Wado Heretic

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?

It is not necessarily a case of stronger or weaker; but what s more readily observed by the people in charge of scoring. A kizami tsuki (I have never encountered this term before so have just done some very quick research) probably "looks" more decisive as it has more forward motion, where as a uraken can just look like a flick of the wrist in point competition. Plus it is more easily confused with a defensive movement, even to the trained eye, at competition speed. In full contact both are comparable, and the uraken can be an excellent technique for surprising and putting your opponent on the back foot, and I have seen a spinning uraken knock people down and out. I actually favour the back fist over a jab in full contact, because most people are familiar with the classic punches of boxing, so it can be a surprising maneuver to some. However, the quality and look of a technique matters in point competition, and in that sense the kizami tsuki looks more decisive, due to the greater forward momentum and the fixture, kime, of the technique. I cannot recall ever using it to win a match in my point sparring days; if I ever used a technique like it, it was only as a set up to a Gyaku tsuki. I also never used a uraken in point sparring though. I would always favour a more decisive looking technique, such as a gyaku tsuki, head kick, or sweep, so if it was not one of those it was a faint. I would always advise going for a scoring technique, that if it was not pulled, would be effective in full contact. Leaves no hard feelings that way.

The part I find suspect is the career opportunity page listing of manager/lead instructor. I always find it a dubious practice to hire in people to instruct for you; however, it is a growing trend in the franchise based segments of the martial arts. A trend I dislike, but cannot argue against the financial sense of it. My gut instinct is that because it is a franchise; dojang to dojang will differ in quality. There does appear to be a cross-training program built in, and structured programs for adults and children. Sensible activities for any business based martial arts centers. Broadens one's potential student base, and in the MMA conscious world of today's consumers unarguably necessary to get people through the door. The one locally may be a McDojo, or it might be half-decent; but as a franchise that is the gamble. I have encountered a half-decent Go Kan Ryu club, despite the general derision of that style. It was classic three K karate, but there are more styles than GKR alone shilling that.

There are a couple of examples of what I generally call "stretching the logic" when it comes to devising applications, and what can actually be derived from kata. However, it is a well devised video, and does demonstrate in a broad sense the fundamental truth of martial arts. The human body has not radically changed in design since the birth of martial arts; what has worked in the past has a place in the present, and the future.

Bunkai is analysis; what is more important is to grasp the principles of the kata rather than potential applications. 126barnes sums up rather well the issue; it can be hard to understand the kata without physical opposition. In all things, context provides meaning; kata performed for the sake of kata lacks this context. You do not need to be taught bunkai; you will learn the process of bunkai over time as you already thinking about it. What you need to do is study the kata principles, study the nature of physical violence, and in turn introduce what violence you can into your training. From their your applications will evolve.

Not really; I do get tired of sometimes having to correct the difference between karate as I practice it, and what children get to practice as karate. They are not entirely dividable, however, I would never ask children to do the kind of training I put myself or my adult students through. In that sense, that is why I enjoy karate; it can be all things to everyone. I do not think of there being "real" or "false" karate, rather just good and bad. The good and the bad come from being sincere about what you are doing, and holding yourself to the appropriate standards for what you are doing. People say nonsense about a lot of things; I worry more about when that nonsense is in danger of hurting people, rather than wondering if it might bruise my ego. In the west where MMA and Boxing dominate the highest levels in terms of exposure to the public; people wearing pajamas and seemingly doing choreographed dance does seem somewhat childish. However, only once one no longer cares about being childish has one achieved adulthood. Just do what you love, and carry on. People say what they say; listen but spend the time you have on the things said which matter.

That is very true; it is a company and has to do what is best for business. I was just holding out hope they would put the sport before the money this time and surprise me. I think under any circumstance Rousey would want the chance to beat Holm; Holm being guaranteed to still be the title holder by the time it happens is just a cherry on top affair.