Wado Heretic

I have found season three some what hit-and-miss regarding the humour. However, I have enjoyed the satire of season 1 and 2, and although I have found some of it has fallen flat in 3 because it is starting to rely on humour regarding the characters rather than the source material of McDojo culture it is still a good show.

My general routine is to start on my Okinawan impact tools (makiwara ect.), which I then follow by doing individual Kihon Waza on a heavy free-standing bag, and then will move onto striking the air. I have found this to produce my best performance results regarding having good technique. Also, I will usually warm up with a 15 kettle-bell routine before hitting any thing. I will also do an hour of Kata training after this, and an extended flexibility session so as part of my general week I usually do these 3 times a week. When I used to compete; I would do free-style sessions the length of the round I was expecting to fight plus 2 extra minutes, but would limit my self to 4-5 techniques and 2 combinations of said techniques. Between the rounds against the bag, I would do a "round" against a grappling dummy, and again limit myself to a set of techniques. I would also use the rules I would be competing under to guide my way of training; so for example SOMBO does not allow beyond 30 seconds on the ground so I would never exceed 30 seconds on the ground when training. These days I run a similar exercise but instead I go by themes; what Kata and/or Kihon waza is my goal for the month. I just work a sequence involving my choice kihon-waza from the kata I am working on, and experiment with it for about 6 minutes. I also then work potential take downs and follow ups from said sequence with the dummy. I usually do about five rounds, with 60 second breaks, so take just under forty minutes usually depending on the quality of my time keeping on the day. Usually do this twice a week as my circuit training. To explain my logic; research indicates it takes about 3 weeks for a new habit to form. So every month, I choose a "habit" I want to form regarding a kata and a basic technique, and although I do not neglect any element of my training, I place extra effort towards that habit forming. It might sound unusual but I find it works for me regarding improvement. Speed bad drills are a bit more sophisticated as I do several but I am rather irregular with such practice unfortunately. I find resistance bands, plyometric exercises, and weight training contribute to my speed development and maintenance more. I usually warm up by doing the conventional boxing drill designed to work the shoulders and arms before moving onto other drills. A foot work drill I do is that after hitting the bag, I swap my front foot and back foot around, and attempt to strike the bag again before it completes a swing. Sometimes I practice my stance changes, by performing a jab, and then a reverse punch but with a stance change. So say from side-viewing cat stance, to front-viewing cat stance. Try to keep a rhythm going as long as possible. Another is to keep striking it with the same hand but changing the striking surface between each hit; so from a jab to a back fist to a hammer fist. I did once try this using closed to open hand and back but almost injured my fingers so I would not recommend it. Last one, and I would only do this if you own the bag itself, is to do a jab, slide back to give space for a kick, and then get back into jab again before the bag completes a swing back and forth. I would not advise kicking the back as you will probably break it, but can try if you like.

In my understanding the Tou is a an upright bamboo bundle, where as the Ude Kitae was the solid striking post that some times has arms. I could be wrong, but I was certain of it so if I am wrong some clarification would be appreciated. Anyway; I would say that the use of such an implement very much depends on your current goals as a karate-ka. What are you thoughts on other styles cross training with them? The mook jong, and similar devices in Southern Chinese Martial arts, evolved primarily as a device for the training of Hua jin (dissolving energy: think Aiki for an imperfect analogue), which in Wing Chun and the Southern arts is done by trapping and sticking which requires the practice of maintaining pressure. Similarly, such a tactic towards eliminating an attack requires one to condition the arms, and practice entering techniques. AN advantage of the wooden dummy is that no matter the particular exercise, to perform it well you must be aware of all the "dangers" presented by the dummy. If your approach to karate resolves around similar concepts, as a lot of Naha derived systems do, it could perhaps be a useful device for you. This is also true of other disciplines using similar ideas. Are the useful for Karate at all, or do they serve a specific training purpose not native to karate? As I stated prior; it depends on your goals as a karate-ka, and your understanding of the process of Bunkai. As mentioned by Wastelander, there are the devices of the Ude Kitae (Tou maybe?), and Kakite-Bikei, and there are only so many ways to fight effectively. Although there are specific exercises for the mook jong, the ideas it is designed to assist in the study of are rather universal to the nature of hand-to-hand combat. If your study of karate involves Kakei-kumite on any level; you should perhaps explore the use of such devices, I would advise the Kakite-Bikei, as it would allow you to condition for such methods more directly compared to other impact tool. How hard are they to learn to use on your own, without a Sifu? Easier than it used to be; there are plenty of instructional videos, and good books out there to learn particular drills and so forth. However, beginning any type of conditioning should ideally be done under the eyes of a trained individual, but saying that if one trains responsibly and pays attention to their body it should be safe enough. I used to use one daily (it is currently in storage) though mine is now heavily modified, and incorporates elements from the Kakite-Bikei, innovations suggested in Bruce Lee's writing, and some of my own invention. Traditional drills no longer work perfectly, so has been an exercise in discovery regarding it's use; and I have never been injured using it.

I have generally encountered three reasons for individuals starting their own styles; 1. Politics; they have created their own style to remove themselves from the politics of their parent system. Often, the syllabus is the same as the parent system initially, but may over time progress or regress; as in they will either retain objects the parent style deletes over time, or they shall add their own objects over time as they continue on as separate entities. The two common scenarios are either a lower Dan grade with a school, who does not agree with the direction of his/her organisation, but because of their place in the hierarchy cannot access or influence the direction that is being taken. Thus, from frustration, they leave so that they can do as they believe they should. There are a variety of reasons; sometimes the decisions of the higher ups are having a negative business on this particular person’s local success, despite the changes having a more global benefit. Often a change in style name can be legally motivated in such circumstances, depending on the business model of the organisation. The other scenario is a member of the leadership who is frustrated with the politics, and moves onto a new name and new organisation to divorce them selves from the politics of their former organisation. 2. Technical direction; the individual starting the new style believes what they are teaching has become divisible from the art they have been claiming to formally teach. Sometimes this is as clumsy an endeavour as someone who has cross trained and has decided to mesh together elements from multiple systems into a new, distinct curriculum, but without a logic or reasoning which binds the parts together. Other times, it is an authentic example of Shu-ha-ri; where new ideas and principles are taking the place of core principles of the parent system, where performance and presentation are superficially similar but the content is distinct. One can argue that the first case is an example of McDojo; where this is poor practice. The second case is closer to just being sincere and authentic with what one is doing; simply adding, or taking away to a curriculum does not change the system you are teaching or practicing. However, if one has changed the underlying nature, the lens through which the content of the curriculum is interpreted, and practiced, then you are beginning to perform something distinct. An example of this would be Shotokai, and Shotokan, where both have similar content on paper, but how the content is practiced is completely different. 3. Hybrid culture; basically the new style is in itself is coming from a new style. It has evolved from a hybrid martial culture, where the idea of adding and taking away, pursuing the best tools and eliminating what is considered redundant. Sadly, when this is not balanced by being involved with a competitive combat sport element, but instead modelled after traditional martial arts; you end up with style after style. A student will disagree with what is being removed and will retain and depart from the parent style, while others will take away and add to such an extent that their curriculum shares only a fraction with the parent styles; and thus it is believed there is a new “style”.

The assertion is not that it is taken directly; but perhaps influenced by a particular way of preparing the shuto, and with other influences it evolved to what is seen now.

I cannot really disagree within the context of Shotokan-ryu; Funakoshi did devise a certain logic to how he taught, and expanded on the kata. I shall try and find where it was asserted, but it has been stated that Funakoshi only studied Naihanchi and Kusanku for the majority of his career, and only picked up the other kata he taught shortly before leaving Okinawa for Japan. This would make sense of the heavy reference to Naihanchi and Kusanku throughout the other Kata, as well as some "errors" in some other the other kata. If he interpreted and taught the kata as an expansion of his in-depth knowledge of Kusanku, then it would be appropriate the view each kata as an expansion, and variation, of the principles of Kusanku. In my provided example, does shotokan-ryu in Passai follow the same pattern as Wado-Ryu; when moving into the front facing naihanchi-dachi, and performing the fore-arm/hammer-fist cover and punch does one arrive from neko-ashi-dachi and stay relatively upright? In Wado-ryu you move into the position from neko-ashi-dachi, so it's a very small movement and you stay relatively upright. However, in shorin-ryu, one moves into it from cross stance, and into a front viewing shiku-dachi, so it is a very large movement which involves dropping ones weight down significantly. In contrast in Kusanku, you pivot from a deep back stance into shiku-dachi; so it's a very subtle move, you maintain a strong base, and you stay deep. How one exits this otherwise shared sequence also differs significantly; as do the general principles of the Kata in Shorin-Ryu. Therefore I interpret this to mean the sequence should be used differently, not just as variations of the same application, in each kata; even if in terms of performance they appear the same, the content, in my opinion differs. This though is based on my experience of Shorin-Ryu, and I cannot refute the logic regarding the Shotokan kata. To paraphrase Mabuni Kenwa; he insisted that one should study 2-3 kata as "your" kata, and treat other kata as supplementary to those. I could see Funakoshi modelling his way of teaching on a similar line of thinking; as both his students in Ohtsuka and Konishi used similar models in their construction of Wado-Ryu and Shindo Jinen-Ryu.

Have you looked into Scottish back-hold wrestling? In terms of culture; perhaps sword-dancing, or the rituals of the high land games. To be taken with a pinch of salt as they are revivalist traditions but might move you towards the flavour you are after. There is plenty of material on Scottish fencing, and some sources include reference to a variety of weapons beyond the sword, but they all date from the 17th century onward. As it is modern day, you might be able to use such sources to demonstrate the evolution of the art perhaps. However, it might detract from the ancient nature you are going for. Otherwise, I have to concur with the others, and suggest looking at bare-knuckle boxing. A good source would be "Banned from Boxing - The forgotten grappling techniques of Classic Pugilism". Another source would be, if you can find a copy, "How to fight tough" by Jack Dempsey and Frank G. Menke. It covers a very pragmatic approach to fighting, and incorporates both boxing and wrestling. Useful in that it was written by men who were taught by the last generation of professional bare-knuckle boxers and competitive professional wrestlers.

Sorry for the delayed response; this week decided to take a time consuming turn. I had also considered the possibility of making a video explanation but could not find a volunteer. I think Passai Sho/Bassai Dai is perhaps the closest point of comparison to the Kusanku; for both contain the sequence of front-viewing square stance, with a vertical hammer-fist block and punch in that position, before moving/leaning off to the left and performing a right forearm block. The difference though, is that in Kusanku one maintains pressure on the opponent with the front leg, as the front leg pivots into square stance. In contrast, in Passai, one has to project into the position. Prior to this, in Kusanku we perform a shuto uke in back-stance; in back stance we have moved the body, but not our weight specifically, back removing our centre line from danger but allowing us to stop on coming force. If we interpret the move for example as an attempt to deal with a grab to the lapel or throat with one hand to be followed by a punch, a relatively common occurrence, it makes sense to do this. Using the hand position, we can control the grabbing arm, while also covering against the on coming attack. Also, by pulling ourselves back, but keeping our weight even, we pull them off balance, but do not unsettle our own stance. With the feet as positioned, the front leg can used to attack their leg and further destabilise their balance. By maintaining pressure with the front foot, and maintaining control with the arms, by using our hips to turn into shiko-dachi, one can then pull the attacker over. However, if this initial pull did not work, one could twist the arm of the attacker, and then shift their weight to the left, and apply pressure to the arm, to force the attacker to the ground. However, if we try this same method for Passai, the stance moving into the same movement does not apply enough pressure on the attacker. Also, if the attacker was attacking straight on and had body control; defending in cat stance or crossing stance would at best be fool-hardy. However, if we use it as a technique for moving around ballistic attacks, and for absorbing and dealing with techniques at an angle, it still makes sense. So if we move around, say an attempted push, we could then strike the attacker in the side, follow their direction of movement, and work from there into a take down. So hopefully the above gives a direct example of 1: Application reasoning, and 2: similarities in similarly aged kata. Jitte is another place from where shared sequences can be found. In terms of white crane kata; I see many similarities in Gojushiro; primarily those of creating distance, or engaging at close range.

TL;DR: The Pinan introduce basic concepts, and the fundamentals, encountered in the Kata of Itosu-ha systems. They are not simply poor man’s Kusanku, in that they have their own internal logic, and unique waza, that are distinct from Kusanku. They are a useful starting point for involvement in Itosu-ha karate, and provide a context for study of older kata. Not necessary for studying kusanku, but a useful body of contextual materials to assist deeper study of other kata. -- Sadly, it does appear as though what I was attempting to address has been lost in the message. TL;DR in action perhaps; I can be rather verbose. I was speaking in general terms as to why both approaches have merit, and why they have evolved according to the different culture encountered when discussing a kata. Global terms regarding why different approaches have been adopted. To discuss Kusanku Dai and Pinan in direct comparison as regarding their contents requires discussing the actual kata. I will try to summarise in bullet points to keep this brief: Kusanku Dai: - Created by Sakukawa Kanga, and derived from the teachings of Kwang Shang Fu; an exponent of Shaolin and Fukian Chuan Fa. It has been suggested he was in fact a teacher of Chinese wrestling as this would make sense of his student developing a kata to preserve his teachings, rather than simply preserving his forms. - Contains techniques that can be interpreted as useful for body-to-body, and close combat, and the percussive techniques contained habitually include movements for creating and maintaining distance. Furthermore, the movements for evasion which rely on the pivoting of body weight, rather than the movement of the feet, are better suited for the limitations of body-to-body combat. Also, many of the waza are presumptive of a direct meeting of force; compared to Passai or Chinto. - Thematically; it contains techniques resembling the other kata of the Okinawan canon derived from White Crane systems, however, it also contains several waza found in similarly aged, or older kata. - It would be nigh on impossible to find a variety of Karate, barring the Naha schools, which has not be influenced by Kusanku. So in terms of content; what can be learned through an in-depth study of Kusanku is how to confront someone attempting to engage in close combat, and how to end the engagement there, or how to escape it. The influence of the Kata also means it is perhaps the kata to adopt when deepening one’s studies. Pinan: - Created by Itosu Anko, and originally named Channan, they are derived from his studies under Matsumura Sōkon; but also his further, and more exhaustive, studies under Chikudun Nagahama, Matsumora Kosaku, and Gusukuma. - Contain a breadth of techniques which can be utilised in a multitude of ways; body-to-body techniques, trapping, and blows dealt at a distance, and include methods which can be used to deal with unexpected or unusual angles of attack. - Contains waza from across the spectrum of To De; from Kusanku, Naihanchi, and Passai, but also contains its own distinct waza not found in other kata. -In terms of content; the Pinan introduce a student to the broad themes of Shuri Te, or at least Itosu derived, systems of karate. Using the Pinan wisely, one can also explore a lot of variations of applications in rather succinct packages. Now; this perhaps all but confirms that there is no advantage to studying the Pinan prior to Kusanku, as the focus is completely different. However, to return to Kanku65’s point, and something I stated earlier, there is a value in learning variations on a movement; as is the Japanese mindset. Combat is chaotic; the same tool is not going to fit every situation. To expand on this; our learning process does not exist, nor can it, work in a vacuum. Studying one kata in depth is excellent, and should be done, however you require a context with which to make meaning of the kata’s content. The study of other kata allows this within a singular ryu-ha; especially if one considers each kata to individually be its own system. Homogeneity, and disparateness can be observed, which serves to direct your deep study of your chosen singular kata. Looking at Burgars’ example; he did not just study one kata. He studied a multitude of varieties of Gojushiro, referenced other martial traditions in his development of applications, and relied heavily on his extensive Shotokan experience as a compass in this singular in-depth exploration. One needs the benefit of context, and experience, before one can engage in a fruitful in-depth study. However, applying this to the Pinan/Kusanku matter: should one study the Pinan prior to Kusanku; no. Individual’s were training in it for over a century when the Pinan were created. However, these same individual’s studied 2-3 kata, not just Kusanku, and also engaged in Hojo Undo which provides significant feed back on the quality of your technique. They did not study a kata in isolation; it was compared to their other studies, and influenced how they exercised. Also; the Pinan are more than a poor man’s Kusanku; they are a summation of Itosu’s broad understanding of Karate. Are the Pinan a sufficient or useful contextual body? I would argue yes. They contain ideas one encounters in Kusanku, but also other ideas which the ideas of Kusanku can be compared against. Therefore, if one studies the Pinan first, Kusanku becomes a revision and an expansion of ideas you are already familiar with; but these ideas also have a useful context. This is true for a lot of the kata that traditionally follow the Pinan in many syllabi. Having a syllabus does not detract from each kata being an individual system, or from a student engaging in their own in-depth study; it provides a context. A context, which if one lacks it, means in-depth study is a dead end as it exists in a vacuum with no means of testing it. This is the process of teaching anyway; I am not sure how one teaches a kata any other way. You have to use the process of deconstruction, and revision, simply to teach a kata. However, as I pointed out earlier, what my considerations regarding Kusanku Dai are; it teaches a very specific global lesson. If, and apologise if I am misreading the assertion, were I to have to choose between that same teaching method via the Pinan or a series of Kusanku segments I would choose the Pinan. Simply a case of my students getting more out of a similar amount of time; Kusanku may be more sophisticated, but the Pinan are broader and attack more fundamental ideas across the board regarding physical confrontation. As we become more experienced as Karate-ka, and martial artists in general; we can begin to forget what it was to be a child, or be a beginner in the martial arts. When we reach a certain level, we can become dismissive of what lead us to where we are, because it no longer seems so relevant. To agree with Sensei8; that is why kata are a life long journey, each time we wake up and re-encounter the kata how we view the process changes. One might be at a point where one needs that in-depth study of one kata; while another might be a point where they benefit from that progressive model. I hope this post has been as exacting as needed to answer the question; I realise the other posts were some what too generalised in scope. Below is something my student said regarding the progressive model in martial arts when we discussed the matter. I think it makes a strong argument for why we need different models;

I thought the answer was quite succinct; whatever you have found confusing I am happy to discuss further. However, if you have simply found the answer unsatisfying, there is nothing more to be said. We cannot be content with every answer we receive, and we cannot agree with every one. Karate would never have come into existence in the first place if that were true. I would third the suggestion of reading Mr Burgar's work; it is insightful and is useful for challenging one's perception of kata. Indeed; it is that particular book that influenced me to look at the Pinan series as one whole kata, divided into different themes, rather than a disparate collection of kata. One can find some of his writing at this blog: http://martialartspublishingltd.blogspot.co.uk/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Yi1GTcCMM When in need of Shuto Uke examples go to Shutodan, I mean Shodan. (Pun works much better when spoken.) The 14-26 is the part to look at for the Shuto Uke, but the closer comparison is side viewing Shuto Uke which is 20 seconds onward. With that more exact description I would have to say it is either influenced by Tai Chi, Xinyi, or Bagua. If I had to make a guess about potential sources, perhaps Yoon Byung-in, as he had the most extensive Chaun fa experience that I know of.

True enough; and in the particular case of the student with the learning difficulties I did offer private lessons for the fee of class lessons, so long as they kept the time flexible. However, it is important to offer the behavioural intervention needed, not what we ourselves are inclined to. If the Dojo is not the suitable place for someone, then I shall not lie to them about it. I am about teaching Karate, and sharing something I myself enjoy; not messiah complexes. I have stopped teaching in commercial spaces, and essentially teach out of my garden; and must admit, I have become much more particular about who I will teach because of it. However, I also teach for free, excepting material charges which must be covered occasionally; when we want to rent sparring space, belts, replacing equipment et cetera.

Having another thought; in some branches of Shorin-Ryu, for beginners a Shuto Uke is performed by dropping the back arm to the side, as the front hand is drawn to the shoulder, and then as the front arm sweeps out (as opposed to thrust forward) the back hand performs a scooping movement from the side to come up to point at the elbow of the front arm. The movement we are discussing could as easily be an exaggeration of that I suppose. However, I do not believe Funakoshi taught that variation, because it would be quite the mutation for that to become what we see today in Shotokan-ryu where the arms move in different directions, and the block is thrust out. Seems quite obvious now, but didn't occur to me until training this morning. Anyway, hopefully others can see the link I am getting at with this; If one looks at Sonnal Momtong Makki; it appears to rely to a degree on rotation, which is a different mechanic to most versions of Shuto Uke, so that is why I suspect it may be influenced by Chinese systems and specifically norhtern systems. Not exactly Bagua per se, but it uses similar dynamic motions as rotation as Bagua just as a point of comparison. To concur with Bushido_man96; if one performs Sonnal Momtong Makki as a Go, or hard technique, like a Shuto Uke, you will break your fingers or wrist; the full rotation of the hand exposes the fragile parts of the hand. However, if you rotate your body with the technique, and use your body weight for the block, and use it as deflection, instead of an opposing force, than the palm out makes more sense; as it then allows for the immediate placement of pressure on the attacker after the deflection, and also allows a full rotation of the arm, when a side ways wrist would cause tension in the shoulder thus stopping the defence short. In other words; how it looks has definitely influenced it's performance, over it's actual application.

That is a good question as Ohtsuka Hironori (Wado-Ryu), and Yasuhiro Konishi (Shindo-Jinen-Ryu) who were early students, and assistant instructors in the 20s both went onto advocate a Shuto Uke with the palm facing more prominently outward. However, from both his early work, to his last work in which he demonstrated techniques Funakoshi appears to have favoured the palm to the side. Could be some influences lost to history due to the eastern tradition of acknowledging the senior master as the master, without regard to his de facto subordinates who though considered senior students shared teaching duties. Most immediate comparisons would be found in XingYi Quan, in terms of similar angle, or Pigua Quan with the use of a large preparation to generate torque. Unfortunately, I am talking from something I witnessed in person, but will try and do some digging to find something.

I suspect this particular variation is heterodox, although derivative from the teaching of Funakoshi it is not at all similar to what he demonstrated as a technically correct Shuto Uke in that he advocated the wrist in line with the head, and the hand sloped and palm facing to the side not outwards. One should not forget the debt that Tae Kwon Do has to Chinese Chaun Fa as well. Many of it's pioneers were also familiar with the Chinese arts through travels in Manchuria. I have seen similar blocking methods in some Northern styles; maybe that would be a place to look.

To keep things short, I have a curved spine which limits the mobility of the trunk of my body; I cannot move it independently of my hips on any level, my knees both sit over my feet differently, and my hip alignment is crooked. In short, I have to adapt my karate, and understanding of it to these limitations; limitations few of my students have. As a result; I often find myself using the title of this topic during lessons when I notice a student trying to emulate my frankly wrong-but-works-for-me method. It is a unique challenge, and I was curious how others deal with situations like that if they ever have them. I imagine on some level we have all experienced this; few of us have had the joy of an instructor with the exact same build as ourselves. Have you been on the end of such a phrase, or had to use it yourself?

The short answer is yes; I shan't go into great detail but in the two broad themes are as follows: 1. I have turned away adult students who have been seeking the "ultimate" martial art, or are just fad enthusiasts with regards to combat sports. As I teach full-contact karate, and incorporate grappling, I had a lot of people come to me because of the fame of Lyoto Machida. I turned them away as they weren't interested in Karate, but in fighting. I have also turned out some adult students who have never been able to grasp the need to respect the dojo floor, and others on it. I do not demand people be monks, but I expect discipline when training. 2. I no longer teach children, but when I did I used to have a very strict rule on a minimum age of 7, and 12-14 before I would allow them anywhere near a brown belt. Being children, I kept discipline light so long as they were learning, and trying. I have had cause to ask two parents to no longer bring their children as the energy needed to involve them in the lesson detracted from teaching anyone else, and they were also inclined to subtle displays of bullying, which they believed I did not notice. The only other occasion was a child with learning difficulties, and although one on one he was a very adept student, he struggled in the class situation and essentially attending was just stressing him beyond his ability to cope. It was a case of being cruel to be kind. Ultimately, everyone needs a different stick, and needs to be measured differently, some people mold themselves into karateka over time where as others just come and go through the movements. If a person has a quirk, but works in the dojo, that is them being who they are. However, if a person cannot leave their problems at the door, and impose them on others that is when I do not have the patience to allow a person to stay.

Karate: The originator of Shorin-ryu, Chibana Chosin, performing (Matsumura-no Passai/Tawada-no Passai): His student, and founder of Kyudokan, Higa Yuchoku performing : Higa's student, and founder of Kodokan, the late Arakaki Hanshi performing (note: he is the first performer in the video): As performed by his son, and now head of Kodokan, Arakaki Ryuta: Kobujutsu: Shinken Taira performing Shuji-no-Kon Sho: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_4WcJGnyiY Julian Mead, student of Inoue Motokatsu and head of Ryukyu Kobujutsu Association Great Britain, performing Shuji-no-Kon Sho: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK66LcEgR-c The only footage of my direct instructor that is online is nine years old, pre-dates when he began training on Okinawa, and is of Wado-Ryu kata. I would post it but it is not particularly reflective of his karate now.

To be more exacting then; the Japanese view each kata as introducing one to a new set of movements, but which are just a part of the whole of the system. That is what the step is; a new set of movements within the part of the whole. One benefit to be gained from this is compartmentalisation, it allows one to focus progress into steps; instead of attempting to engage the student in the entirety of the broadness of the Ryu-ha in one sitting. By compartmentalising, one can also return to a step to maintain one's study. To paraphrase Funakoshi; Karate is like boiling water. So the innate benefits of a "step" is compartmentalisation, and that it allows one to have a progressive model, alongside a review model. There are a multitude of advantages to this; but the primary one is that of accessibility. To give an example; I have taught students with a knowledge of the Pinan Kata the higher Kata of Kusanku, Passai, and Chinto, and relatively swiftly they were able to develop their performance of said kata to a level where my input was not a constant necessity. I have also taught people on a course basis these kata, and to people with no knowledge of the Pinan kata or Naihanchi, and they innately struggled because they did not have the intrinsic knowledge of how Go and Ju are manifested mechanically in Shorin-Ryu. I have also had people with significant martial arts background who just wished to learn the combative nature of Karate, in which case I didn't bother with the Pinan as they are too recent, and again because they lacked these earlier steps they struggled with the much more demanding, and longer kata than students with experience with the Pinan. That is the benefit I have observed, and experienced my self. So the step of studying in a certain order, and having a progressive model, which also allows a review of themes in isolation has been useful in that manner. What I was attempting to provide before was a context for the explanation, and I felt the argument regarding homogeneity provided at least a potential answer to the question. Hopefully, this more exacting explanation is more useful. End of the day though, I doubt their is a perfect answer because at the end of the day what is the use of "kata" anyway? We all have our own answers as to that, and ultimately our sincerity in what we practice matters more. That is indeed a wishy-washy cop out of an answer, but we are dealing with an interpretive field; the individual's experiance of their karate, and being engaged in that experience is the only real compass we have. Good luck in finding a concrete answer that you find satisfying, but I have to express my doubts that it exists.

I would generally like to think of Itosu as a thoughtful and intelligent character, with a deliberate approach to his karate. This being the impression his writing, and the anecdotes of his students, I have felt I have been given. Therefore, I would not be quick to dismiss the Pinan kata as the inevitable lesser sibling to Kusanku, Chinto, and Passai from which the series appears to be drawn. In Japanese Karate Do, one must remember the Japanese concept of Kata is distinct from the Okinawan concept of Karate. If one pays attention to the Kata of Judo, Jujutsu, and Kobujutsu; one can identify the nature of Japanese kata. In paired kata, the individuals work in unison with the intent of achieving the ideal of the kata; there is purposeful passivity. In individual kata, in particular Iaido, the movements are performed as individual sequences with each technique in of itself significant. A Japanese kata is the rehearsal of a technique in its idealised form. It is distinct from the practice of Waza, and does not involve a case of Seme and Uke; attacker and receiver. This attitude permeates Japanese karate; the practice of ones kata is the perfection of technique and the principles of movement represented. Not a rehearsal of combative concepts, in fact it pays no heed to the idea of “fighting” as is often found in modern practices regarding Bunkai. Rather, Waza and randori is where the notion of attack and defence is found in Japanese martial arts; a perfect example would be the Kihon Kumite of Wado-Ryu, regarding how this concept has influenced Japanese karate. A broader example would be Yakusoku Kumite or promise sparring; where one takes on the role of attacker and attacks in a pre-arranged way, and one receives and overcomes the attack. In contrast; the Okinawa mindset to kata, and technique (waza) is fundamentally different. It borrows very much from the Chinese mindset, although nuanced by its own idiosyncrasies. In Chinese martial arts, the majority of Taolu (forms/kata) have a traditional two man set or variation, which is designed to be used to demonstrate and practice applications of the forms techniques. This is indeed how the kata are viewed in traditional RyuKyu martial arts; every kata has a direct series of applications, although it appears, if judging by the words of Mabuni Kenwa and Miyagi Chojun, that by the turn of the century that the Okinawan practice was more interpretive than the Chinese approach. This in turn has perhaps lead to today’s “reverse-engineering” and borrowing from other martial arts to redefine bunkai into combatives. Mabuni famously opined that rigid kumite forms such as Yakusoku kumite could not reflect the chaos of combat, where as the practice of Kata present a multitude of possibilities and that a deep study of the kata was more useful than exchanging pre-arranged attacks and responses. In short, Mabuni was putting down the Japanese tradition without exactly attacking the Japanese Budo tradition. Furthermore; Hojo Undo. To the Okinawa mindset, one must condition the body to have good technique, whereas in the Japanese mindset good technique should trump any infirmities. However, this is not to say conditioning is not important in the traditional Japanese mindset, but where as in Okinawa one will encounter many different devices for conditioning the body, and each with a very specific form of conditioning in mind; in traditional Japanese martial arts one merely rehearses technique to the extreme, and against adversity. For example, Sumo; where famously weights are not used during training despite the size and strength of Sumo, or Kenjutsu where a heavy bokken may be used but no other type of weight. One simply trains to an extreme. I am sure heterodox examples exist which counteract these generalisations by the way, and am aware of a handful, but for now I believe it better to discuss the matter in broad terms. To apply these differences to the mindset of syllabus encountered in Japanese karate, and the progressive notions discussed, one need only look at how the mindset differs. To those of the combative mindset, the Pinan hold less value than more “advanced” and older kata, as the techniques that make up the Pinan are derivative, and ultimately there are only so many times one should revisit their lecture notes. Essentially; if one is finding what they need out of Kusanku, why revisit it in the Pinan? It is a waste of time. However, the Pinan do contain distinct techniques, and even several reminiscent and repeated techniques feature a distinctive way to get from A to B in the Pinan when compared to its most immediate source. To the Japanese mindset it is therefore a worthwhile exercise to practice this alternate technique, and its way of movement, even if it is a simple variation of a Waza found elsewhere. The Japanese also seek homogeneity through out their systemisation of Martial arts; for example there are great over laps between movement with the sword, and movement without a sword in traditional Japanese martial arts. Indeed; a saying I have encountered states that a skilled swordsman should be as able to apply the lessons of the sword as readily to the empty hand, as he could any blade. Again, to return to Wado-Ryu as an example; Hironori Ohtsuka excluded Kusanku Sho, Passai Dai, and Naihanchi Nidan and Sadan from his selection of Kata, arguing that Kusanku Dai, Passai Sho, and Naihanchi Shodan contained all that was useful from the aforementioned kata series. Therefore, he did have a discerning eye regarding which kata to include in his system, and indeed taught a specific formula and logic as to why he taught as he did. He argued that the Pinan kata contained the basic premise of the principles found in Kusanku, but that they contained their own distinct concepts. He also argued that Naihanchi contained the basic principles, which are then explored further in Seisan, and that all the ideas from these prior kata meet and come together in Chinto, but again with new distinct nuances. This is a perfect example of where the distinct nature of each kata is exonerated, but where homogeneity through out the system is also sought. In short; in the Japanese mindset the homogeneity of the syllabus is what matters. Whereas, in Okinawa the approach is that each kata is in of it self a treasure trove of information. So we are all wrong, and some how all right. Mostly though, we are all still dancing in white pyjamas, and should just enjoy dancing how we like. I only take issue with people who advertise self-defence, but then never bridge what they do in the Dojo to actual real violence. Otherwise, enjoy your hobby how you enjoy your hobby. Anyway; my interpretation of Kusanku is that it is a grappling kata, with the intent being either teaching body-to-body fighting concepts, or possible solutions for them. So, in my own practice of Kusanku, I generally allow my wrestling and Judo experience to inform my stances, and how I move through. This is based both on the actual content of the Kata, and the reported assertion that Kusanku was a Chinese wrestling instructor. Have to say that sadly none of the posted examples are supremely close to my own, so will try and find one. I do teach the Pinan, and find them useful as ways of introducing different fighting ranges and concepts. For example I use Sandan as a gate way into body-to-body fighting because a lot of it's movements lend itself to that. So it is useful for specifying your training on a particular focus, when kusanku can become incredibly broad. Edit: The version posted performed by Shugoro Nakazato is the closest I have found on youtube. However, our version uses a lot more stance transitions, and a front viewing shuto that seems absent from most of these versions. Might just have to film myself doing it.

Thank you for the time and effort you have put in, and for your other contributions as a member as much as for those as a moderator.

Have you tried exercising with Tetsu Geta or leg weights, or maybe leg lifts with kettlebells? Often weak ankles aren't literally weak ankles, but a weakness in ones form; weakness in the ankles can evolve from a weakness in the calf, or even as far up as the glutes. I would suggest perhaps trying exercises such as Hindu squats, and static stretching (especially PNF) after training. I only suggest this because it sounds like you actually have very strong ankles, and the weakness in the ankles is evolving from some where else. Maybe hyper acting ham-strings? Could be a lack of balance in your upper leg muscles; very common for martial artists.

Considering what you desire to do Andreas; rattan is undeniably the better choice. It is light weight which allows for greater ease with more dextrous movements, such as spinning, yet it is also durable enough to be used in a combative format against other weapons. However, if you are a beginner I would advise Oak over rattan. I would also advise exploring the traditional forms first over free style formats. Oak is a much better device through which to develop the conditioning to wield Bo effectively. Also, the traditional arts will provide both access to kata and kumite practice. It will also give you a much stronger base from which to explore the "show" aspects of modern forms, as if you have strong fundamentals, and an understanding of combative principles, you can more easily traverse the realms of free-style. Think of it like having a compass in the forest; you go into free-style without a strong base, you will not be able to see the tree for the forest. Think of it like choreography in action films, or even professional wrestling. Ultimately; it is the people who studied both actual martial arts and choreography, over just stunt-work, who create the most interesting action scenes. It is the wrestlers who have actual technical grappling skills who most effectively blur the line between the glitz of pro-wrestling and actual brawling. In short; good technique, and a nod to the actual purpose of the weapon will in turn produce the "show" without even aiming for it. The Bo material itself is just icing on the cake; oak is just better icing in my opinion.

I have no idea what to say but thank you. I am glad to have made contributions that have been of use to others, and would like to take the opportunity to thank others for their contributions as well.

I have trained to fight as a south-paw as I am not symmetrical, due to a curved spine and how as a result my hips and knees line up. However, I am in fact right handed, and I do not train my students to fight according to the dominance of their hands. I do not used fixed drills, and what drills I utilise are designed to encourage ambidexterity; to disallow one the comfort of a dominant side. In terms of broad martial arts; in Judo I have encountered the need to engage the right hand more, because one is often practicing techniques against the right handed. Similarly, in kick-boxing, I would find the need to practice fending off right handed fighters more often than left handed. In terms of combat-sports, it makes sense to spend your time on learning to deal with the most common factors you will encounter; right handedness being common factor. However, traditional martial arts, do not, I believe encourage this. Most kata, form practice, demand one develop aptitude with both hands and feature a lot of symmetrical repetition. Also, many traditional drills such as sticking-hands, will feature two-handed forms; and most traditional martial arts will have drills designed to develop proprioception, with an emphasis on using the hands together. Any right handed bias, I would argue evolves from the fact most people are right handed, and they incidentally encourage the dominance of the right hand. So; there is a solid argument for right hand bias, but I would suggest it is incidental rather than by design.