Wado Heretic

Naihanchi Shodan I do at least twice a day, and Higaonna no Sanchin which I do at least three times. Right now though, when it comes to advanced kata I would say Seisan is my focus. I find the dynamic really forces one to apply the principles found in Naihanchi but also Sanchin, and the techniques are very much to the point with regards to application, which somewhat suits my build and temperament. However, I am having a bit of a kakei-kumite phase at the moment, and taking a harder look at Kyusho-jutsu, and I am finding interesting comparisons from the kata to such things. So Seisan just seems to be flavouring or coming into focus with what else has taken my fancy at the moment.

Every weekend during the summer I go up the local hill fort to do some dedicated out door training. I find the heaviest log or stone I can find and carry at the bottom, and try to go as fast to the top as I can, and at the top I do a routine of conditioning exercises against a tree, some calisthenics, and my kata, then on the way down I try to hit every tree I pass. I find it useful as it requires me to be inventive in my training, and it is helpful for putting one's techniques into a real world setting as the dojo floor presents different challenges to one's foot work than say an incline or a grassy plateau. Would I do such a thing as Mas Oyama? I must say probably not; I suspect it actually contributed to his relatively early death a long with his experiences in war time and post-war Japan as a Korean. Plus, with the availability of equipment in gyms and dojo these days, and some of the equipment you can find to increase the difficulty of one's training, what he put himself through I would say is now obsolete. Now I would advise one constructs a home dojo because that forces you to learn how to train yourself without someone to watch and push you. I would also advise trying to fit some sort of outdoor training in on a semi-regular basis but would not say it should be the norm of one's training. Also, it is useful to train with others, when you have to compare yourself or keep up with others it stops you becoming lackadaisical or allowing yourself too much lenience. So I would have to say I respect the feat Oyama achieved, but I do not think it wise or advisable in the modern era.

7 years, give or take a year or two, and then a few decades to see if they maintain the standard demanded when first awarded the black belt. I have done several black belt tests over the years and each differed greatly. In two of the kenpo disciplines I did, it was done within class over an hour and a half period. The third was far more demanding, it was done after a competition day, a two hour lesson, and then a two hour closed door grading. Looking back, it was demanding and exhausting, but I do question whether it truly demonstrated my abilities. My last black belt grading was done at the end of a two day course, and took about 3 hours. It included kihon waza, kata, yakusoku kumite, kata applications, and goshin-waza. It did not include any free sparring, fitness standard tests, pad work or breaking, but in terms of material it was very thorough, and the partner work was done with a level of contact and resistance. For my nidan grading, it somewhat caught me off guard because it was done without forewarning in class, and I was simply told I was now a second degree. I only grade up to brown belt but I do try to make every grading equivalent to what could be expected in a black belt grading, and it usually lasts 2 hours but it has gone longer when I have felt I had not seen enough. Usual routine goes: 1. Strength, flexibility, and fitness testing as a part of warming up. 2. Jiyu Kumite with gloves, helmet, and shin guards; hard contact with clinch fighting for up to 10 seconds allowed, and ground fighting for 30 seconds allowed. This is for two rounds, each round against a fresh opponent. 3. Jissen Kumite against a line up of five; bare-knuckle, with arm grabs, lapel grabs, and clinching for throws allowed but a hold can only be maintained for three seconds before they must break. A single blow can also be thrown during a grab, but it must be broke after the strike is thrown whether it connects or not. Sweeps are also allowed. However, no strikes to the head are allowed, nor ground fighting, as it is a grading and having a grading student get knocked out helps no one. 4. Goshin Kumite: One form of kumite designed to test self-defence skills; this might include unarmed defence against an opponent with a rubber knife, wall kumite (With the grading student against the wall), or semi-free sparring where the participants are designated the role of attacker and defender; where the grading student can only actively defend not initiate an attack. 5. Kihon-waza; this is done against pads, them breaking, before finally being done in a line drills. Quality of receiving techniques is tested through Yakusoku kumite. Ukemi, nage-waza and ne-waza are also addressed. 6. Kata; they must do all the kata up to Passai Sho at least twice, and Passai Sho grading kata as many times as asked. Niahanchi Shodan and Sanchin kata will also be actively tested with a partner, striking the body, attacking a receiving technique, and holding a pad to be struck. 7. Bunkai; must demonstrate applications of Passai Sho and two of the Pinan, of their own devising, and explain to the grading board the logic and principles they are following. They must also demonstrate spontaneous use of kata movements through a semi-sparring drill, against methods of attack derived from the HAPV, and a preselected sequence from the kata. 8. Isolation sparring; this does not always happen, but sometimes it does when I feel certain skills were not aptly demonstrated during free sparring, or the self-defence portion. This can include belt-wrestling, kakei-kumite, or maybe wrestling from a kneeling or sitting position. 9 Kobujutsu: Shuji no kon Sho, and basic ten kumite with the Bo. Depending on the grading group this can be done quite swiftly in two hours during usual training times, but it is not unusual for it to wander into 3 hours. I generally try to adapt my demands to the age, and base fitness of the student; so if a student came to me in excellent health aged 18 by the point they reach brown belt their fitness standards will be above and beyond someone who came to me in their mid 30s who was looking to lose weight and get in shape for example. I will generally expect more out of students whom engage in competitions during kumite as well. However, saying that, all students must meet the base standards set out above; if they do not meet them all to a base line they will fail.

I make use of the HAPV-theoretical model; it is very useful for developing an approach to self-defence which is relevant to the modern era, but without abandoning tradition. It also helps put some traditions in context. Must admit, I use little else as I prefer my students to learn the process of Bunkai and apply it without my direction. The drilling approach does work, I have a few critiques regarding it but it's more a general critique than specific to Koryu Uchinadi, but it is not for me. I have gone to a few seminars by Patrick McCarthy, and the experience has proven valuable and worth the travel and expense. There is much to be taken from his work. So over all, I have had a positive experience in terms of the experience I have had, and would recommend trying it if some one asked. However, on a personal level, the whole system is not for me, and does not gel supremely well with what I do.

I think in terms of getting people through the door of Dojo and Gyms, plenty of martial artists turned action stars could be stated. However, Bruce Lee and I would argue Chuck Norris are the stand-outs of that particular breed. Both brought martial arts to the Big Screen, but were also active in the martial arts world beyond exploitation, and gave back a lot. The argument for Bruce Lee has been made so I'll discuss Norris. He was a giant of early competitive martial arts, and his approach shaped a lot of what followed with the incorporation of many kicking techniques from Korean disciplines into Japanese and Okinawan schools of Karate that competed in the same circles. He was also an early endorser of Gracie Jujitsu in the United States, and was bringing the Gracies to the U.S.A years before any one had heard of them. He has founded his own discipline, and has had a positive impact on many people through his martial arts inspired philanthropic efforts. I did not include him before, because he's been around a while, and in discussing the current "era" I feel he perhaps falls outside of it, but I honestly cannot think of any martial artist still active in the entertainment industry who does as much in the world of martial arts. I did once look into Dux's FAAST system, and I will say I have encountered far worse conceptual approaches; however, I have met many paper tigers who can talk a good talk simply through having read and talked to the right people who have actually done the leg work. Dux has legitimate skills, but none which live up to, or could ever facilitate, the claims he makes about his skills and accomplishments. He knows enough and is good enough to fool the untrained eye, and knows enough about physics tricks to put on a good show, but a once in a generation fighter of the level he claims? I do not think a font size exists which could express the NO that should answer that rhetorical question. Saying that though, he has been influential for all the wrong reasons, as can be seen by the fact even 36 years after his claims were first published, and 28 after Bloodsport's release, people are still discussing him and there are still those who want to believe in Dux. As I said in my first post on the thread though, we should probably discuss the Good, the Bad, and the plain Ugly, if we are delving into influence. Rhonda Rousey has a lot of power and influence right now; but it is possibly ten or twenty years too early to include her among any of the luminaries discussed here. That is not a dig at Rousey, but the fact she is young and we have no idea of her true legacy yet; when we get a sense of her lasting power, and I believe she more then has it, we could add her to such a discussion.

It comes down to why you are presenting your lineage; is it an attempt at inflated self-importance, an implication of your own quality as a martial artist because you trained under a respected individual, or to discuss historical context? Historical context can provide insight into how to interpret what you are doing in the present; why did a teacher make changes to the Forms, or introduce certain practices? Has time made them redundant, or did the additions they made still hold water? Lineage is important to the individual who wants to understand the "why" of what they are doing, and is invaluable in putting the "how" into context. However, beyond that I have seen no good reasons to present a lineage, except when a student makes an inquiry about it.

I have encountered a few places like that, and to be frank it is plain wrong and exploitative. I have had students come from such places when I was still teaching children, and I let them keep the belts they had achieved at said place (so as not to discourage them) but what they were capable of was below even what I consider my own very reasonable standards when it comes to children for 9th kyu. It was not a good situation, as I ended up having to split the class for my students who were up to standard, and these other kids I had to bring up to standard and teach that I run my class very differently. It is an exploitative business practice, and does lead to McDojoness, because it puts money before quality of instruction. Yes, if one is the owner of a dojo, or is renting a space, you have to make enough for the bills and in turn a profit to support yourself, and hopefully invest in improving the business. However, business models which exploit and produce dissatisfaction will sink you faster in the reputation based world of Martial Arts than anything else. Only so much is excusable, and sadly I have seen money affect people I thought would prove above it more often than not.

Very true; have to cater appropriately to who is coming through the door. I only teach adults, or 14+ if they have an adult to acompany them and show appropriate maturity, and so anything less than an hour is indeed insufficient. However, 30 minutes for a child is often more than enough; most children struggle to focus on a task over 20 minutes. Now, there is the question of the cost; is that 30 minutes worth the money paid by the parents? In that sense, even when I did teach younger children I did teach for an hour; I would focus on 20 minutes or so of Karate, and then fill the rest of the time with aerobic exercise and karate themed games. I did not frustrate myself by trying to get kids to do what they just can't, but they still learnt something and walked away able to say they enjoyed the class.

Officially I am meant to teach for two hours, but it is not unusual for us to wonder into the 2 1/2-3 hour mark because we are the last people at the venue, and unless someone comes to kick us out I generally keep going. The first hour is very much 3 K karate, and focuses on grading material. I try to give each an equal share of 20 minutes. However, on Wednesdays it's usually 10 minutes for kihon waza and 25 minutes each for kata and kumite, because the second hour is a for purpose Hojo Undo/Kihon conditioning hour. Same on Fridays, but with less time spent on Kumite in the first hour because on Fridays the second hour is kumite focused. The extra time usually evolves from me asking if there is any questions, coming up with answers, and then just going off on a tangent.

Osu sees a lot of use in many western Dojo; it is no longer unique to Kyokushinkaikan. I have heard it used in Wado-Ryu clubs, Shotokan clubs, and so on and so forth. Just one of those things that seems to have caught on. To be fair, I have never used it, and have never let people osu at me, but have seen plenty of places where it is just the norm. Of Chito-Ryu specifically; on a technical level it is very much grounded in RyuKyu Shuri Te, but Chitose taught primarily in Japan during it's formative years, and significantly altered his teachings according to his expertise in contemporary medicine. In that sense it is technically Okinawan, but culturally Japanese, but has a flavour you will not find in the mainstream of either branch of karate. In short; it's Chito-Ryu, it's whatever it is where you find it, like any art. The local culture shapes a lot of club conduct, much more than it's origin point.

Karate cannot be quickly learned. Like a slow moving bull, it eventually travels a thousand leagues. If one trains diligently for one or two hours every day, then in three or four years one will see a change in physique. Those who train in this fashion will discover the deeper principles of karate. - Anko Itosu The phrase "three years, one Kata" is also often stated in turn of the century materials, and Mabuni Kenwa, despite his encyclopedic knowledge of kata, suggested 2-3 kata would be sufficient to become an exponent of karate. A few such as Uechi Kenba and Higaonna Kanryō spent a decade or so of study in China, and were often considered experts upon return. Working from such sources I would say an "apprenticeship" of direct study could be expected to last 3-4 years, but one might not be considered worthy of teaching unless one had much more significant experience, and could walk the walk. Looking at the masters of note from the past; all knew more than two or three kata, and thus perhaps a large catalogue of kata was another prerequisite, because without one you would not be able to pick and choose the kata to teach a student. My guess is that you are probably looking at about the same time it takes to get to Sandan in the modern system, but that it would be far more reliant on your reputation, ability to walk the walk, and value of your knowledge base to actually gather students. In some ways that remains true today, the the formal grading system, does allow a bit of a free pass to expectations.

I like the general idea behind this; there is the occasional macho attitude in Martial Arts that needs breaking down. It is better than it once was but it is still there, so an interesting idea. Jr 137 makes a good point, and Lupin1's suggestion is sound, and is probably the way to go, but it's your class and you are the expert on it, so do what you want. Saying that I would perhaps reduce the medicine ball from 20 minute to 10 or 15 minutes, and change up the hand and arm drills so you alternate in 10 minute sessions, instead of a 20 minute straight session. Accidents happen when people are fatigued, so you want people warmed up, but still fresh when doing pad work. Maybe work in some shadow boxing, or going through kata at a good pace, in a circuit like drill. Otherwise the general idea looks good. I do both a Hojo Undo session, and a Kumite session during the week after the basis three K model classes I run. I generally tie in a theme, and focus on having at least 20% of what we do being things people can take away and do alone at home. They are training sessions, and are intended as a work out over a lesson where the emphasis is on learning new material or revising old material, but I find it helps my students figure out how to train at home in a constructive manner. I find 9/10 students stay for said sessions, and often the 1 that cannot gives a good reason they cannot but will stay for the session another time. Each to their own, but I have not found conditioning sessions to be something that dissuades people.

The Shorinkan I am aware of is a branch of Kobayashi Shorin-Ryu; so it is just a variation of Kobayashi Shorin-Ryu as far as I know, and can tell you.

He holds a 5th Dan in Judo (whether that is Kodokan I cannot find) so that speaks well of his ability. You do not get to a 5th Dan in Judo without knowing your stuff. I would say the weapon material has led to a raised eye brow, but I have seen far worse, and in context I can see why he is doing what he is doing. Otherwise, I have seen far worse, and if he's had over 50 years in the martial arts then 10th Dan is feasible. As he uses the term Kempo Karate, my guess is it is Hawaiian or American Kempo; thus the emphasis will be on goshin-waza, or self-defence techniques. However, such styles often have their own tradition regarding forms and the like. If you are looking for self-defence while continueing in your shotokan training, then jujutsu might be a better fit over kempo.

This is a difficult one to answer because the criteria is quite broad. I think if I was to choose it would have to be based on both their legacy thus far, but also any continuing influence. 1. Royce or Rickson Gracie, with a leaning towards Rickson. Rickson helped with the birth of MMA in Japan. Also, Japan through Pride and Pancrase kept the MMA dream alive during the years the UFC was struggling to get a hold in North America. Rickson has also been active as an instructor and continues to have an impact on BJJ today. His legacy is only marred by the fact he did not face some of the toughest competition of his day in Japan, and his influence right now is controversial due to some comments he has made regarding the quality of modern fighters in MMA. 2. Antonio Inoki; through his development of the strong style, and his Inter-Styles matches. Through him was born Shooto, Shoot-Wrestling, and eventually Shoot-Fighting. He also continues to promote MMA events, and was the main force behind the rise of Lyoto Machida, and some other fighters. To be fair, he has been around a bit so might be unfair to include him. 3. Patrick McCarthy; again one who has been around a while, but when it comes to "practical" karate I think one can make an argument for him being among the first. His approach has broadly influenced others, and his research has helped breakdown a lot of myths. He already has a legacy of note, and continues to be an influence. Iain Abernathy would be my other pick regarding this area. 4. Ken Shamrock; I think in many ways this pick speaks for itself. His impact on Pancrase and the UFC, bringing in cross over appeal thanks to his tenure in the WWE, and now trying to fight the cause of letting older men fight if they can pass the health checks. He also produced many notable fighters via the Lion's Den, and continues to do so. I would be tempted to add Frank as well because he was the first to hold a title in two weight divisions, and was a Pancrase, UFC, and Strikeforce champion, and was perhaps the first to well and truly develop a for-purpose training regime for free-fighters and mixed martial artist. 5. A dishonorable mention; Kazuyoshi Ishii. Primarily for his work in creating a truly inter-style kick-boxing format via K-1; which alongside Shoot-Wrestling laid the foundations for mixed martial arts. Also though showing that martial arts can be a money making venture. Sadly, he shall also be remembered for his less than stellar behavior, and reminding us all of the danger of when money meets martial arts. A visionary, and inspired martial artist, might not necessarily be a good person. I know the habit is to choose those we admire, but I feel one must include the ugly in any good list.

I believe my sarcasm was lost in the text. Others have already defined quite well what it is used to mean as well. I really do not see any virtue in the terms existence; if your life does not regularly rely, or your livelihood does not rely, on your martial arts, then you are an amatuer and a hobbyist. Unless one is paid to practice, then you cannot escape that definition, no matter how much you train. I do an hour of Hojo Undo a day, and two hours of Karate, and at least 20-30 minutes of Kobujutsu. I also teach twice a week, where I aim to participate in around 80% of what I ask my students to do. I put around 30 hours a week into training, but I am still no different than the person who gets to train only when they can get on the dojo floor. I think what has happened is that it is a game of semantics; people are forgetting the distinction between passion and past-time. That for many of us the martial arts are a passion, a thing we can discipline ourselves to do daily, even on the days we really do not feel like it, and make the time to train. For others it is a past-time, something they do so as to be involved in something, but it does end at the dojo door, because that dojo time is all the time they can make. Also, I think we also need to remember the original meaning of amateur; some one who does something for the love of it. It has only become some insult to a persons' skill in the modern world. I have met many amateurs of remarkable skill. Martial arts hobbyist is an ugly term we have to get rid of, and an ugly example of a double standard. So long as someone is sincere in their effort, and what they are doing, that is what matters. It is a symptom of a very toxic idea that one's worth to others once they enter the world of martial arts is tied into how much they train, and whether they continue to train. It's a judgmental sentiment which I have seen used to bully people into committing time they really do not have to spare to be training, and continuing to train despite it really bringing them no joy anymore. If a person is sincere about what they are doing, and put practice before all else; whether it's just doing their best to be at the dojo when they can, or being a fanatic, they are a Martial Artist to me and I am not going to label them.

It is more common to find sword in Japanese schools such as Shindo Jinnen Ryu, Wado Ryu, or Yoseikan which have ties to Koryu schools of Nippon Bujutsu, or schools which originated outside of Japan and Okinawa and have ties to Gendai Budo Jujutsu and adopted the sword due to eclecticism. I would be wary of Occidental schools which include Kenjutsu, as I have seen and encountered a lot of fraudulent practitioners whom have lifted and adopted the Katana with no reference to their actual art. Saying that, I have encountered many sincere practitioners who have a real love for Japanese swordsmanship but have had no other opportunity to practice, but strive to do the best they can with what they have. The only school of Okinawan Martial Arts I have been able to confirm practice swordsmanship is Motobu-Ryu, and I have heard rumours of other heterodox schools which practice swordsmanship. Saying that though, if the school of Kobudo comes from the Taira line, or claims to do so, then I would be suspicious of the inclusion of swordsmanship; barring schools with their origins in Japan which have adopted both RyuKyu and Nippon Kobujutsu into their approach.

I know of a kata where one throws a sai towards the feet at the end; though said kata also requires one to keep a spare sai in the Obi so covers drawing techniques as well. I also believe the Matayoshi tradition adheres to the idea of the sai as a throwing weapon. I have practiced using the sai as a throwing weapon; if one tries to throw it like a knife it will not work. One, because of the weapons weight, is better off treating it like a hatchet throw. As a technique, it is one of those one in a thousand techniques; it should not a "go to" approach, or a mainstay of one's training, but I suspect it could be useful in very particular situations. Saying all that though, shurikanjutsu is a particular hobby of mine, and I am quite skilled at throwing improvised as well as for purpose weapons. If it was an option, I would be relatively confident in finishing a confrontation before it went any further with a thrown sai. Just like a kick to a brawler, or grappling to someone who has never done it before, it is out of the realm of normal experience and thus can catch people off guard remarkably easy. Also, few people guard the foot from the sai, even those who should know better, because of weapon focus and the fact the main danger the sai presents are to targets above the waist. It is a technique of opportunity, but one I think worth having in one's repertoire.

A word us dojo bunnies use for people we don't think show up often enough. A bit like Gym bunnies deride new people to the gym, or marathon runners mock joggers just trying to get into shape. Any amateur is doing it as a hobby; the non-hobbyists are the people who rely on such skills for a livelihood, and in the case of police officers and soldiers sometimes to stay alive. Time spent on the floor is important; but simply marks the difference between someone practicing at a mediocre level, and someone practicing at an elite level. Better to train at an elite level in something you love, then at a mediocre level in something everyone else loves. That I suspect is where this annoying distinction arises from.

The bow tradition of today has descended from the warrior traditions, and practical concerns of yesterday; just as all martial arts are. So in short; yes, archery can be a martial art. I think the difference though is in seeing the cross over between it, and our expectations of the world. We can use our unarmed techniques in everyday self-defence, were they called upon, and weapon training with historic arms makes one familiar with weapons and can help in confronting improvised weaponry. Furthermore, most martial arts have some combat sport derived from them; sport-karate, kick-boxing, free-style wrestling, and other types of rule-bound pugilism and grappling. In Archery, unless one hunts with the bow; there is never a visible "foe". One simply competes against the self; even in competitive archery. The only difference is the quality of the archery, but that comes down to the individual shots; not whether one archer got the upper hand in an exchange or not. In that sense; it is the purest of martial arts. It is the only one that cannot be marred by the idea of competing against others; it is you alone that succeeds or fails in striking the target. It allows no excuses; such as they were the better man on the day. Also, excellent work over such a short period of time.

My mind My personal favourite, right now, is perhaps the Sai. However, the long-sword and the Kon continue to be the ones I train with insistently. I find the tanto fun to work with as well, and also the kubotan, but mostly when working with my students. So, for training by myself it would be the Tzai, right now, but I find some times I just want to work on Kon, and other times are drawn to sword work. It fluctuates. However, when training with my students I prefer the really close fighting tools, because we get some excellent and immediate cross-over with our unarmed skills, and with the rubber knives we can have a little more contact and energy to training. When training with my instructor though; it has to be the Kon. One because I sometimes feel I am keeping up with him and am being a good training partner, and two when I get that delusion he utterly schools me and I recognise where I went wrong.

Good luck to your daughter; it sounds like she has a good prognosis and is strong but good luck none the less.

Monkey steals the peach was a common euphemism used when I did kenpo Must say when it comes to biting; I would never advise it. Changes how one holds the jaw, making it much easier to do something nasty too, plus of course the mandible claw and other painful nerve pinches. Same with trying eye pokes when you have already been grabbed, and lost control of the situation. Strangest self-defence I have personally encountered; an "anti-grappling" (immediate warning sign) technique against a tackle, by grabbing the head on both sides, with both hands, and forcing one's thumbs into the eyes. Would not have been so bad if it was done with some awareness of sprawling, or an effort to turn the head over to cause a tumble; it still would have been bad either way, but in this particular case the guy just stood there in the path of the tackle and pushed the guy down with the thumbs to the eyes. The partner was of course being compliant (who wouldn't be in such a crazy drill?), and frankly the distance he was working from I thought he was trying to tackle to mat in front of the instructor, not the instructor. He also did a eye poke like thing as a defence against a rear naked choke, with the choke on, and that is when I called it a day and left. Such nonsense would just get a person seriously injured. I suspect I missed out on some excellent nonsense. I really should try and recall the guys name because I need to direct people as far away from him as possible.

No knocks taken; I shared the issue as I was looking for contrasting views. I think the following that has been said somewhat sets up where my opinion lies in the general theme; As mentioned; all I expect is sincerity out of my students. I am not going to direct them to actions that are not congruent with what they feel; it would be hypocritical of me to do so consider what I talk about on the training floor. If a student wishes to congratulate his opponent, or shake hands as is the western tradition of showing respect, they may do so but only if that is what they feel they should do. I would not direct them to do it as some part of a social contract which might be a dishonest action when taken against their personal values. I do expect a student to accept defeat, and show respect to the floor by bowing to the floor and the judges, and do consider it more important not to lose to the self than to win or lose on the floor. However, I do not expect other gestures which must be made by choice to be sincere. In my own competition days; I never offered such gestures as I was never certain as to how the recipient would receive them, nor did I desire them in return. If I fought well, and left it all on the floor that was all the statement I needed to make; words just confused the matter. An opponent who was defeated and felt they did not fight a good match would rightly take insult at my insistence it was a good match; it would just be better to have left it all on the mat. In my mind actions speak louder than words, and one earns their victory as much as they earn their defeats; I would rather let the work done say what needs to be said. I would never condone outright rudeness, such as ignoring your opponent or failing to acknowledge the floor, your opponent, and the judges, but at the same time I would never direct my students to incongruent gestures. That is the dilemma I find myself facing, because I consider karate a path to individual development, and that means being allowed to make your own mistakes and express yourself without the filter of your instructor constantly in your ear.

Was going to put this in sport martial arts originally, but it is a matter effecting me as an instructor so it has found it's way here. When I competed; I never expected congratulations off a defeated opponent, nor did I ever offer them in defeat. Nor did I ever offer my hand for a hand shake or other such gesture; I always bowed as mark of respect to the floor, my opponent, and the judges, then got off the competition area. I always felt it disrespectful to offer congratulations or conciliatory gestures; as it came across as a gesture that might as well have said "I did not want to win as much as you", and some what cheapened the meaning of the competition. Why beat someone, stand in the way of what they wanted, to then apologise for doing so? Anyway; I was at a competition recently overseeing one of my students compete, and when he was defeated he bowed off, as I insist upon, but did nothing else but leave the floor. The coach of the winner made a point of insisting I was failing to teach good sportsmanship, by not directing my student to congratulate the person who had defeated him. I only have one dojo kun; practice sincerity. Be sincere with what your karate is, with your effort in training, with yourself about the quality of your karate, and do not judge others by what their karate is but by the sincerity of their effort. I do not see it as right for me to order my students to show false modesty, or make such gestures, as I am not sure they have a place in karate; I cannot tell my students to feel feelings of good will to the person who defeated them. Anyway; that is my position. However, what do others think; are such gestures simply part of being a good sportsman, and should one as a couch insist upon them?