Wado Heretic

It is good to hear his hard work has paid off, and that he is having such an opportunity. Hope you have a safe journey.

I know the guys from Lowestoft, I used to be in the same organisation, and they were good at what they do. A lot of the curriculum involves a focus on Bunkai and Kata, but there are opportunities for competition training and for international courses in Okinawa and other countries. If I was not in an organisation that better suited my needs, then I would definitely still be with them.

1. I would say that if your talent pool is Muay Thai based, then go by the old adage of if it isn’t broken then don’t fix it. I would employ straight Muay Thai rules if that is the case, though I would suggest looking into what the local commissions position is on some techniques; some places can be weird about unprotected elbow strikes. 2. To be fair, if you can save money in places, then save money in places. The cage might not necessarily be a bad thing, though I am a ring advocate for kick-boxing, but you will have to justify the use of the cage otherwise it does just look like cost cutting. For example, it might be worth considering knock-down rules which justify the padded flooring of cages; not allowing sweeps or throws seems rather unusual to a spectator if the floor is padded. This might lead to some clinch heavy fighting though, so might need to consider rules to prevent over reliance on locking up to get the sweep or throw. You will also have to take into account how colliding with the cage wall differs from colliding with the ropes; should probably enact a restart rule where the fighters are moved to the centre if they end up locked against the cage wall for more then 5 seconds or so. 3. I would suggest some closed door preliminaries to find some good contestants for the live shows. It would be ideal to let everyone who volunteers have a go on the live stage, but you will need the best you can get to put on a good show. If you could get an amateur champion, and a former pro that is still training but no longer professional; it would help to establish a favourite going into your initial event, creates it’s own under-dog story, and a “gate-keeper” of sorts never hurts and adds some prestige. Also, try to set up first matches based on strengths you have observed in the preliminaries, rather than based on fighters’ records. You will want to ensure all the opening matches are between people who will give each other a run for their money. Nothing worse than opening matches where the out come is a foregone conclusion in the opening seconds. In terms of general rules; I will admit I have always wondered what a kick-boxing match with lighter MMA like gloves would be like. Ironically, I found that my point fighting experience was more relevant to fighting with out gloves than my kick-boxing experience; when it came to knockdown karate and shoot-fighting. Some of the defensive tactics you can get away with when wearing boxing gloves just do not exist when you take the gloves away. Not advocating bare-knuckle kick-boxing, but might be an angle to explore. Issue would be finding gloves which do not exaggerate the hand size too much, but provide enough protection to the hands during a kick-boxing match. I am not sure conventional MMA gloves would be up to the task. Speaking of MMA, if you have a cage to use; it might be an idea to host a mixed card with some MMA matches between the Kick-boxing. Might draw a larger crowd, and would most readily justify the use of a cage; you will just need to have a good announcement team and referees who are on the ball.

Out of context: I re-read the opening post after typing a lot of the below. A lot of it is irrelevant, as Chrissyp is working with a friend on the promotion side, but I still wanted to post it as I consider it useful advice for people going from the ground up and I would rather have not wasted the effort in typing. I was once an amateur trying to make it as a professional kick-boxer, and have done some professional wrestling booking, so not exactly an expert but just want to offer the best I can from my experiences. I would concur that a good single word name is a good idea, but you should also consider whether the word you choose works as initialism if you add further words to the name. For example does TFC (Triumph fighting championship) sound good? It sounds okay to me but sounds too reminiscent of some other brands; just another thing to consider. I would also argue that considering the rules before other important factors is putting the cart before the horse. You need to ask several important questions: 1. What is your talent pool? Are you planning to derive this from local fighters, or outsource to a broader pool, and are you aiming to be a grooming ground for amateurs to debut and advance into the professional arena or do you want to use established professionals from the get go? 2. How do you gather these fighters? Are you going to offer guaranteed contacts for X amount of fights and thus cover their living expenses to train for said fights, or do you plan to treat them as independent contractors and only pay them on a fight by fight basis? 3. Once you have the answers to the above, then you have to consider your presentation format. Are you going to be a league system, with rankings to establish contenders for titles, or will you use a tournament format? If you use the league system than you might find you have to offer guaranteed contracts to keep fighters reigned in. A tournament system would be cheaper in that you could pay only for the tournament participation, but ultimately you might find it difficult to get fighters to return unless the pay out is particularly good; this can be troublesome with getting competitive and popular champions to return if they are offered better deals elsewhere, and this can undermine drawing power. 4. Once you have the format then what are you going to be; an internet first promotion, or a local area first promotion? Tournaments can have excellent local drawing power, but have little staying power in the online realm. In contrast, a league system might have trouble keeping local interest due to being far more longitudinal and requiring more than passing interest to follow, and thus is much better suited to a recorded and streamed internet format. 5. Finally you can get to your rules; if it is a tournament you need to make the rules more limited for the purposes of safety in the opening rounds, and even up to the semi-finals, to reduce injury. You might have to forbid elbows, or sweeps, until the finals as they can easily injure and cause even a winner to drop out after their match is finished for example. Whereas, a league format, where fighters only fight once can allow much more liberal rules as injury does not endanger throwing the whole night into chaos. However, even then you have to always consider your available resources. If you only have Muay Thai kick-boxers available en masse, then you might have to go with Thai rules because that is who you have available to fight. This is true of what ever format is predominant. If you want a true grab-bag approach that is very style versus style orientated, then you need a rule set which allows all competitors their best weapons, but at the same time you have to avoid boring your audience with tactics which cause unnecessary stoppages. Now you could allow sweeps, but what does the sweep earn the sweeper? Do you have knock-down rules where when you are knocked down X amounts of times then it counts as a TKO? Such a rule could add some exciting tension, but might get some scorn from people who might not view such a point victory as valid in full-contact. Have to keep in mind that you might not please everyone; but that you should consider mass appeal above what you want to see. Also, speaking of available resources and going back to getting fighters. You could have a team based format where different gyms send representative fighters, and you have both independent fighter championships but also a team league. Good promotion for the gyms, and could help you get fighters on the cheap, but you might end up with amateurs trying to become professionals rather than high-quality established competitors. Really does depend on what you want to do with the fighters; do you want to be creating professionals, or using professionals? A cage could be both a boon and a bust in kick-boxing. Unlike MMA where one needs the space and the rigidity of a cage wall for grappling, in kick-boxing that extra space can just become space for avoiding fighting, and the rigidity of the cage can prevent one slipping away from being caught when brought to the cage wall and lead to a clinch that goes no where. The ropes of a traditional boxing ring allow fighters more manoeuvrability when caught up against the ropes than a cage wall will, and helps keep the fight mobile. Also, the smaller size of a traditional ring better facilities a striking exchange as the space to avoid said exchange is very restricted. Think Ali’s rope-a-dope strategy, he was still eating punches even though he was basically running the whole fight; it kept it unusual and exciting. That is what you want in a striking exchange; high-intensity and the drama of two fighters trying to knock each other down or out. Over-all; just avoid gimmicks beyond letting fighters build a persona that your audience want to follow. If the cage is going to be a gimmick, recognise it as a gimmick; but if you can test the theory and keep it interesting than go for it.

A similar fashion to the glideboxx in that it was a square section within a larger square, with the bag supported by a bar. However, the inner square was on rails like a cart so could move back and forth, which is where I got the north- south movement. I got the east-west movement by making the supporting bar able to roll within the inner square. I used old leaf springs to act as buffers against the cart and bar so they did not just collide with the sides and had some bounce. I also used some bungee cords on the cart; four to be precise with two on the sides with the wheels on. They were slack when the cart is centered but will tense when you move the cart off center. No where nearly as smooth working as the glideboxx, but the effect is very similar. Looks like there is some electronic element to the glideboxx though which probably makes that effect possible. In the presentation video the implication is that there isn't, but without some sort of motor I am not sure how I would get a similar effect. However, I am only a hobbyist so would take that statement with a large pinch of salt. Would offer to get pictures but it is currently in bits in storage until I find an affordable training space to put it back up. Currently tempted to just turn the storage into such a space but need to clear it with the land lord.

1. What is your favourite word? Art. 2. What is your least favourite word? Any curse word used poorly. 3. What turns you on creatively, spiritually or emotionally? Adversity. 4. What turns you off? Excuses. 5. What is your favourite Martial Art word? Yo-Ryu-Bi (Technically a compound phase but I cannot think of any single word.) 6. What sound or noise do you love? Electric Guitar 7. What sound or noise do you hate? Axl Rose’s voice, it some how just winds me up. He isn't the only 8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt? Being a Full-time Martial Artist; primarily as a teacher rather than as a fighter. 9. What profession would you not like to do? Any uniformed work; I do not do well with authority. 10. If your Sensei/Instructor has requested that you're to report to the Hombu/Headquarters immediately, what would you like to hear your Sensei/Instructor say when you arrive at the Hombu/Headquarters? Hello

To translate his advice; I suspect he was telling you that you need to be more threatening. The issue with a high, and tight guard, is that it is not very threatening and can allow your opponent to dictate the Miai of the fight. Especially when one has the addition of kicks. A lower guard which is further out, can better intercept kicks, but also allows better movement into an opponents openings. Less distance to travel after all. The best way to think about it is like in Sumo; when your opponent advances, you have to advance. When your opponent retreats you have to advance. So a danger with a high guard is a lack of immediate threat, especially if it is held close to the chin, and can also lead to a slowness to react to kicks in that it can be difficult to intercept kicks. Also, a high guard can lead to naturally squaring the body up and exposing the center line. Depending on the rules this can be an issue or not. However, it does protect the head, and if one is good with their elbows, and with their feet, it does allow one to move swiftly and quickly towards the opponent and force them into a punch out. A low guard, which is further out, is more threatening, and more readily adapted to defending the center line, and attacks moving from south to north such as kicks, or tackle attempts. Also, it can more readily prevent an opponent getting close to go for a clinch, or trying to get inside to attempt in-fighting. A disadvantage though, if you are not naturally inclined to attack or counter-punching, is that you do put yourself at greater risk of eating a punch or two. Also, you might find yourself moving your guard up and down a lot, if you favor a low guard. I cannot really answer the question as I never bother with a guard. I have several different kamae I make use of, but I go with what ever my foe is projecting at me. I try to observe their musculature and the posture they adopt, and from there I will figure out how I should protect myself. Over all, your strategy was sound; you just had the misfortune of fighting a fighter who was good at kicking and who's height advantage meant she was going to dictate the range from the start. All I would say is always stick to how you have trained when it comes to competition; the worst that can happen is that you will lose.

Some what annoyed to find out about this; I built something just like this for myself. This could have saved me a lot of effort Having only used my own version I can only comment that I have found it useful for solo training. If I was a gym owner I might get one if I had a dedicated bag room, but without said room I would consider it too large for a conventional gym or Dojo. It takes up a lot of floor room you could better use, plus if you have people to work out with, which you usually will do in a class, then it is really not useful. Broadly speaking; it is useful in the way certain Okinawan and Chinese striking devices which give you some feed-back through reaction, or a grappling dummy, is useful. It allows for the practice of some skills you can't practice on a conventional bag, striking object, or without an object at all. However, if you regularly have people to practice against, it sees dramatic reduction in usefulness.

It is a useful device if you are a high-level international athlete, who travels to a lot of different locations, and might have to acclimatise to differences caused by changes in altitude. Otherwise, it is not very useful; an analogy being that you do not starve yourself to get stronger, and in turn starving your lungs of oxygen will not make them stronger. Also, when fighting you do have to breath more shallowly because of how you have to hold the body; so training to perform at high-levels without normal oxygen intake is useful for full contact fighters. As you exercise, and lose weight, and improve your diet you should find minor breathing issues should resolve themselves. Weight on the chest forces the lungs to work harder, and other weight related issues do lead to issues getting oxygen into the blood. I would see a doctor, as already suggested, and go from there. However, just keeping your exercise up should resolve the issues mentioned in time.

Darkly humorous; but the truth hurts and all comedy arises from pain. Sort of sums up why I just work to my own standards, and try to keep them high. Only person I can aim to please is myself, and my students; no one else really matters to me.

I have hesitated to reply to this, because even with the best of intentions, and otherwise agreeable participants; ultimately TMA and MMA discussions can take a bad turn. The image being discussed, I would call stereotypical, and inflammatory. It also does not say anything useful; I have met people of poor character who wear the trappings of traditional martial arts. In turn I have met participants of MMA who have used it as a vehicle for positive influence in their lives. As martial artists, we should all respect each others paths, and remember the fundamental lesson of all martial arts; expect the unexpected. All that is practiced by sharing such images is shortsightedness, when really, we all should be practicing taking each individual as they come. I think Patrick said it best far earlier in the thread. To comment on the UFC of the early years, and the trends observed. They were essentially Vale Tudo matches with the traditional conciliatory rules; we aren't going to tear each others eyes out et cetera. If we look at the list of competitors going into the early UFC most had cut their teeth in kick-boxing or the point-fighting scene. Also, I do not think you can argue the rules of the early UFC were against strikers, as groin shots did little to help Keith Hackney in UFC 4 when he found himself in a head lock. Ultimately, to quote Carlos Machado; "After the clinch, it doesn't matter what happens, one way or another, we're going to hit the ground, and we'll be in my world. The ground is my ocean, I'm the shark, and most people don't even know how to swim." Brazilian Ju-jitsu just fought in a way none of the other competitors expected, and it had evolved through Vale Tudo; something none of the competition can claim to have done. Even Ken Shamrock, perhaps the closest in terms of coming from a similar body of competition through pancrase, was unfamiliar with the guard work employed by BBJ, and though he cut through it rather swiftly with a leg lock attempt in his first face off with Royce, he was not experienced enough at first to deal with the complexities of BJJ. I think a better argument can be made that modern Unified rules are against strikers more; with bans on north south elbows, and striking a downed opponent from a standing position. Early UFC though, I would call it barking up the wrong tree; the Gracie's just brought to the table something the rest of the world didn't have an immediate answer to. So, onto watching MMA and coming from a traditional background. To me, I feel MMA lacks a certain essential beauty, and that is why I am not a fan. However, as a student of the combative arts, ultimately there are things that can be learnt from observing the trends that occur in MMA, and the tactics that evolve. However, it is just like an exercise in watching any combat sport, or footage of violent incidents; a resource to be used. You can make use of the resource, or ignore it.

True enough, I just go with the first championships to mark the date when it was definitively disallowed because they were recorded, where as any other date setting some what relies on anecdotal evidence and does not provide a solid marker in time. Though, arguably I have heard hand strikes to the head were banned by the time they transitioned from Oyama Dojo to Kyokushin so 57 could also be used as a date. It is an annoying stereotype, and one I have only noticed as being true of incredibly competition focused schools. In general, I have never noticed a lack of head-defence in more rounded schools. Plus, considering a lot of sport karate set ups did not allow strikes to the head for a long time, due to limitations in protective gear, it is a rather unusual critique to pick up on. Anyway, to get back to the original topic. I think it is also important to also consider cultural differences, and how times have changed. Most traditional martial arts evolved from the pragmatic systems of self-defence and battlefield combatives of warrior castes. If we take Karate as an example, it was developed by the Pechin class, who under the class system of Japan were given similar power over the lives of any lesser class. Were one of them to cripple, blind, or kill a peasant in self-defence no one would bat an eyelid. This can be seen in the life-styles and stories of certain karate-ka of Pechin class descent. Motobu was basically a thug in his youth, and even a story in his later life essentially has him injuring a butcher in a manner that could have left said butcher paralysed. Yet deference to his stature as a descendant of Royalty protected him against reparations. However, a modern individual has no such protection against the law, even acting in self-defence, with the notion of suitable use of force. Simply put, many of the pragmatic techniques of traditional systems would only defend you for the initial confrontation, but could put you away if deemed excessive. Thus, even in self-defence driven systems it makes more sense to study ways of gaining control, and provisioning methods of escape, rather than taking the quick route of teaching people to cripple others. So aside from the rules of competition, the culture we find ourselves itself determines how we teach self-defence.

As in the only strikes allowed to the head are kicks, as strikes by the hand to the head were banned from the first world championship on-wards. I have heard they allowed hand strikes to the head for some period, but by the first world championship they were definitely banned. As a result, the only way to knock an opponent out is with a high-kick. Hope that clarifies, not a misinterpretation, a case of me not communicating the point fully so thank you for picking up on it.

I suspect that we can probably blame rule changes, changes in the gear used in competition, and ideas regarding the safety of competitors. I doubt techniques are not being taught, but one fights how they train, and thus if the technique is not observed in the training environment it will not be seen in the competitive environment. Many competitions will not allow open hand strikes due to the risk to competitors’ hands, but also the risk to orifices and the eyes. So the technique may be taught, but as it is banned why train to use it during sparring? Furthermore, the emphasis on points which are discernable by a judge means an emphasis on techniques which can be seen to be hitting the target. Hence techniques reliant on unusual angles are less popular, in comparison to say safer techniques such as a jab and cross. Saying all that though, a trend I have noticed and dislike is a failure to acknowledge the difference between throwing a good low kick, and a good high kick. Depending on the height one kick advises what muscles you should be aiming on engaging and how you should shift your weight. In karate shiai, especially in its root years, emphasis was on kicking above the waist only and this trend continued into American kick-boxing and full-contact karate. Similarly, even kyokushin only allowed kicks to the head. Furthermore, Tae Kwon Do and Korean Karate schools have often employed rule sets giving more points to kicking the head. Thus, kicks have evolved in karate circles as a head hunting technique. Only since encounters with Muay Thai, and a renewed emphasis on pragmatic self-defence have I observed a reverse in this trend. Even in Okinawa I was encouraged to always kick as high as possible for exercise purposes, despite the constant statement that in real fights one should aim low.

Koshiki is a word used in Okinawan circles to refer to the old, or original version, of certain thing. Think the distinction between Do and Jutsu made is Japanese martial arts. When it comes to kata this is especially true so koshiki does not necessarily reflect an affiliation to any particular organisation or style in a broader sense. Otherwise, all I can do is concur with Wastelander. As far as I know, in a competition sense Koshiki refers to a particular style of competition, which has some commonalities with Bogu Kumite.

This brought to mind an interview with Isao Obata. In the interview he expressed the sentiment that he did not feel karate would long survive his death. He passed away in 1976, and in a way he was right. In the 1970s, in Japan itself Kyokushin came to the fore due to its emphasis on full-contact karate and this was in contrast to the prior paradigm. In America, full-contact karate of its own sort was coming into its own. In 1970, the World Union of Karate-do Organizations (WUKO) had formed and was making its own impact on Karate. In 1981, the Shitei Kata was introduced, and these greatly shaped the nature of kata competition by forcing a unity across many different style groups with regards to how said kata were practiced. By the 1990s, with the explosion on the UFC and other MMA organisations, we saw the beginning of practical Karate which in turn took a different route to an increasingly refined variation of sport karate propagated by the World Karate Federation. In a sense, the Karate of Obata is well and truly dead. For he studied Karate as a Gendai Budo, a karate flavoured with the Budo culture of the Showa era, and reflected the ideology of Dai Nippon Budokai. However, Karate-Do, had itself supplanted To-De and Okinawan Kenpo when the Gi-wearing and rank using culture of Karate-do was transplanted back to Okinawa in the 1950s. I do not think any of us can claim to be practicing the karate of any of our forebears, merely the karate that we have made from what they taught us, and thus karate forever evolves and changes. Arguably, what is important is that we retain the Kata, Hojo Undo, and Kobujutsu for those are the classical warrior practices and arts of the RyuKyu Pechin class. I am not concerned with these disappearing, as an increasing number of Westerners are travelling to Okinawa to learn in the place of Karate’s origins. So long as we keep in mind the origins of Karate, and reflect upon it, Karate cannot be lost. Will we like Obata live into a time where karate as understood by the masses, is not the karate that we ourselves would recognise? Maybe, but all that means is that it is important to own what you yourself are doing, and focus on keeping that alive.

Depends on the country of origin; in Japan it originated with Oyama and Kyokushin. The moniker of full-contact, or knockdown, was used so as to differentiate what they were doing from the sundome shiai as propagated by the JKF, and which had become the prevalent model of competition through the 50s and 60s. In the West, it was essentially synonymous with kick-boxing. Kick-boxing as we would recognise it was not introduced to the West until the 70s, and American Kick-boxing has its origins in the Karate competition of the 60s. When first introduced, as mentioned as being by the PKA, what was American Kick boxing and what was just traditional karate competition done with full contact was indivisible. However, there were already many celebrated karate competitors, and many Americans, or those interested in the sport at least, knew what karate was. It was easier to market it as full-contact karate, a twist on a familiar product, than to introduce a new word to the lexicon such as kick-boxing. However, I would not leave it on such a cynical note. As mentioned, early American-Kickboxing and the full-contact karate propagated by the PKA was far from distinguishable from one another. Like Kyokushin, the full-contact moniker was just the most logical way to distinguish between what it was from what had thus far been.

Having been involved in HEMA, and Kobujutsu, for a number of years I am interested in the lessons to be learnt from this experiment. The bloodless nature, and relative, safety also appeals to me though it is as stated in the article probably going to be a rather brutal sport to watch. My money at the moment would be on HEMA or Filipino arts showing early dominance if it is going to be a free-style format. Anyone working from the Dog-brothers mentality in their training will probably have an early edge. However, I am getting the impression of robot wars. It will possibly be very popular very early on, gain a cult following, but in time wear too thin on the ground to be professional sport. To use something closer to martial arts; I fear I can see the entertainment side going the same way as real pro-wrestling. That it is too much of a vogue topic to draw a viewership able to fund it beyond an amateur level.

I have committed whole lessons to Hojo Undo because of people asking me how to work out. However, a valid point; how far does one take the conditioning element before one is not teaching technique. Yet, perhaps this is a discussion for another topic. We have somewhat escaped the orbit of the Taikyoku Kata.

I understand your stance, but I respectfully disagree. Also, doing an incessant amount of push-ups or other generic exercises, would fall under what I referred to as well intentioned, but as an example of conditioning with little obvious overlaps with karate technique. It has it's time and place, but I would concur that such a place is not in the Dojo. Rather, I am referring to conditioning you cannot perform alone, and that has direct relation to karate techniques. For example such training methods as Ude Tanden; which are invaluable for developing proper karate technique, but require a partner. There are also specific methods for training in karate, using tools or just your own body weight, which require the over-sight of an experienced eye, even if only just for a beginning student. Performing karate techniques is in of itself a form of conditioning; however, as with all exercises, it loses it's potency over time once one has conditioned themselves to a certain level. Informed, and guided methods of conditioning allow a teacher to push him or her self, and their students. One learns nothing through repetition, only through adversity.

I did not even think of colour when I originally posted. It became an unspoken rule to wear a black Gi, or at least black trousers, when I taught out of my garden simply because white Gi would get incredibly dirty in minutes. We used to do a lot of Ukemi and Kumite on grass with tarpaulin over it; the tarpaulin did not work perfectly. I wore white though because I am stubborn, and hand-washing a stained Gi really works the arms Philosophically speaking; I did make black the official colour for Kyu grades, because of the symbolic meaning of white and black. I felt black better suited the beginners mind, and the training of beginners.

It can be a difficult matter; some children take to the discipline of the dojo like water, and others chafe but in time learn what is and is not appropriate. Carrot and the stick is tried and tested, but you may only create the illusion of discipline. What one needs to do is keep in mind the age group one is dealing with; different age groups need different focuses, and approaches. Younger children need more focus on play and aerobics for example, where as you might need to engage in more dialogue with teenagers. Ultimately; I like to employ a few rules: 1. Encourage good behaviour, and avoid punishing bad behaviour. Give poor behaviour no acknowledgement and in time it will extinguish itself, but encourage and reinforce what you want to see. 2. Always have mutual respect and trust, and never let anger get the best of you. Treat children like they are children, but not like they are idiots; they have their own life experiences, and what is important to them. It might mystify us adults, but never insult the importance children place on what matters to them. Also, always lead by example and do what you ask of your students, never lead from the bench, and always be a calm and anchoring presence. 3. Engage in what makes coming to the dojo fun; gamify elements of training (this works brilliantly for adults as well, people love games). Experiment with doing martial arts based exercises inside of a game format. Human beings are also better at remembering the start and end of an activity, so tactically it can be better to gamify warm ups, and cooling down. Hope some of this helps.

As with all sound-bite based round ups, it has it's flaws in it's generalisation and omissions. The format is pretty good though, and I imagine entertaining for children (whom appear to be the chosen audiance) but it would be best if they had some sort of menu for going between the arts covered.

On balance, I have always believed a karate session should involve a degree of conditioning. The conditioning should be related to karate techniques, so that students can find over-laps between conditioning and application of karate technique. So I would argue that someone who does not engage in well-directed conditioning lacks as much knowledge as the sensei who engages in too much, but well-intentioned, conditioning with little obvious overlaps with karate technique. I would also argue that conditioning is indivisible from karate, and broadly the martial arts. A skilled teacher should be able to demonstrate how to condition yourself, and direct you in your conditioning; to neglect this area of knowledge is to neglect karate itself. Furthermore; it is a case of differing measuring sticks; Kyokushin has an emphasis on full-contact fighting, and without sufficient conditioning one will never be able to engage in full-contact safely or skilfully. So if you are an instructor and demanding this of your students, is it not right for you to present to them the tools they need to pass the tests you set. A similar argument can be made for sports driven expressions of karate. To be fair; if one is attending a lesson, then one should learn something new each time one attends. However, a karate session is not just a lesson, it is training, and a good teacher should be involved in preparing you for the tests they have in place. Also, one could argue the dojo should be for training in ways one cannot train alone in. I would say at the end that nothing is the responsibility of the club or the sensei; it is all on the student to make best use of what is offered. Anyway, this is miles off topic now so return to differences in the Pinan/Heian series. Having considered the matter further, I would argue that Japanese schools in their interpretation of the Pinan place much greater emphasis on full-body power through momentum and suffer a bit from one stance fits all. I suspect this is the influence of Kendo and Judo on the early students of Karate in Japan. In Judo one wishes to maintain a solid base, and a low center of gravity, and in Kendo you are trained to commit to the stroke of the blade. Conversely, Okinawan karate rarely performs more than one technique in the same stance, and places greater emphasis on the hips and alignment of the body to generate power. So in broad terms, between Japanese schools you will find similar broad themes, and will only really found changes in certain waza. However, if going from an Okinawan to a Japanese school, or vice-versa, you will find many more differences.

Following the spirit of the rules versus following the word of the rules; as stated, gamesmanship exists in all sports. Those people, who follow only the word, will find ways to exploit human frailties to their benefit. A well conducted karate tournament should demonstrate the principle of never losing, rather than of winning. One should aspire to the spirit of the rules, which is of fair play, and demonstrating that one who is truly capable can win without any factor beyond superiority in technique. It is poor competitive advice as it flies in the face of both the word of the rules and the spirit of the rules, and if it makes you uncomfortable, than I would suggest finding another dojo/club. End of the day though, good technique will usually over come such tactics, because someone who focuses on such tactics has divided his focus between actual technique and gamesmanship. I never struggled in my competitive career to beat anyone employing such tactics, because I just focused on having good basics.