting to a point where you can finish people on the ground before one can realistically add grappling to their over all skill-set; in terms of bringing it all together in free-sparring and training drills. A good start for a would be Wing Chun Grappler might actually be Muay Thai, or Saimese Boxing in general, and learning how to clinch and understand the subtleties of Kubi-Sumo. It would better fit the usual range Wing Chun fights within.

Yes, Ukemi waza has saved me from a few nasty falls on ice, and trips on my wilderness hikes. The flexibility, and strength training, has also helped a multitude of ways in making life easier. One-dimensional thinking is I suppose the hall-mark of half-learners though; they half-learn about something and then seem to believe they know all there is to know. One knows Martial Arts is for fighting or evolved from the need to fight, thus it's benefits come only when one needs to defend them self.

Depends on what you mean by "entry"; most martial arts school have some structure to their teaching, designed to build one up from step one. Now, to be fair; some schools and systems would be unsuitable for someone who has undergone a long period of sedentary living, or is recovering from a significant injury leaving them with chronic problems, and other examples where a person is not at the average level of fitness. For example boxing, kick-boxing, Judo, and wrestling can be quite rough no matter how well structured the training is just because of the focus of said arts and sports. Other schools can be quite gentle to enter into, and suit most people no matter their level of fitness. Goju-Ryu can be either kind of school depending on the school. Some place great emphasis on physical conditioning and a degree of hard sparring, while others are a little more laid back and more egalitarian. So my advice would be to go see the school, and judge for yourself whether it is the right kind of intensity for you to get back into it.

It is a Sensei's job to teach the process and concept of "Bunkai"; to give the student the tools by which to analyse a kata. This can include potential applications, or suggested applications for kata movements, however, it is up to the student to develop their own understanding and use of said kata movements. To qoute Mabuni Kenwa; "If one sufficiently and regularly practices kata correctly, it will serve as a foundation for performing - when a crucial time comes - any of the innumerable variations." That is to say, it is the practice of the kata, and understanding the kata principles, that matters over any individual drill or application. Applications are a dead end to an extent; rather, developing the ability of Bunkai for yourself is what matters. I will finish qouting Mabuni Kenwa again; "Even if you practice the kata of karate, if that is all that you do, if your other training is lacking, then you will not develop sufficient ability. If you do not also utilise various training methods to strengthen and quicken the functioning of your hands and feet, as well as to sufficiently study things like body-shifting and engagement distancing, you will be inadequately prepared when the need arises to call on your skills."

I have always been opposed to kata competition; especially inter-style, primarily as it becomes a dance competition. It becomes a show emphasising aesthetics and athleticism, over the development of effective technique and retention of combative principles. A stated though, just an opinion, but it is the only way in which I am opposed to gamification, and sport as an aspect of karate culture. I am not sure where I stated it else where, but the sport variety of kumite is not karate, nor is it reflective of karate as a whole. It is just a part of modern karate culture a person can take part in, or not. This is true now, and remains true whether it is an Olympic sport or not. For a long time now karate-ka have taken different paths; it began with the divergence between the Okinawan and Japanese disciplines, before beginning to diverge between sport and traditional karate, and now in the modern age the divergence between different varieties of sport karate and those karate-ka who identify their approach as reality based. If point kumite becomes an Olympic sport; those who partake in point kumite are the ones who will benefit, or suffer, for it. Those of us who do not might have our opinions, but by virtue of non-participation we really have no influence or say. The greater exposure might be a boon to karate in general, or it might encourage a move in the greater community to "Olympic Karate", but that has always been true. MMA has motivated many towards modern "reality based" training, or towards the incorporation of sophisticated grappling, or in the opposite direction towards emphasis on "tradition". What will be. Daido Juko would be interesting, but to many it can appear like MMA in a Gi, with added protection. If knock down was the way, perhaps a Sabaki rule-set which emphasises positioning and use of targets, and allows limited grappling could work. However, end of the day, as Kusotare has pointed out, it has to be acceptable to the IOC and the audience. Knock-down would have to be done using gloves and maybe shin-protectors, and perhaps even helmets; it would no longer be knock-down as it is known. Plus knock-down rules are still the fringe in karate competition, larger than it once was but still relatively small. Also, it cannot be participated in until one is an adult; it has too small a talent pool, and a lack of appeal to be a serious consideration. Plus, the IOC has already accepted the standing WKF application; it is no longer up to debate. I for one dislike Judo and Tae Kwon Do being olympic sports; I would rather replace them with Jacket Wrestling, and maybe some form of padded kick-boxing not unlike Nippon Kempo. No style specifics, just rule sets that allow people from multiple disciplines to be competitive in them.

I have heard compelling arguments for and against the Makiwara. I still like to use it, but I use it in a very specific manner, and it is but part of my training. It is useful for developing the trip muscles, and proper contraction, for delivering power with your punches; however, you need a bag to develop strength for punching, and to condition the joints to the weight of a target. Grip training devices, and working with light weights can also offer similar results (for the muscles) as makiwara. Some will talk of the use of the makiwara for developing the knuckles; but really that is just a side-effect, and often one that comes from poor care of the hands. If you intend to use a makiwara, then be prepared for after care for your hands, as you can inflame the knuckles which weakens and make them sensitive over time. Large calluses, and flattened knuckles, often represent a weakened fist rather than a developed one. Look for the triceps and chest for punching ability. I use a makiwara, as I find it adds to my training; however, for more immediate results I would suggest a heavy bag, hand weights, and grip trainers. I would add though that the famous, or infamous, Kimura Masahiko used a makiwara and claimed that after he began using one he began his undefeated Judo streak.

His integration of boxing theory into how he moves towards his opponent, and his use of clinching and throwing to eliminate his reach disadvantage have always impressed me and frankly is perhaps the key to his dominance. He has fast hands and feet but none I would say are outstanding for his division and level, however, it is how he has put those into a basis for a very effective strategy, and that he has the instincts and reactions to make best use of his abilities that have made him dominant. Would be interesting to study under him at some point, I no longer compete in that kind of competition, but I have the feeling I'd still learn something valuable I could take away. I would face him on the tatami, and lose, but can not win every match, and if one enters a competition then you can enter to lose as much as you might intend to win. I did like the snowballs; have used a tennis ball throwing machine in the past, but can see how having someone throwing snowballs would add much more randomness and be closer to what he is practicing for.

I personally say keep the kata out of it, at least for now. If Karate can become a recurring Olympic sport then perhaps in time consider the kata, but we should take a hard look at the other combat sports in the Olympics. Not even TKD has a forms division. In terms of what the Kumite should be; as a tournament format one has to consider the health of the participants, and also how to distinguish karate as an event from TKD and boxing. I do not think Knock-Down alone can accomplish that, as to the uneducated eye I suspect it would appear like brawling. I do not think the WKF's point style would be a terrible representation; it does allow sweeps and throws, finishing blows to a downed opponent, and it is pretty fair in it's regards to how many points a successful punch or kick is given so does not encourage "head-hunting". It should be continuous with light to medium contact, with a bit more restriction on levels of protection, but otherwise I do not think it would be the "wrong" type of kumite. I find it an entertaining enough spectator sport, plus it is one children can participate in and grow up with. Personally; my inclination is that the Olympics should have Boxing, Kick-Boxing, MMA, Jacket Wrestling, Submission Grappling, and Knock-down/Throw-down Wrestling. These would provide opportunities for a lot of cross-over competition, and the inclusion of more traditional and folk traditions from across the world into events.

Have I stagnated? Have I reached a dead end and need something to pull me forward, challenge me, to keep me improving? All new things come with a cost; it's a cost to benefit ratio challenge. By the sounds of it, little cost for a lot of benefit, however, it is the hidden costs. If I already have stability, and a lot of responsibility, but am still moving forward in many ways; I would not take it. However, if it is time for something new, then I would. Comes down to where I am in terms of challenge. If my MA journey does not have regular skin of the teeth moments, I suspect I am stagnating. Comfort is the enemy of ambition, and ambition is the fuel of success.

Very much so; when I transitioned from Kenpo to Wado-Ryu I thought I had good foot-work and soon discovered I really did not. Then when I transitioned from Wado-Ryu to Shorin-Ryu I soon discovered I really had no idea how to throw a decent punch. No indictments against said styles, but yes; every time I try something new it reveals to me holes I have.

I follow a semi-rotating curriculum in that I do choose a particular sets of skills to work on, which are all connected, and have the club work on that for three weeks. Every forth week I sort of wing it as the saying goes; so I can figure out what the next rotation needs to be focused on. It is a little more complicated in practice but the basic logic is this: First I pick a kata, and isolate a particular technique or sequence from it. For example Pinan Nidan; Oi Zuki Jodan. So during kihon, I will place extra emphasis on Oi Zuki Jodan, but we will still do other kihon-waza. During kata practice we will palce extra focus on Pinan Nidan, but also bunkai resolving around Oi Zuki Jodan. Lastly, during kumite, emphasis will be on the use of the Oi Zuki Jodan in self-defence and kumite, and resolve around drills including said technique. Also, Hojo Undo will focus on hand speed, accuracy, and power developing exercises. I find this works due to how I structure my lessons; I have a dedicated kumite, and Kihon/Hojo Undo session after standard classes each week, so this gives focus to that structure. However, such a model I have used with a club that has become established. Originally I used a rotating/advancing curriculum I planned to take place over 23 weeks or so, so it would rotate, but each rotation would then be more challenging by introducing more difficult drills and so on. I do find rotating works, but you must be flexible and work on a scale which suits your student base, and can be adapted to the individual needs of students; some will advance much quicker than others and some much slower.

I personally have no problem with people cross-training, as long as they do what I say when they are on my dojo floor. I do not mind them bringing in skills they have learnt elsewhere during free-sparring, as I am very liberal with the rules, but both sides have to consent to how liberal it is going to be. If you both agree to relatively hard contact, and grappling, then that is fine; I have only had cause to discipline people who have brought in skills from elsewhere in situations where in it was "cheating", they did not have the consent of their partner to bring that skill set into sparring. During what I call free practice, the time after formal lessons have finished, but no one has come to kick us off the premises, I do let people practice skills I have not necessarily taught them. I feel cross-training, or allowing people to bring their past training forward, is important for them to develop their karate in a manner which has it's own flavour and diversity. This usually takes the form of me dividing people into groups of people who have similar martial arts back-grounds, to share and work on techniques together; my only real rule is no forms because if they want to do forms they should either do Shorin-Ryu Kata or practice the other forms in their own time. I will then go around and tweak, or demonstrate over-laps with what we do in Shorin-Ryu, so they can integrate their prior experiences and knowledge. Other then that, during kata practice, I do usually allow a so called "choice Kata" segment, where there is unguided practice of a kata the student wants to work on and I can go around and give guidance. During said segment, I do mean "choice", so if they have practiced a style with forms before they can do any form they know aside from Shorin-Ryu forms I have taught them. Though, this is only at first; as they diversify and learn more kata off me, I generally try to steer them to practicing Shorin-Ryu kata and trying to find parallels with the forms they used to do, in the kata I teach. In that way I can demonstrate that they are not abandoning any of their prior knowledge, they are just practicing it through a new vehicle. and I hope a better vehicle for them. I am thankful to say this approach has a 100% success rate with the people who have come to trust my teaching, with those who were simply after new techniques, forms, and belts not so much as they never learnt to really trust me. Cannot recall where I read of heard this; "He who can follow three masters will perfect his art. But if only one of them is neglected, he will not last long. It means that you have to learn from everyone that surpasses us and to not neglect the deepest possible studying of the teachings of your own master." In that sense, cross training can be invaluable and indeed a path for growth; but chasing techniques for techniques' sake, or recognition from multiple schools, while not truly embracing the teachings of the teachers you follow or abandoning your roots haphazardly will just lead to a mess as Wastelander stated. My only hard rule above from what is mentioned above, is that if you are actively training at another place; practice 100% wholeheartedly what you are doing there, and give the same respect to my dojo floor. So when you come to train with me; you are doing Shorin-Ryu 100%.

I have produced some vidoes for my students and can only comment on what they have found helpful: 1. A demo or performance demonstration of the kata done at speed. 2. A slow instructional of the basic movements, with both a front and side view, and any additional angles needed if the kata has an unusual embusen. 3. A slow video but one containing exacting details one does not generally stress when simply trying to learn the kata. One they can go back to when they have the shape of the kata but want to improve. 4. A pace video with verbal commands they can follow to practice the kata at speed. I generally do two of these, one of me just performing the kata as I do, then one where I fix myself to a clock and follow specific timing. I do this because it allows the student a choice of flexibility in the pace they go. As it is an instructional then multiple videos I find are most useful because you never know what the student in particular might need. An advance student might want one to check themselves against in which case a base line this is how you get through the kata video might not work, but to someone new to the system a more thorough explanation would merely be lost of them when they just want to get the shape right. In general, to film the slow videos I generally perform the kata slowly, because I find it looks more natural and gives better details than doing the kata at proper speed then slowing it down. Also, if doing the kata at speed you might want to check your pace, because some cameras will not have the frame rate to pick one's movements up well, and might create blurry effects. Either way; good luck.

I have been challenged, yes, but there were personal elements beyond simple inter-style fighting curiosity and I shall leave it at that. It is very much a myth in most cases with regards to the more exaggerated claims, but I have as I stated had it happen to me, and have associates who have faced the same. Legal problems, and also reticence to sparring strangers I think has killed it in this day and age. The Gracie Challenges I suspect were the last hurrah of dojo yaburi in the modern age; especially with the explosion of grappling tournaments, Tough-man competitions, Kudo/SOMBO/Combudo/NAS and other types of inter-style or free-fighting tournament scenes coming into vogue, and of course the broader acceptance of MMA and the resulting amateur scene. People who just want to fight, or have an interest in testing their skills against other disciplines or in a full-contact situation have a lot more options these days, and especially one's far easier to arrange and more socially acceptable than dojo storming. Any one discussing being dojo challenged after say the 70s is perhaps trying to build credibility, anyone who claims to have been on the wrong side of a dojo challenge and won but has no competition history or a police record, I would take with a pinch of salt.