Wado Heretic

I have competed in knockdown, but have never trained in Kyokushin, and I would say a varied kicking arsenal is of benefit to a lighter fighter. Keeping it simple and calculated seems to work for heavier fighters, of which I am one. Regarding syllabus though, I imagine the idea is more is better, so the more kicks you encounter, the better chances you have of finding the kicking weapons that work for you. If we look at Okinawan kata, which are arguably the only reliable sources regarding the practices of turn of the century pre-war karate, only three kicks will be found. The front kick, stomp kick, and crescent kick, with most examples of a kick in kata being done from a defensive posture; seisan being a rare exception. I do not believe the majority of kicks evolved from these three, although they are the most universal kicks found in traditional martial arts never mind karate. Shotokan lore holds that Funakoshi Yoshitaka developed the majority of kicks now found in Shotokan, and the systems it broadly influenced. The main innovation he introduced being that of bringing the knee to a position aligned with, or above the waist, in what is known as the chambering position; thus allowing more diverse motions by turning the hip over, or altering the angle at the knee, or pivoting the body. The influence of this innovation can be seen in Tae Kwon Do, although that is also from the influence of traditional Korean martial arts, but more broadly in Japanese Karate. Supposedly the round kick, side kick, and turning/spinning kicks of most systems came into vogue during the post-war period, and the early development of inter-school competitions where these techniques were initially highly successful as they proved able to stifle any one utilising a conventional approach. As a result many Japanese systems adopted these winning techniques as their own, and thus these otherwise unorthodox techniques have become so widely propagated as to be conventional in the modern era. Similarly, when Japanese Karate was introduced to Okinawa in the form of these emerging competition forms, the Keidogi, and Kyudan system, Okinawan, or real (depending on how hard-line you are) karate could not help but be influenced by these techniques as well. Furthermore, the eclectic, competition driven nature of Karate’s early expansion into the western world in the U.S and Europe probably maintained the momentum for diversifying techniques, and perhaps distracted from notions of pragmatic self-defence. However, it should be noted that apparently Kyokushinkaikan did not adopt the round kick until after the 1964 inter style matches against Muay Thai, therefore I would take the Funakoshi Yoshitaka/Inter-school competition explanation with a pinch of salt, as May Oyama began his studies of Karate in post-war Shotokan and apparently participated in inter-school matches. Furthermore, Wado-Ryu, Goju Kai, and Shito-Ryu rarely expand beyond the four kicks of front, Side, Round, and Back kick, though this varies from club to club, and association to association. Speaking specifically of the branch of Shorin-Ryu I study, Aragaki Shihan did little more than front kick as a basic technique, and my experience on Okinawa with regards to competition is that they still favour straightforward kicking over anything elaborate. A tangent I admit, but I believe it helps put kicking techniques in perspective. My personal inclination is that the predominant kicks of pre-war karate were the front kick, stomp kick, and perhaps the crescent kick. However, I am also inclined to believe the back kick may have existed prior to the modern age; due to several kata indicating the use of the foot to attack behind oneself, and also some of the positions stomp kicks are performed from in kata. I argue though that it existed in competition with simply positioning the self to perform a front kick, and that the impression we have of it being modern evolves from the back kick often being performed as a turning/spinning technique during line drills. I am also inclined to argue that the side kick is a modern invention, for the majority of kata where one kicks to the side; one simply positions the hips so as to perform a front kick. Furthermore, although the conventional side kick is a lovely weapon in competition, it is not so useful in the situations, or the environments, one would find them selves performing self-defence. On kicking high; although I concur with the general wisdom that is better to kick high as regular practice as it encourages flexibility, athleticism, and serves to strengthen the muscles more quickly due to the greater work, one should commit as much time to kicking low. A good high kick, and a good low kick, have subtle differences in the muscle groups they use, and only doing high kicks can lead to hyperactive hamstrings and tight calves. So one should balance it out with regular low kick practice, or exercises such as squats, and lunges. Of Chinese influences; the traditional kicking techniques of most karate systems bear greatest resemblance to Fujian systems, for example White Crane boxing, though there are an increasing number of parallels with northern wushu in modern Japanese karate. Interestingly; one can find depictions in Egyptian and Greek artefacts showing the use of front toe kicks, and crescent like kicks, and Siamese boxing and Indian martial arts also feature these techniques. My inclination is that the Waza or techniques we see in Okinawan karate are derived from Te, whereas the Kata are a model of practice adopted from Chinese Kenpo, with only some Kata truly being Chinese. I think that many independent developments of the Okinawans may have been lost to history, both by the interference of the Japanese, but even the Okinawans own appreciation of Chinese culture. Also, because the human body has not changed in millennia, it can be difficult to say what technique came from where or when it did. It’s a catch 22, one could underplay the Chinese influence and be wrong, and one could overplay it and be wrong. My opinion on the martial arts of Okinawa is that they have always been homogenous in nature ever since the unification of the RyuKyu kingdom. By most accounts, the study of the martial arts was a personal, and unregimented, affair with most dedicated martial arts having several masters. Although it is convenient to recognise masters historically by terms of Shuri Te, Naha Te, and Tomari Te, I believe this is inaccurate to the actual history. I believe the division of Shuri Te and Naha Te, or Shorin-Ryu and Shorei-Ryu, only truly occurred when Itosu Anso, and Higoanna Kanryo both began teaching publically at the turn of the 20th century and became so influential as to have Shuri-Te and Naha Te essentially refer to their systems respectively. With the influence and start of formal dojo, and therefore systems, in Okinawa we can now see clear differences in practice; however, the most successful were the students of Itosu and Higoanna and thus the clear distinction of Shuri and Naha Te, whereas Tomari Te, which never had such prolific or successful teachers, seems to have its influence spread across systems but never really represented by a modern system. I assert that is because there never were three Tes as it were, merely modern karateka creating the notion to explain differences in styles. I believe this is reinforced by the creation of the Karate Kenryukai (1918-1929) where Karateka irrespective of style came together to exchange knowledge. Along with the efforts of teaching karate in schools and dojo, this created the division of so called school karate, and village karate. I believe school karate represents the direct ancestor of most modern systems, and reflects homogeneity in karate, whereas village karate reflects heterodox traditions not influenced by the broader culture. The distinctions we see between styles today are reflections of the globalisation of Karate, and how its traditions are interpreted when it encounters the martial concepts of other cultures. If one can, it is worth reading the Matsuyama Theory, which provides are far more coherent argument than I have. On how I use kicks; depends on if I am competing or practicing self-defence. Honestly, I follow Motobu’s response to the question: “Which hand do I strike with?” “The one that is closest.” If a kick provides an opportunity to end matters, my hand cannot, I will use a kick and vice versa.

A few times; though the only effective overlaps I have found were with Sai, and Tonfa, otherwise there are too few analogues with the other weapons to truly perform the kata in a way authentic to the original. I find one has to change the stances too much, and of course the way of generating power, and then one has to acknowledge the different dangers one is confronting with a weapon. It is fun, but personally I prefer the kata dedicated to weapons. Why reinvent the wheel after all. I have found useful overlaps with Tanto and Kubaton, but otherwise I generally stick to unarmed, and weapon kata as separate. As said though, it's ones own journey; but in my opinion its barking up the wrong tree past an entertaining side-road when one is in need of some quick inspiration.

My personal opinion is that there are two possibilities: 1. It was a post-war innovation by Nakayama, and his peers, in an attempt to ensure the kata was uniform with the principle of the embusen of a kata always leading to ending in the spot from which the kata was begun. 2. It is in fact a historical anomaly evolving from Funakoshi's training in a heterodox version under Anko Asato, which he retained in favour of the more widely spread Itosu version; the version propagated in the majority of karate systems. I believe the second possibility holds water, as kata have regularly been changed and modified; and Ohtsuka, and Yasuhiro, two of Funakoshi's students who formed their own systems, spent time training with Mabuni and Motobu, and were very much pragmatics with regards to fighting technique. I believe if they saw no use for a hop at the end, they would have dropped it. Hence why the Shotokan variation has it alone. However, if one follows that reasoning the question remains the purpose of the hop. I suspect the explanation posited in the video posted has some merit; one can very easily "load" more weight into a standing lock, or can be useful in gaining and retaining head control (which is my preferred interpretation, even if it is dangerous to practice, as some of my shorter students have used a similar hop to get head control in a clinch). Similarly, to the opening of Kusanku, such a grab is relatively natural in a confrontation where one simply wants to try and stop someone hitting them; one simply clinches up or pushes away. So, I suspect that in this particular case, Iain Abernathy has over complicated the explanation. I believe the hop is a way of gaining body control. If we return to the first possibility, however, why hops instead of steps? A deliberate step back would work just as effectively to return to the original starting point, and would also as clearly emulate using the grip to gain control via using ones body weight. Thus; I posit a combination of the two above explanations. That Funakoshi taught a heterodox variation of the kata which included a hop, and then Nakayama and his peers expanded it to three hops so as to return to the original position. The Shorin-Ryu group I am a part of is called Kodokan, so we do exist. Also closely connected with Kyudokan so I reckon it's a naming convention that just came into being. Sadly,I was never able to find the opportunity to ask Aragaki Shihan why Kodokan. Speaking of the version we do; it doesn't feature any back ward movement at the end. We simply pivot into yoi position, though one does perform a double body cover to return to the correct yoi as you do so, thus if you wish to interpret it as a trap and pull back you can. I believe the Matsubayashi version is the one which features the movements backwards at the end. Either way; as with any analysis of kata, one can end up putting the cart before the horse. The unusual hop can actually be seen in some kenjutsu, and kobujutsu practices, and I have borne witness to a similar exercise being done by both Judo-ka and Aikido-ka. Funakoshi himself was an exponent of Judo, and many of his early students also studied Judo and Kendo. The younger Funakoshi, Gigo, was also a relatively skilled swordsman. Perhaps one of them saw the advantage of adding such an exercise to the Kata, as in their mind it fit the kata in terms of broad theme. Anko Itosu stated in his principles that kata contain both fighting techniques, and conditioning exercises. Funakoshi also claimed to remove many dangerous elements from his teachings. Maybe the hops are just exercise. Comes down to how you look at your kata practice.

Good luck in what ever you choose to do after the move. Glad to hear you have been cleared to return to the dojo floor though.

My personal bias is towards Shorin-Ryu. It is usually taught in a very methodical manner, with an emphasis on learning how to develop powerful technique. It usually favours a variety of ranges, and connects kata to conflict through bunkai. However, Shotokan-Ryu is often very athletic, with an emphasis on powerful technique, and usually inclined towards a lot of kumite and sparring. Only weakness being that it rarely employs bunkai, and kumite is often rigid or limited to sundome. Depends on the club and association though. Shuri-Ryu is a very eclectic and relatively heterodox form in regards to a number of it's practices. Beside that my knowledge of it is limited. I know it has a number of unique kata, but if that is not your interest than perhaps not the wya for you. Best advice I can give; try them all, and see which one sticks out for you. Time consuming yes, and potentially expensive, but hopefully the first one you walk into will be the one for you. More than anything else, coming from an MMA background I would suggest picking up two books: The Art of Hojo Undo by Michael Clarke; an excellent book regarding traditional conditioning. Throws for Strikers: The Forgotten Throws of Karate, Boxing and Taekwondo by Iain Abernathy. To be fair, even in clubs with an emphasis on practicality and all-range fighting, grappling can fall to the side. This is a good book for understanding this less explored aspect of Karate. Aside from that, its not so much the style as the training. Find a club you enjoy, set up a practice routine (say twenty minutes a day), and find someone to train with twice a week or so. This should provide you the most practical balance between tradition and direct application.

Hope you recover soon.

I am against junior black-belts, as in my mind the black-belt denotes an acknowledgement of self-discipline and confers a lot of responsibility to the holder. Their training is now as much in their own hands, as it is in their instructors. They represent the ryu-ha proper for example. Also; I believe a black-belt should denote that the wearer has a greater capacity for violence then others, something a child is not ready to be taught about. However; in saying that, I believe it important to acknowledge the skill of children, especially when it comes to examples such as the one shown. In that sense, I feel perhaps a black-belt with a white stripe, or a midnight blue belt would suffice. It is close to black, but you can then tell the child the difference; they have it as an acknowledgement of their ability, but they are not yet ready for the full responsibility of a black-belt, or the lessons that entails. I personally consider black-belts more unfair to the children given them, for they face a lot of unfair judgement they should not. That girl, frankly, has better kata than many adult black-belts I have seen (Okay, she has better kata than me.) If she is the future of karate, we don't have much to fear.

Tameshiwari is a good indicator; if you do it sincerely and make sure it is a valid test of your striking ability. General rule of thumb; work with physics, but don't make physics do the work! Depends on what you are concerned about though; many materials have a different quality to the human body. Wood is pretty good, as it has a balance of rigidity and flex, not at all dissimilar to the structure of the human body. A brick is more dense, but brittle, and so the breaking level can be deceptive. It can be very easy to "cheat" if you just know what to look for, and just from worry of injuring your self it can become tempting to take it easy on yourself. Tameshiwari is as much a test of spirit and sincerity as it is technical proficiency. It will not help if you cheat yourself, but at the same time the risk of injury can set you back. I do it myself; but it really is not for everyone, and though I would advise researching it, do not attempt without supervision and certainty it will help you with where you want to go.

In short, you could have handled it better; however, you were in a high adrenalin state (mucking about as it may be, it was still a physical activity) and in a place you consider your own, where you have a stranger being impolite. I cannot critique you for that, and you were in the right. I have had it happen to me, and there is one rule to follow; focus on the task at hand and shut out the audience. If a parent or student then registers a complaint about it to me after the matter; then I take the person complained about aside, and discuss the behaviour and why it is not acceptable on the Dojo floor. Sadly; you put yourself out there, you will encounter these situations, and you cannot let them get a grasp of you. I cannot critique, but I would advise that perhaps you evaluate the behaviour that lead to the situation. A parent's sense of the danger presented to their children, or other children in a similar activity to their own, will be more inclined to think it is dangerous then you might. Have to be sensitive to that perceptive difference.

In my mind; whether it is given or earned, you should always be working for it. I set myself some very basic guidelines I must meet; I will post them in general terms. Students are customers (in most cases and always if they are paying) and are individuals; they are paying for a service and you are a service provider. The main goal of martial arts is self-development, physical and mental; and that is an individual effort, not something gained through a package deal. 1. Always be available, in class and out, and always be professional when approached by a student. Do not give into buddy syndrome, you are a teacher to provide a service, not to make friends. 2. Treat students as individuals and people; remember names, and make an effort to create programs for each person, or at least diversify for different ability levels. For instructors; you did not search out students, they came to you. If they do not gel with your extant class, or do not show you the respect you are comfortable with; you are always within your rights to refuse service. 1. Always train and demonstrate skill in and with the class; there is no excuse for standing to the side and barking out what to do the whole time. Be an uke or tori time to time, when needed. Join the line drills, and perform kata. It will boost student confidence in you if they see you practicing, and they will feel more part of a group if everyone is involved. 2. Create and maintain boundaries. If one group calls you sensei, every group calls you sensei. Dave who has been in the class for ten years, and outside the dojo is a good friend, does not get to call you Steve in class if everyone else calls you sensei. Allow no exceptions, and maintain equal respect for all on the dojo floor. Those are my rules for myself; even if I am given or have earned respect, I do not allow myself to stop working for it.

Intent and reaction; 1. You must have intent behind the blow; karate starts with the mind. 2. It must elicit a meaningful and energetic reaction. Effectiveness from striking comes in versatility and adaptability. In terms of percussive techniques and exchanges, the range, speed, and angle are the most fluid of all fighting ranges. There is no perfect “Master blow”, although one may argue the perfect tsuki would see the transfer of all power, with out the impression of movement on contact. This would, in other words; mean breaking the laws of physics. I would say the essence of effective striking is Zentai Ryoku. Muchimi, Mochimi, Chinkuchi, and Gamaku are the concepts I am currently exploring as the building blocks of Zentai Ryoku. Still; I refer back to versatility. Being able to “push” well, is as important as creating the more violent jump and wobble reaction. They are different reactions to transferring energy, and both should be explored. What I look for is energetic reactions, rather than the manner of reaction; and to also have command over the reaction produced. If I am looking for a push, I should see a push, and conversely if I am looking for a wobble I need to see a wobble. Consistency is the key to said exploration. Edit: Did not see your second post before posting my own. To reiterate; you need to look for consistency, after asking your self what you want out of the strike. Plus; if a bag is too light, and is becoming unreliable as a measure, all you can do is get a heavier bag. I can't speak much on gloves, I don't really use them outside of sparring. I prefer to just use wraps on the bags.

Everyone has a different build, and develops differently in structural terms. Often small nuances are the result of a person being unable to emulate their teacher, and must work their own way to find the intended effect. Over time; this evolves into a greater and greater discrepancy as this process is repeated every time the kata is taught. Some changes are purposeful; as some change the kata to suit their own view of effective self-defence, or to improve the aesthetic quality of the kata. Some may change the kata within their own life time, or even the space of a few years; as their views on what kata are change. Similarly, a student may take a path of intent that diverges from their teachers; and thus must dramatically revise the kata to account for the change of intent. A good example would be the divergence between Shotokai and Shotokan-Ryu. Anyway; sometimes the changes are cumulative and accidental, some times they are dramatic and purposeful. Evolution happens; you can either be part of the process, or stagnate.

I see the belt as a teacher's assistant; it lets the instructor know where you are, and where you need to be going. I would grade in both; if I was learning the syllabus and grading material. It is a process being followed; that I either invest in fully, or do not. Now; if you are just cross training, and one of the arts is being catered uniquely to what you need to add to your arsenal, then you need not grade as grades are redundant in such a situation. It depends on what you are being taught; if it's to a syllabus in both, then grade in both. If one is not syllabus based then it is not needed as it becomes a redundancy as a tool.

This was going to be an edit but returned too late. On further contemplation; I believe the Armour can reduce the wielding of weapons to a game. I am not opposed to competition; I believe it has it's place as a source of adversity, a realm within in which to test ones skill. However; in saying that, although we may equate unarmed combat with sport because of the long traditions of boxing and wrestling, and the relative safety that may be achieved. I believe it dangerous to do the same with the practice of the armed arts; they are a reminder and a bridge to the warrior origins of many arts. In reducing such activities to a game; we may lose sight of the value of weapon practice at all. Yes; there may be olympic fencing and kendo. Activities with long and celebrated heritages; however, even the untrained eye will be able to notice the differences between authentic methods derived from deep study of actual combat, and sporting methods. While I may not oppose the advancement of sport karate, I am hesitant to see Kobujutsu enter the realm of sport. However, the training possibilities of the armour are compelling. Plus; I would not wish failure on anyone and hope the best to all involved in the project. I would just warn people to keep in mind the clear distinctions between the killing methods; and the inevitable match winnings methods that shall evolve.

I have to say: no armour is perfect, and there will always be an element of holding back, either through the participants own inhibitions, or structurally via the materials of the weapons allowed or the rule set established. I see the benefits to these suits to training (increased feedback for example); but I am dubious to the benefits outside of those who need to train in such a manner, at such expense. It just strikes me as a gimmick in regards to the civilian sphere of weapon practice. Kendo bogu, and sufficiently padded weapons work fine for my students and I as it stands; I would like to be more informed of the commercial viability before I can say more in the sphere of general training possibilities. Competition has it's place and time; good luck to them, and I hope their investment in the project pays off for all involved.

No problem, and in turn, thank you for the link. It seems familiar, but I do not recall it; so useful food for thought. I suspect the difference is like HEMA, and modern Olympic fencing, wrestling, and boxing. The essence of the older forms, and even the technical elements, have much in common, yet there are subtleties not readily apparent.

I cannot speak of Ohtsuka Meijin and his personal expression, which I suspect lent much to his jujutsu background, however, his vehicle for martial education which became Wado-Ryu shares many parallels with Motobu-Ryu, Shito-Ryu, Shindo Jinen-Ryu, and Kobayashi Shorin-Ryu. Motobu-Ryu specifically contains Atemi-Waza exercises that exist also in Wado-Ryu. Also; an emphasis on protecting the head and the centre line, in the manner Wado-Ryu Kata suggest, is essentially the same advice as Motobu Choki gave. Wado-Ryu and Shito-Ryu kata share many similarities in the structure, and the manner with which techniques are performed in the kata. The divergence between Shito-Ryu and Wado-Ryu, is much less than say the divergence between Shotokan and Wado-Ryu. Many of the combative notions of Wado-Ryu also have a counter part in Kobayashi Shorin-Ryu; especially Kyusho-jutsu and “sticking”; which is taking control and maintaining control of the opponent. If one looks at the early works of Funakoshi; we can observe this way of thinking being present in Funakoshi’s practice, and thus we can presume he taught it. I mention Shindo Jinen-Ryu as Konishi Yasuhiro and Ohtsuka Hironori are both credited with the invention and introduction of Jiyu and Yakusoku kumite into Funakoshi ha karate (I use this phrase to refer to Funakoshi’s pre-war karate, before Shotokan began to take shape.) Lastly; Wado-Ryu places a significant emphasis on solo Kata, and the solo kata of Wado-Ryu have an Okinawan heritage. The paired kata were also devised as an exploratory body for the solo kata (Although, there does exist the argument that Ohtsuka created many to provide answers he felt were lacking in his exposure to karate. There is also an argument that he developed some as jujutsu answers to karate manoeuvres.) I will admit, my exposure to Jujutsu is limited to Judo, Brazilian Jujutsu, and courses on Shindo Yoshin-Ryu and Yoshinkan Aikido. On balance; despite similarities in principles, I would argue that Wado-Ryu expresses these principles in a way more similar to Okinawan Karate, than traditional Japanese Bujutsu. Anyway; I believe Wado-Ryu holds a greater debt to Okinawan Karate in terms of both structure, and fighting concepts, than the pinch of salt phrase acknowledges. In its original context; I believe it was to emphasise that Wado-Ryu was more than the sum of its parts, and that if you try to understand it by any of its individual parts you will have missed the point entirely. However; I have seen it bandied around as a justification for insular thinking, and that is why I do not adhere to it. One is who they associate with, and I would rather not associate with such thinking. Ultimately; Wado-Ryu is an invention of Ohtsuka Meijin, and incorporates much of his original thinking, innovation, and inventions. A sincere exploration of his art, I believe, requires one to sincerely look at all his influences without discrimination, and to remember what he created was a product of these influences; not a simple continuation of them. However; I now primarily study Shorin-Ryu and Okinawan Kobujutsu. I am now speaking as an outsider; take my thoughts as you will.

I do not adhere to the "pinch of salt to Wado" way of thinking; I consider it a misdirection from the actual truth of the matter. However, that is an experiential conclusion; borne from what I have encountered. I also would not say I augment one or the other; rather I have carried forward experience I had with Wado-Ryu, such as certain novel solutions or responses to situations, that do not exist in an apparent manner in Shorin-Ryu. It would be better to say my Wado-Ryu experience is a part of the lens through which I explore Shorin-Ryu. On a literal and apparent level; I still utilise the Gyakunage Kata as a teaching tool. I also continue to practice Kihon Kumite, Idori no Kata, Tantodori no Kata, and Shinken Shirahadori. I find these practices still contribute to my own personal growth. On a more subtle technical level; the expression and form of Zentai Ryoku, Katamae, Kuzushi, and Tai Sabaki all hold a debt to Wado-Ryu in what I practice and teach. Although; I make a conscious effort to marry them with the expressions found in Shorin-Ryu. It is not a case of picking and choosing on basis of "better", rather finding the common ground, and allowing my students to take the expression where they have to. I would say about 10-15% of what I do would appear to be Wado-Ryu to the trained eye. However, I admit it would probably look like bad or poor Wado-Ryu; and in truth it somewhat is that.

The two friends of a martial artist are tradition and adversity; have a basis in tradition, but always confront it’s truisms with challenges. In many respects, traditional Karate, as a practice, is an exercise in hardening the body and spirit; with pragmatic self-defence being the guide of its technical direction but not the totality of its nature. I would argue that it becomes impossible to understand the 100-man kumite; if one looks at it through the lens of it being a test of self-defence skills (That is what Jissen Kumite is for). Rather, it is a test of the hardening of the body and spirit. It takes a special kind of person to put themselves through such a trial; and if you look at the list of names of those reported to have done it, you will find exceptional martial artists, but perhaps not a list of champions. In my club, I make all black belts go through a ten-man Kumite under modified shoot-fighting rules. I also throw myself into the fray during said grading kumite as a matter of principle. The most I have fought is a 20-man kumite; but had to cycle through the 7 volunteers I could find. Best starting points I could give are Sanchin, hojo undo, and working your way up. Try 2, then 3, then 5, then 7, and then finally 10 (All at about 70% power though). At your size, you might struggle more than most, less ability to absorb body shots after all; so if you want to try such a test, I would focus on developing a solid defence.

That is a pretty good analogy; he was unswayed by my appeal to history, and showing the line from Chibana to myself. Just surprised me; made me wonder whether I had diverged far more than I had thought. Whether I was being insincere without realising. I suppose that is the danger we all face as we move in the circle of teaching, and even though we may keep training with the same teacher (As I have and do), just because our own goals differ from our teachers; we may diverge from what we are taught in dramatic ways right under our noses.

To go back to an earlier post; if a CI is known for giving double grading, then I believe it would be rude or impolite to ask. However, I am known for being hardheaded, and giving no lee way with grading. So I do prefer people to communicate with me directly with their concerns if they have any. Just how I am, I try to be fair, and I know that sometimes that leads to me not noticing somethings I probably should. I suppose I would have to argue for double grading and asking for them, if we view the belts as a simple teaching tool. If we use the belt to help us keep track of a students progress, then those are neccessary evils as it were. If we treat them as platitudes and recognition of achievement; we should not allow people to ask for them, nor should we reward them. I guess it depends on where one sits on the line between those two extremes.

I shall admit I was offended by the remark at first; as in my mind, what I am doing is relatively faithful to what I have been taught. In my opinion; my teacher cannot teach me in full what he knows, nor will I fully absorb what he knows. I will encounter questions I never asked my teacher, and thus will have to realise, or invent, an answer. I will also encounter adversities my teacher never did, and adapt what I do in the face of them. It just struck me as odd; that a divergence from a syllabus came across as doing something different. Maybe that is the person saying it being small minded, or perhaps I have created more changes than I realised. I suppose; if natural divergence, and evolution is not enough, the next question would be whether hybridisation valid enough to "create" a style? Personally; I do not believe one can merely take kata from several sources, or techniques from a melting pot, and put them together. That to me is merely bastardisation. A style must have a comprehensive fighting philosophy, and embody success in the innate strategies of said philosophy. Unless it move away and develops a novel and distinct philosophy, with a technical approach mirroring said philosophy; it cannot be a distinct paradigm or "style".

I recently had someone, a fellow blackbelt in Shorin-Ryu, tell me I was not really teaching Shorin-Ryu. I will admit; I have brought forward some elements of my Wado-Ryu training, and incorporated a grappling aspect into my own grading syllabus. However, in my mind; I teach and work from the Kata as I was taught them, and over 50% of my teaching is kata-based. However; apparently, my incorporation of elements from outside the syllabus disqualifies what I do as Shorin-Ryu. I am just curious; at what point of divergence from the syllabus, has one stopped teaching something and moved into new "style" territory?

I would argue it depends on the CI; I have always preferred to be asked, and to have the opportunity to have that conversation with a student. Then again; I have never opted to double grade a student on my own initiative, and I usually end up saying no and explaining why. I see no harm in having the conversation; just so long as you do not enter into it with a demand. Just, if you are going to, remember the belt is a teaching aid telling the instructor where you are; you should not be having the conversation if your thoughts are ones of seeking a platitude for your ego. Just; I have had students give up because they did not understand the grading syllabus, and I wish they had asked and had the conversation instead.

As an instructor; at the grade you are discussing, I would be looking for the ability to produce what is asked for. I would not be wanting to be too much inventiveness just yet; for the sake of safety, and for the fact I am trying to gauge your initial development. Rather than asking the forum; ask your sensei. He is the only one who will know exactly what he wants to see. If you are confident you can double grade, state this to your instructor, and ask if you can make the attempt. Some will say no just because you asked. However, it is better to take the gamble with that conversation; than it is on the grading with another person's safety.