Wado Heretic

I have admittedly never heard of Eibu Kan as a branch of Goju-Ryu. Does it have any connections to the following: Shodokan Jundokan Shoreikan Meibukan Goju-Kai USA Goju Shodokan and Jundokan may be considered the Orthodox Schools of Okinawan Goju-Ryu. They both stick to the classic 12 kata that Miyagi Chojun settled on as his cannon before his death in 1953. Although, there are some differences between the two in the performance of Sanseru, Seisan, and Suparimpei from what I have witnessed. Meibukan and Shoreikan have innovated and added kata to their syllabi beyond the 12 Kata of Miyagi, however, they are still functionally Okinawan Goju-Ryu in all other ways. They both also have additional kumite exercises not found in Shodokan or Jundokan. Goju-Kai is often called Japanese Goju-Ryu, and it has adopted a number of the conceits of Japanese Karate. Such as kicks including Mawashigeri, Sotogeri, and Ushirogeri as found in Shotokan, Wado-Ryu, and Shito-Ryu and other Japanese style. It has Taikyoku kata for beginners learnt before Gekisai dai Ichi and dai ni. Both versions of their Gekisai also follow the same embusen line which is not done on Okinawa. There are also a set of four "shihan" kata which are very different in character to Miyagi's 12 Kata. USA Goju is an invention of Peter Urban and the kata are similar to, but have key and noticeable differences, including the omission and addition of various techniques to the Kata. There is also a greater emphasis on self-defence techniques which give the kumite exercises an entirely different flavour. If it is connected to any of those it will probably give you more insight into the Goju-Ryu they practice. Otherwise, it is an absolute mystery to me.

I voted Shorin-Ryu because that is the core of what I do. The teachings and principles passed onto me by Aragaki Sensei, and my seniors, form the basis of what I teach and practice day to day. However, in my personal journey, I have incorporated aspects from Goju-Ryu, Uechi-Ryu, and Shito-Ryu into practice through the study of kata. I also have a background in Wado-Ryu, in which I earned a Shodan Grade, and I still use many of the sound principles found in Wado-Ryu through its kumigata.

If one has access to the tools it is fairly easy to grind the edge off, and then sand down into a smooth, round surface. The other option is to hot cut off the edges and tip, and then sand down the edges, but that requires some knowledge of blade smithing, and having the right tools. A pair of steel scissors of the correct hardness can immediately take the edge off of most EDC. Run the between the fold of the scissors where the two blades are connected a few times, and it'll take the edge right off. But that will just take off the sharpness and won't achieve what I think you are after. As Bob mentioned prior as well you can use various tools and just run the blade down with repetition. As long as the counter surface is of higher grit.

I have a student who studied Shaolin Quan'fa in China, though not at the Temple, but in Henan Province. From what I can gather, Shaolin is an umbrella term for a huge amount of distinct styles and systems, which have become collected into the Shaolin Temple. You are not going to find a "Shaolin Style" equivalent to how we categorise other systems. According to the literature, which is not propaganda, the modern Shaolin is largely a reconstruction effort. Its modern content largely follows what was identified as "Shaolin" by the Central Guoshu Institute in the 1920s, and the Northern Shaolin of the Chin Woo Athletic Association. This is because former members of those organisations were the leading force in returning martial arts practices to the Temple when it was permitted. The only syllabus I can find of a Shaolin System is that of Ku Yu Cheung. Which admittedly strikes me as akin to the effort by Wáng Xiāngzhāi, in his creation Yiquan, to synthesise the essential aspects of the arts called Shaolin without really being THE Shaolin style.

I use the pinangata quite extensively. This, however, is due to my model of teaching. The organisation I belong to has what are called the "Rolling Bunkai" and there is a set for each of the Pinan. The Rolling Bunkai are essentially a form of Yakusoku Kumite demonstrating an application for each sequence of movements, and the principles therein. I teach the aforementioned Rolling Bunkai and then the kata sequence. Thus, the basic application is taught alongside the kata movements. I then break down the rolling bunkai into isolation exercises focused on the broader principles of foot-work or hand-fighting found within. I gamify the exercises with Renzoku Kumite and Kakei-Kumite exercises focusing on the shapes within. Lastly I apply self-defence scenarios which take the form of semi-free sparring drills to put into context where we might use said skills in self-defence. I also put a lot of emphasis on the mechanics and structure of the movements as they relate to the application so the kata serve as shadow-training for the applications. Gekisai Ichi, or Fyukyugata Ni, I tend to teach after the Pinangata, but with a focus on the Naha elements present. Most of the time that is my model. However, it does depend on the student. If I have a student that already knows the pinangata I will not bother teaching them a new version, unless they ask me, and I parse their application education down to the novel sequences found in the pinangata. Just so they are on the same page as everyone around them. If I have a student that will not benefit from the rudimentary education found within the pinangata I will move them straight onto Jitte. It contains interesting techniques against more sophisticated martial arts. That said: all adult students start with Naihanchi Shodan and Higoanna no Sanchin. Those are the two kata we run through each class.

Having watched UFC 1 in its entirety a couple of times I came to this conclusion: The only two people who knew what they were doing in a Free-Fight were Rickson Gracie and Ken Shamrock. However, there was only one man who knew what he was doing in a Vale Tudo Match, and the UFC was a Vale Tudo Promotion until roughly 1998, and that man was Royce Gracie. He was conditioned and prepared for Vale Tudo and that is why he beat everyone until everyone else realised what they game was. Now, with that said, I do think that they chose opponents that were credible to the lay-person but were out of their depth in Vale Tudo. Zane Frazier: Kick-Boxer with a middling record after going Professional. Taylor Wily: Retired from Sumo in the lower end of the third division. Art Jimmerson: Was an international level boxer but lost to world level competitors. Patrick Smith: Sabaki-Challenge Winner and Kick-Boxer with poor international record. Gerard Gordeau: World Savate Champion and National Kick-Boxing Champion. The only credible Grappler was Ken Shamrock, and the Gracie's believed that Pancrase was Worked like the UWF and other shoot promotions at the time. There were works in Pancrase, but it was largely legitimate. However, the majority of people believed that Kick-Boxers and Boxers were the best fighters around as that was the professional fighting culture in the US at the time. Most people were also smart to the fact wrestling was worked, but most were also fairly confident that pro-wrestlers could fight if they needed to. The real lesson of UFC 1, and what followed, is that boxing and kick-boxing are sports with specific rules that differentiate them from Vale Tudo and Free-Fighting. And that if you want to compete in a sport you have to train for that sport. The only people doing that at the time were in Brazil, and many of the best among them happened to be part of the Gracie Family. Now, with the above said, I do not think the UFC really hurt Karate's popularity or credibility. I think it hurt the credibility of anyone who was not doing Brazilian Jujutsu for a while. People saw Royce and Rickson winning these no-holds barred tournaments and that is excellent marketing for a systematic approach to fighting. I think karate is making a come back of sorts. There is no denying the nadir many traditional martial arts experienced in the late 90s and early millennia due to the rise of Mixed Martial Arts and the explosion of BJJ and Muay Thai across the world. After people like Lyoto Machida and Stephen Thompson showed how to use elements of sport karate in MMA did set the ground work for stuff like Karate Combat. I also think the Karate Youtube scene is also increasing the visibility of practical karate, and so more people are seeing Karate that works rather what became the self-parody of McDojo in popular culture. Then there is also Cobra Kai raising the profile of the art again. Karate, as already stated, has consistently remained the most popular art in the world. Thus, it never really went away, but there is no denying it has felt a bit like a dark age compared to the glories of the 70s and 80s. Though, I say that as someone who has only been around during this so-called dark age, so I can only judge by what people have said it was like prior to the 90s.

The thing with a boxing gym, or any gym which lives and dies based on competitive output, is that you have to maintain a good level of competitive output. It is better for the gym if its representatives are out there winning. It is better for the gym if its resident professionals are fighting regularly, and thus paying their dues. It is a natural progression, unfortunately, with Covid-SARS-2 restrictions being lightened for gyms to once again focus on their fighting talent. Because fights are happening again. Personal training, and keeping as many people as possible, on the floor was essential during the worst months of Covid-SARS-2 just to stay open. It is inevitable for businesses to change their ethos and practices as the situation evolves. I will be blunt as someone that has coached kick-boxers. During open-floor times I did put more effort into making sure the people who are planning to fight, and who have talent to make it work out for them, are trained thoroughly in contrast to those coming in for a work-out. One, they are more likely to get hurt in the near future than my casuals if I don't drill and work them properly. Two, they are trying to turn it into a day-job: not just an exercise routine. They are putting more in and need more from me. What I used to say to people who wanted that attention but were not planning to fight: Book a private session, or come to a beginner/technical session which I run as a class and advise everyone equally because that is the intent. Do not try to hog my attention at an open floor when I have people coming up to a fight and you are just here to work out. They might get hurt if they don't get trained properly: you won't. That is not to say that is what I think the perspective of your coach was. And to be frank if he was just focusing on the ones that he believed were talented, and more likely to win, while ignoring less talented ones but all of you were due to fight. That is being incompetent at best and callous at worse. Doesn't matter what someone's relative talent is: if they plan to fight, you need to train them properly so that you limit their risk of injury. However, if he was focusing on the gym's fighters over the people just working out: I really cannot blame him, and I would be hesitant to criticise him for it. The only criticism I can offer is if he didn't offer different sessions for amateurs, the Pro-Am/Semi-Pro, and Professional members. If you just have everyone of all levels and intents coming to the floor, and paying the same rates, and you focus on a select group to the expense of others then you are ripping those you give less attention off. Now, Open-Floor is a different ball game if you are just opening the gym for people who pay subscription to come in and use the space. That was usually the time I would arrange for our club fighters to come in and get one on one time with me, or set up spars, so rarely was I there to coach anyone but them. With the above said. I have never taken that approach in karate or encountered it in karate. Because I train and teach for the sake of training and teaching. I do not have any students that compete and so everyone gets as much of my equal attention as I can give as we are all just trying to get better together. Now, if I was to have students that wanted to compete, I would run a separate set of sessions for them to work on competition skills so it would not interfere with the regular classes. Admittedly, the times I have visited Okinawa I have definitely seen teachers give up on some students during a session. Mostly because said student was not listening, and making the same mistake over and over. I can't blame the teacher for deciding to then focus their effort on the people actually listening.

I apologise that I missed this post on its initial publishing. I will begin by stating that in my experience, most Koryu (Historical Jojutsu Schools) employ Kumigata (Paired Kata) almost exclusively. Solo Forms with the Jo have always proven to be modern inventions in my experience, both on Dojo Floors and in studying Texts and Sources. Based on the framing of the question, as there are plenty of examples of Paired Jo Exercises out there, I get the impression it is Solo Form training you are after. With that said, the Seitei Jodo of the Zen Nihon Kendō Renmei (All Japan Kendo Federation) is the most easily accessed form of Jodo in the world. It is often practiced alongside Kendo and Iaido at schools that offer instruction in those arts. it is grounded in Shintō Musō-ryū Jojutsu and provides a sound basis for study of Koryu or Historical Martial Arts involving the Jo/Short Staff. Seitei Jodo as a curriculum is very concise, and the solo and paired work map well to each other. However, I do not believe Seitei Jodo includes Solo Forms. The most widely practiced example of Jo Kata, and I will use "Kata" from here on out for Solo Forms, that I am aware of are from Aikijo/Aikibudo. San Ju Ichi no Jo (31 Jo Kata) and Ju San no Jo (13 Jo Kata), which get their respective names from the number of techniques performed in the kata, are found in the Iwama-Ryu as propagated by the late Saito Morihiro. Apparently, according to Saito, at least San Ju Ichi no Jo was created by Ueshiba Morihei but having reviewed what footage exists of Ueshiba's Jodogeiko I have found none of him performing the aforementioned kata. I quite like Ju San no Jo as it maps well to the Subari (Kihonwaza/Basic strikes and thrusts) and Kumi-jo (Kumigata/Paired Forms) of Aikijo so I would view it as useful Shadow-Training. I have also seen a Roku no Jo (6 Jo Kata) connected to Iwama-Ryu but it appears to have come into existence after the passing of Saito Morihiro. What I have been told is that it was created as an easier first kata for beginners. It is taken from the second section of the San Ju ichi no Jo. I have also seen a Nana no Jo (7 Jo Kata) which is an abridgement of Ju San no Jo. Strangely enough I have seen both demonstrated as variations of the same kata as a six count kata. Admittedly, I think both kata are so brief that you would be better off practicing Suburi for solo practice. I think their sole utility is in learning how to do a kata which is functionally only for an absolute beginner. I have also seen a Niju no Jo (20 Jo Kata) and Niju Ni no Kata (22 Jo Kata), which look functionally the same to me, but appear to be named differently because someone has counted the moves in a different manner. The versions I have seen look like Ju San no Jo with Roku no Jo welded onto the end to extend it. From what I have been told it was created as a midway between 13 Jo Kata and 31 Jo Kata, and I can understand that to an extent because 13 to 31 is over a double the increasing of moves in the kata. There are also some Kata I have seen connected to the Yoshinkan branch of Aikibudo and its offshoots. The first, of what I have seen labelled Jo Kata 1 (Ichigata no Jo) most often, bears a resemblance to the aforementioned 20/22 Count Kata. The second to the previously mentioned San Ju Ichi no Jo but mostly in technique count, embusen, and some novel techniques found broadly in Aikibudo regardless of branch. I have seen a Third Kata, but my resources indicate only the first two are widely practiced. Those are the Aikijo/Aikibudo Kata I am aware of, and outside of Seitei Jodo, it is probably the most accessible form of Jojutsu. I will state that Aikijo is about getting better at Aikido, and the principles of Aikido, rather than getting good with the Jo as a weapon. Thus, unless you intend to study said principles Aikijo might not be the resource for you. Outside of Aikijo, I can parrot Tatsujin, and state that the Kosho Shorei-Ryu of Bruce Juchnik has at least a pair of Jo Kata called Ma-Ai No Jo. You can find virtual lessons for these Kata offered by Juchnik himself. Again, as with Aikijo, these Jo kata are designed to teach ideas and principles about their parent art, in this case Kosho Shorei-Ryu, so you need to be mindful of that. Another source I can think of is the World Jui-Jitsu Federation of the Late Robert Clark. Its black-belt syllabus had at least a pair of Kata for Jo. Admittedly, the late Mr Clark embellished his studies, and invented a lot fo what he taught, so you would need to take any of the kata which a grain of salt. The Ryu-Te of Oyata Seiyū, and its off-shoots, incorporate the practice of the Gusan (Okinawan Jo). However, from the kata I have seen they look like Kon (Okinawan Rokushakubo) kata adapted to the Jo. As the Jo is not studied in Taira Ha Ryukyu Kobujutsu, Yamane-Ryu, or Matayoshi-Ryu I must admit I am sceptical of the authenticity. With that said, even if they are not historical kata, they are adapted from historical kata so you are not going to go far wrong. I have seen Cerio no Kon, Sho and Dai, from Nick Cerio's Kenpo Karate adapted to the Jo. I have also seen the staff sets from Ed Parker's American Kempo Karate and Tracy's Kempo Karate adapted to the Jo. I was not taken with the Parker Set, but Cerio and the Tracy Brothers did at least study weapon arts under reputable sources so I felt the adaptations of their kata had a little more substance. I do have my own system of Jojutsu I teach parallel to Ryukyu Kobujutsu and Kukamishin-Ryu for my students interested in the Jo. It does not exist in Ryukyu Kobujutsu as a weapon, and I believe the Jojutsu found in Kukishinden was an invention of Takamatsu so I have removed it from my interpretation of Kukamishin-ryu. I have four kata I developed as Shadow-Training to mirror the Kumigata and Subari of my system. Thus, I do see a purpose in solo forms for the Jo, but I do think they need to be mapped to partner work, and do something that just working on basic techniques would not achieve better.

It is important to remember that Modern Chinese Arts are as different from their historical counterparts as Karate has become from its historical predecessor. Furthermore, Qigong is often a health activity rather than martial activity far more similar to Yoga than to Quen'fa. The breathing exercises the Okinawans considered important to retain are, as you yourself have mentioned, found in Sanchingeiko. From a martial perspective that is where you find the Kiko the Okinwans felt was important. Similarly, the Okinawans innovated as much, if not more so, than they borrowed from the Chinese Arts. We find only a few one-to-one examples from an Okinawan Art to a Chinese Art. The example of Seisan that Jesse Enkamp covered from his exploration of White Crane springs to mind as an exception to the rule. We also need to keep in mind the Pacific War. A lot of Okinawans died during the Battle for Okinawa, and during the difficulties of its aftermath. A lot of knowledge was lost and examples of codified Kiko that might have existed may have gone extinct. In this case I would have to argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, a lot of the Chinese Martial Arts influences on Okinawa come very specifically from Fujian Province. The arts that first formulated their Qigong systems: Tachiquan, Xing Yi Quan, and Baguazhang were in different parts of China and unlikely to have influenced Tode as it came to exist in the 1800s. In terms of the influence of White Crane: I think it is frankly exaggerated. Very little in Karate bears a resemblance to the substance of White Crane when you set them side by side. I also reckon Go Kenki's influence is over stated by some as there is little evidence he had any students, and though a few notables trained with him none seem to have held him in high regard beyond curiosity. He did not found a White Crane School in Okinawa, despite his obvious willingness to teach, and so I am left to believe he was nothing special and not as influential as many have argued. A lot of Dojo also have their traditions regarding Junbi Undo, which are preliminary exercises done prior to training, which often involve a lot of elements you would find in Qigong. I think the Okinawans cared about the Martial Applications, and had such a different cultural foundation, that the Qi based world view of Qigong just did not end up being adopted. Then again, it is impossible to say that Qigong systems never arrived in Okinawa. They could have and just not survived. We can only then speculate as to why they did not survive.

I have run through my library of "Karate-Like" Families of Forms I thought it could belong to. I went through Kosho Shorei-Ryu, Nick Cerio's Kenpo Karate, the Palgwe of Tae Kwon Do, and the novel kata of Shintani Wadokai and so on and so forth. I could not find anything exactly like it but it bears the most resemblance, in terms of novel techniques, to the Numbered Kata of Karazenpo Goshinjutsu or the Palama Sets of Kajukenbo. From 07 to the end of the video looks like a Judo foot-work drill for a hip-toss followed by some finishing techniques. Otherwise, I have to agree with the others that it looks like a recent invention for tournament purposes. Admittedly, it looks like a blend of Shotokan's Jutte and Heian Sandan, with some original elements, to my eyes.

If that is the Shorinji-Ryu of Hisataka Kōri then it is likely the Ananku of Kyan Chotoku. He was Hisataka's primary teacher in karate. From what I have been told, and have read, is that Kyan Chotoku developed Ananku from techniques he studied during his time in Taiwan. There are two versions I know of. They have a lot of technique combinations in common. My hypothesis is that the Shi'to-Ryu version is one that Mabuni Kenwa recieved from Kyan at one point, and the Matsubayashi-Ryu version the one Nagamine Shoshin recieved from Kyan: different versions of the kata that came about as Kyan worked on it. The only problem with this hypothesis is that the Shi'to-Ryu version only comes down the Tani Chojiro line, and is arguably different enough from the Okinawan kata to be its own form with just the same name. Not unlike Shotokan's version of Sochin. With that said, in your particular system, Ananku may just be a foundation of study for Ananku no Sai. That may be how it has been designed and thus true for MSSR. Not true to other versions of Ananku, perhaps, but now wholly untrue. Personally, I can see why one might adapt either version of Ananku for use with the sai: there are a lot of movements that mirror Tsuken Shitahaku no Sai and other classical saijutsu kata. I think the beauty of Kobudo, and by extension the study of weapons in general, is that you have to allow yourself to be guided by the tool. There are only so many ways to wield a weapon that plays to the weapons strengths, and are logical and sensible. In contrast to the unarmed arts where we are far more guided by our own unique physiology and thus must play to our strengths. Which is why a universal approach to training for unarmed combat has likely never emerged, and never will, if only due to the great variety of sports and contexts such arts can be involved in. Plus, this is why I think it wise to study the classical kata - they come from a time where these tools were used in actual violence. They have been superseded by modern tools and tactics, and the context of civilian violence changes from age to age, and culture to culture. No one living has that same knowledge. If we indulge in our own modern creativity without deference to the intent of the weapon we are in danger of learning to dance with props rather than studying bujutsu. We might never use said weapons in violence but we should be sincere in our studies. It is perfectly fine to dance with props for fun so long as one is not pretending it is a valid martial study.

Thank you, both.

I was under the impression that Ananku was a creation of Kyan Chotoku and largely passed down via the Matsubayashi-Ryu line. I know there are two versions: the Okinawan version found in Matsubayashi-Ryu and a Japanese version found in Shi'to-Ryu. At what point in the line did it find its way into Matsumura Seito Shorin Ryu, and is Ananku no Sai just a variation of unnarmed Ananku performed with Sai? The only Sai kata I know that can likely be attributed to Matsumura Soken is Tawada no Sai. The Soken no Sai I have seen bears a strong resemblance to Tsuken Shitahaku no Sai which I have mentioned before I believe to be a relatively modern invention. Although it is attributed to the 17th Century administrator Shitahaku Oyakata I consider that unlikely due to a number of factors. Primarily the unusual naming structure, but also how the ten combinations within it seem to appear in some form through the rest of the Saijutsu canon of Okinawan Kobudo: in a manner that seems intentional rather than incidental as it would be if it was an ancestor form to the other kata. Plus, its use of the horizontal fist alignment, as per modern karate, rather than vertical alignment as per classical saijutsu. Having looked up Soken no Sai Dai I would say it has some elements common with Hama Higa no Sai, though it might be closer to Hanta-gwā no Sai, but there is a lot that wanders into lalaland in the versions I have been able to find. That is to say there is a lot of waving of the sai in a manner you would not use the sai if you are aiming to emphasise its strong points as a weapon. I suspect that may be down to the practitioners I have found though. If I was to make an educated guess at a potential source I would have to say Matayoshi feels likely. Just based on the resemblance of the kata to several in the Matayoshi canon.

Before I forget, there is Matsu Higa no Sai which is historically attributed to Higa Matsu Peechin. A semi-mythological figure, it is said that Higa Peechin lived from 1663-1738 and demonstrated Tode and Saijutsu to the 5th Tokugawa shogun, Tokugawa Tsunoyoshi, during a trip to Edo to participate in a Go tournament. If the attribution is true then Matsu Higa no Sai could be at least three centuries old. Personally, I think it is a variation of Hamahiga no Sai mistakenly attributed to Higa Matsu Peechin. That said, Higa Peechin was said to come from the isle of Hamahiga and so they could be different versions of the same kata that evolved differently, and Matsu Higa no Sai does indeed come from the version Matsu Higa taught. Is that Kuniyoshi no Sai same as the one also known as Nakamura or Nakaima no Sai? I have not heard of Anaku no Sai I must admit. Which lineage is that?

First, Happy 20th Birthday to KarateForums.com and a huge thanks to Patrick and others who continue to keep it going. A question I have always been exploring in my study of karate, and martial arts, is "How is that meant to work?" Another hat I wear in life is that of psychologist. An emerging point of interest for me is Systemic bias: the inherent tendency of a process to support particular outcomes. Understanding these biases in a system or institution is increasingly recognised as important to understanding Mental Health outcomes, and perhaps as important as the individual differences of clients and patients. As I look at various martial arts systems I have come to look for the systemic biases in these systems. A recent conversation that Rokas, of Martial Arts Journey, had with Christopher Hein has started me down a new way of looking at Karate. Mr Hein, basically, asserts that modern Aikido does not work as its practitioners are making unfounded truth claims that Aikido is a systematic approach to learning how to fight. He, however, claims that it can work if one works towards its original intent: to avoid fights, and if violence begins, to disengage. That the intent of Aikido is not to learn how to fight but to protect the self, and that the hard-skills of Aikido are meant as a last resort when the soft-skills, the philosophy of harmonising with others, has failed for some reason. Thus, I have been looking to why some people claim modern karate is "Broken" such as Mr Enkamp of Karate by Jesse. It now feels like the answer is obvious: modern karate has retained traditions from historic bujutsu but no longer trains towards the intent of that historic bujutsu. The sport side of karate is disconnected from the tradition. It uses techniques more equivalent to Savate and Semi-contact Kickboxing than what we find in the kata: Shadow-Grappling techniques used against attacks received during a civilian self-defence situation. Thus, the sport does not help us get better at the tradition because it does not pressure test the tradition. In contrast to Judo, to give an example, where the tradition and the sport are directly connected. The sport does not help us recognise when tradition needs to be broken or preserved. Furthermore, to quote Yasuhiro Konishi: “Karate aims to build character, improve human behaviour, and cultivate modesty; it does not, however, guarantee it.” Yet, in most karate dojo the focus is the hard-skills: the fighting techniques that are meant to be used to preserve ourselves against aggression. Yet, these hard-skills are often trained in the manner of a sport: practiced on equal footing with a partner. How many of us take time during our training sessions to discuss Okinawan culture, and the morality and ethics of using violence? Lastly, we often put the cart before the horse. We practice shadow-work in the form of kata, and then try to teach people to use these movements as applications. We teach the ideas outside of context, and then add the context after. This is done in similar approaches that use forms, however, in fighting sports such as boxing where shadow-work is important as well they work on it as a supplement to sparring. Shadow-Boxing is worked on after someone has enough experience in boxing to free-style. It is used a method of self-development to correct movement, and develop proprioception, without external influences which can cause oneself to lose their sense of self. Historically, we know that karateka only practiced a few kata, that the kata come from self-defence techniques practiced as such, and was coupled with significant practice of Hojo-Undo. Thus, is the modern expression of karate working towards one systemic bias while retaining practices from its ancestor which worked towards another systemic bias. Is the modern expression trying to teach us to be good at Atemi-Waza when the historic expression was teaching us to be good at self-defence? What is the systemic bias of your karate?

There are eight Tsaigata in the Taira-Ha line that I practice. To my knowledge five of the eight have some historical lineage. Chatan Yara is attributed to the same line as Chatan Yara Kusanku and some form of it likely dates back to 17th/18th century. Kojo no Sai is supposedly related to the kobujutsu of Kojo-Ryu and was potentially practiced in Okinawa as early as the 17th Century. Tawada no Sai is attributed to Tawada Shinzaku and cannot really be dated prior to his lifetime which was the latter half of the 19th century. Hamahiga no Sai is a regional tradition to the island of Hamahiga that has some age to it. Hama Udun Yakā no Sai, or Yakā no Sai as it is better known, is again a kata with apparent centuries long tradition that comes from the Yonaburo region. How old they may be, however, is hard to trace. They could easily date back only to Taira Shinken's teachers and be no older. I believe Tsuken Shitahaku no Sai to be a modern invention as it contains ten combinations common to the other seven kata. Jigen no Sai, also called Manji as it can be performed or should be performed with a manji style tzai, is also likely a modern invention due to the tool used but also it contains techniques from both Chatan Yara and Kojo no Sai implying a derivative nature. Hanta-gwā no Sai I am currently researching. It is largely an abridgement of Hama Higa no Sai with subtle variations of the technique combinations of Hama Higa no Sai. It could be quite an old tradition being a Dai or Sho version of the earlier kata, or it could be a fairly modern invention. The earliest mentions I can find of it are via Taira Shinken's works. The oldest traditions of the Sai are from Malaysia where there exists a near identical weapon called the Tekpi. They are also used in pairs as in Okinawa. The only Chinese traditions I know of regarding the sai, which are called Gen in China, come from White Crane and Hung Kuen. Traditions that go back to the 17th and 18th Century respectively. In Japan there are many traditions that use the Jutte though most date to the Edo period at the earliest. They are also largely practiced as kumigata, or paired rehearsals of techniques. I personally have adapted five kumigata from the Chosui ha Kukamishin-Ryu for Jutte to the Sai as exercises in using a lone sai. They are sufficiently similar weapons that I think you can consider Jutte forms a kind of sai form. The sai or use of the sai is, comparatively speaking, young compared to some weapon traditions. After all, we can trace some systemic approaches to the Sword, Spear, and Staff back over half a millennium or older still. I believe this is because of several factors which make iron truncheons practical solutions. Periods of relative peace and of high material wealth where the major martial concern was policing. This is why I think we can only track most Sai traditions back a couple of centuries to when such items were of use, and practical to make. Their existence coincides with relative peace for the regions they are found within, and increased material assets such as easier access to iron. The short answer to your question is that there are a number of traditional forms of sai practice. Just that they are not that old compared to some other weapons traditions.

Good luck and God Speed, Sensei8. It sounds like a positive move, and I hope it proves to be.

I gave my, I suppose one could say disciple, my old brown-belt when I promoted them to Ikkyu. I have a few students but he is my private student I am passing onto not just Shorin-Ryu but my broader knowledge of Karate and the Martial Arts so I am holding him to quite a high standard. My instructor gave me an Obi they purchased in Okinawa as a gift. Well I tend to see it through rose-tinted glasses as such but the reality is they had it as a spare, and they did not particularly like the cheap looking black-belt I had received at my shodan grading.

Admittedly, the best source in English I know of is "Foundations of Korean Martial Arts: Masters, Manuals & Combative Techniques" with regards of Tekkyon. It is mostly a collection of essays, but does contain practical knowledge as well. As one uses Kakedameshi to illuminate ideas from the Kata lost in modern Sundome Kumite, perhaps, one could use the game of Teakkyeon to illuminate lost ideas as well. Just one passing thought. Rentan Goshin Toudi-Jutsu was Funakoshi Gichin's first book, and is rumoured to be the text that Hwang Gi, founder of Moo Duk Duk Kwan and Subak, lifted his knowledge of Karate from. It also shows the way Funakoshi was teaching karate in the 1920s before his son became the senior instructor at the Shotokan. Plus, before the innovations of Ohtsuka and Konishi became ingrained traditions. Otherwise, sounds like you are on the right path to me. In terms of Taijiqaun, the late Joanna Zorya was the best source I know of with regards to applied Taijiquan. I must admit Taijiqaun is as far as much of my knowledge of the Chinese Arts go. I think, in studying Hoplology, we must remember one basic principle: the human body can only move in so many ways. In remembering this principle we must further consider two realities: 1. Violence is violence and there are only so many answers to it that are practical and can be rehearsed. 2. Multiple discovery/simultaneous invention. Many discoveries and inventions have often been made independently and more or less simultaneously by different people. Bottom line being that there does not have to be a pattern or any reasonable connection for similarities between martial arts to occur by accident. Although, the Asian Arts do have a connectivity that must be considered. After all, we do know that Chinese Arts influence the Okinawan arts, but we must also keep in mind influences from Siam, Indonesia and Japan, when considering the traditions that descend from the RyuKyu Kingdom. We do know through historic texts that sophisticated martial arts, including Qi Gong, existed in China circa 500 BC before Buddhism and the foundation of Shaolin ever happened. Hence, I am not entirely convinced of the Yoga Qigong connection in full. I think we must also beware our modern perspectives and bias, and how martial arts have evolved to become exercise routines as much as combative arts. If we look at the way forms are performed in Nippon Karate-Do in contrast to how they were historically performed, this becomes evident. My concern with whether historical karate was effective is more a "Are we reinventing the wheel?" dilemma when looking at application. Are we taking a longer road than we need to because we are trying to preserve traditions that could and should be left to history It is a parsing exercise of figuring out what modern practice is best, and what is worth bringing back from history, to place karate in its proper context. Plus, I think it is always important to remember the old masters were human, and may have been following tradition as blindly as any one else. Just because on paper what they taught sounded as though it was more well-rounded, and adapted to actual training for violence, because of their testimony does not mean it was. We thus have a responsibility to be critical and sceptical, and test all things through experimentation, trial, and error.

No problem, it is always a pleasure and privilege to be asked. For Tae Kwon Do I would not necessarily look to karate for clues and solutions. I would consider the theree particular sources: 1. Shotokan/Shotokai-Ryu as practiced in the 1930s as outlined in Rentan Goshin Toudi-Jutsu and Karate-Do Kyohan and Nyumon. I would look to how Funakoshi Gichin was teaching the application of the techniques he was teaching, because that is where the majority of the seniors of Tae Kwon Do gained their karate instruction. 2. Taekkyeon and its throws and application of kicking techniques. This was the main source of the kicking techniques that differentiate Tae Kwon Do from Nippon Karate-Do. It is from these two sources that the founders created their forms, and thus, from these ideas about the technique applications. Though, it is also important to study what the founders claimed about their art, and techniques. You are not going to make a functional application from a sequence that is pure fantasy, so trial and error, and discarding what is useless is going to be part of the process. A third source, as you have mentioned, are the novel sequences found in the Kata of Karate that have been retained in the Hyeong/Poomsae/Tuel, which carry forward the applications of karate into Tae Kwon Do in spirit and substance. I think it is also important to consider Hwa Sun, Jie Quan, and the Yang Long Form which are the most prominent Chinese Influences. Looking to applications of movements carried forward from these sources might also help. All I would caution is not getting caught up in the Traditionalist/Revisionist debate which tries to paint Tae Kwon Do as wholly Korean or just a Korean version of Karate. It is its own modern creation grounded in both Korean and imported sources.

The trend I see in most schools is very much what I call middle of the road. They are retaining the "Three K" model while trying to absorb and take from the Paradigm being set by the likes of Mr Abernathy and Mr McCarthy. Which is looking at the kata as artefacts of a pragmatic system of self-defence. Only the most ardent traditionalists, in my experience, continue to reject the notion of Bunkai as essential for training for self-defence. That continue to argue kata have value in of themselves without putting them in context. Also, that one can train and be effective without full-contact training and conditioning, or that traditional Yakusoku makes sense when one looks at actual violence. Generally speaking from what I see of most schools the majority are keeping the Kihon, Kumite, Kata tradition but are giving a nod to the concept of Bunkai by touching on Oyo occasionally, or introducing Yakusoku Kumite based on movements from the Kata to their syllabi. Some pad-work is introduced, and some grappling such as take-downs, some clinch fighting, and some positions like Knee-on-Belly. They might do continuous sparring or bogu Kumite instead of classic sundome point sparring. It is very much face value additions to the training. It is this middle of the road approach I see most often being adopted. It is better than what it was but it is not really going far enough to say it is sufficient, adversity-specific training. Iain Abernathy was once my go to resource for Bunkai when I was a Wado-Ryu adherent. I think, especially for anyone that considers themselves a Wadoka, he is the best source for elucidating the pragmatic knowledge contained with the kata. I do think he is one of the best authorities, and I think he is taking the most rationale approach to making karate a pragmatic art of self-defence without throwing the baby out with the bath water, to use an analogy. He is looking to history, and we know from history that the kata were designed to retain and model pragmatic self-defence techniques. Bringing that to the fore through application work, while framing it in resistance training, an understanding of sophisticated martial arts, and the other essential skills of modern self-defence is the quickest and most efficient route to a karate you can trust to work in self-defence. From the sport side, I have to say I think Nippon Kempo, Ashihara Karate, Enshin Karate, Taido and Daido Juku Kudo already did that that. Nippon Kempo evolved from Shito-Ryu, through hybridisation of other arts too, and its kata were developed for sport-specific training. Ashihara and Enshin followed a similar mindset in their evolution of their kata training, grounding the movements in style closer to the pace of kumite and and developing good habits for kumite such as always resolving in fighting stance. The Hokei of Taido are structured around the techniques legal in Taido competition, and are sport specific in that they are structured around principles of movement rather than self-defence techniques. Kudo of course eventually got rid of Kata practice entirely, as it became Free-Fighting Combat Sport rather than a discipline unto itself but it still has shadowboxing routines that descend from its kata practice. I personally am currently on the quest of asking "Was historical karate even effective, and should we be looking to it for answers in the first place?" As far as I have got with it, I do think the sensible thing to do as karateka is focus on pragmatic self-defence. That is where the kata begin based on what we know of their history, and ultimately the kata are what make our martial traditions karate. Without them we are just doing Self-Defence in Karategi, and if we do not do the historical kata we are just doing our own cultural dances.

A problem with the word “Legitimate” in martial arts circles is that it tends to be used in two, often conflicting ways: 1. A demonstrable lineage to a historical source to confirm claims to teaching a specific style. 2. Proven efficacy in situations involving actual violence. Neither are mutually exclusive, but they do appeal to different authorities in their meaning, and thus it is important to clarify how we are using the phrase legitimate in this case. In traditional martial arts we often appeal to lineage to confirm legitimacy – “Did this person train with X and thus can be said to be legitimately teaching x style?” My teacher was recognised as a Yondan by the Kodokan in Okinawa and was taught by the founder of the Kodokan. My Nidan grade was registered with and recognised by the Kodokan in Okinawa. From the perspective of Lineage, I study and teach Shorin-Ryu Kodokan. From the perspective of legitimate lineage, I am legitimate. However, if someone were to visit my dojo floor, and judge whether I was teaching something “legitimate” based on the criteria of efficacy against actual violence, none of the above lineage means anything to them. Only what they see happening on the training floor based on their own perspective and biases as to what is effective training. I think any martial artist coming from a traditional background that is claiming to teach self-defence, however, needs to aspire to both meanings of the word. If you are claiming to be part of a tradition you need to have a demonstrable, authentic lineage. If you are claiming to teach self-defence, then you should aspire to be working to the methods that the experts in dealing with actual violence say need to be part of such training. Thus, with the above said, and to return to my earlier post on a definition of karate: “Karate is a cultural artefact of the Okinawan People descending from RyuKyu Tode. If a system employs the forms (Kata) as developed on Okinawa, and derives its fighting methods from an interpretation of the kata through following the knowledge left by the innovators and preservers of Tode-Jutsu it can rightly be called Karate.” You need to take the tradition and evolve it appropriately towards your goals. For self-defence this is as simple as taking the kata movements and applying them against common forms of attack against a training partners offering both unskilled (Using Brute Strength) and skilled (Using positioning and leveraging) resistance. Eliminating what does not work and what does work in a paradigm of experimentation grounded in active resistance. Then framing these movements inside a broader system grounded in the broader skills of self-defence, such as the “Soft Skills” of de-escalation and precautionary skills (The Fence et cetera), and the “Hard Skills” of self-defence that are not addressed by standing kata: the ground phase for example. Finally, doing all this with drills and conditioning exercises that prepare people physiologically and psychologically for actual violence. Then treating the kata as movement exercises which evolve from the partner work, rather than have partner work evolve from the kata: transform the kata into Shadowboxing instead of cultural dance. For efficacy in combat sports, you need to ask what sport you are training for, and then work from there. Parse the kata down to those which are brief and explosive and are grounded in the basic techniques and involve kicking techniques. Create Kiso-Kumite (Kata based drills) that are grounded in the Miai (range and distance) of the sport you are training for. If it is for sport karate per WKF rules, then you need to drill against the big lead hand strikes and high kicks, and drill throwing with the single hand grip. If it is for knock-down karate it needs to deal with low kicks and fighting in the pocket. If it is for kick-boxing then you need to decide on which rule-set and incorporate glove work, because the gloves change a lot of what you do with your hands. If it is for Free-Fighting or MMA then you need to focus on the wrestling phase in both offensive and defensive terms. Do the above and I think one can create a form of karate that is legitimate according to the two broad meanings of legitimate. It will be grounded in the Okinawan tradition, while evolving to meet the demands of the modern meaning that has been framed by Vale Tudo and the evolution of the sport of MMA. The key thing is making it effective at what you claim it is effective at: be it self-defence, or the combat sport you want your club to participate in. With regards to the truism that “It is not the style but the individual” I do think that needs to be understood as having a caveat. It does all come down to the individual, but styles do have an influence on the individual. Styles are not just collections of techniques and forms, but also strategies, tactics, schemes of movement, and methods of conditioning. Some of these much better fit the triangle of performance: techniques appropriate to the sport/activity, physical conditioning that is sport/activity specific, and psychological conditioning that prepares the person for the stresses involved. Royce Gracie and Rickson Gracie both triumphed in the early UFC and Vale Tudo Japan events respectively because they trained for Vale Tudo. Gracie Jujutsu was designed for Vale Tudo. They both had superior scores in each aspect of the triangle of performance in comparison to their opponents. If you take a person trained for full-contact fighting and someone who has not trained for full-contact fighting and set them up in a full-contact challenge match: the person with the appropriate training will win. In this way it is down to the individual, but we can look at styles trained in and get some idea of likelihood they have received appropriate training. Most three-K, traditional style training, does not prepare someone for a full-contact fight in comparison to Boxing, Muay Thai, or Submission-Wrestling. It is all about sport specific training rather than style, but some styles, when it comes to Vale Tudo have a leg up over others on paper.

The saying "As long as a piece of string" comes to mind with regards to trying to figure out where karate ends and general martial arts begin. Movements in Karate can also be found in Nánquán, Silat, Muay Boran, Tae Kwon Do, and American Kempo. In particular the basic percussive techniques and stances. However, we would not readily consider any of the above, and arts descended from them to be karate. The one definition I have found, which I think is functional, if we we utilise the Wittgenstein paradigm of family relations is the following: Karate is a cultural artefact of the Okinawan People descending from RyuKyu Tode. If a system employs the forms (Kata) as developed on Okinawa, and derives its fighting methods from an interpretation of the kata through following the knowledge left by the innovators and preservers of Tode-Jutsu it can rightly be called Karate. Under this definition, even if a founder of a system studied karate, but neglected to include the Okinawan cultural artefacts which are the concrete body of knowledge of Karate as the foundation of their system: it is not karate. It is their own invention, influenced by their karate knowledge, but it is no longer karate. In this context: if you want the system to be legitimate as Karate, it needs to be built from the Okinawan cultural artefact through the kata. If you want the system to be legitimate as an effective martial art: you need to make sure you are adhering the to triangle of performance. You are providing a system which promotes the psychology, the physiology, and technical ability to be effective against an aggressor in either self-defence or the combat sport setting.

Patrick McCarthy did publish his Matsuyama Theory. To tell it in brief, he postulates that most of the kata passed down were functionally formulated in Matsuyama park during the 19th century when it was a popular destination for Kempo and Tode enthusiasts to gather and exchange techniques and knowledge. We know there is an age old, and respected tradition, of Okinawan Martial Artists taking techniques and drills from elsewhere and formulating them into kata. If we follow my Matsumura Nabe hypothesis, I would argue that potentially he picked up techniques from these exchanges, and he put them into a kata called White Crane because of the poses or because he was told they were White Crane techniques. Now, Okinawan Masters do change the kata. I have visited once, and learnt the kata one way, and visited again and significant changes have occurred. Sometimes this is because Okinawan Karate uses a progressive model of teaching: one way is right for the beginner, but is no longer absolutely correct for the more capable student. Sometimes it is because the instructor felt like changing the kata. My guess is that the above is a possible explanation as to why different students of Hohan Soken teach different versions. It would have come down to how much time they spent learning, and how far along he took them. He may have also made many changes over the years, and some learnt one way and kept it and others kept moving with him. One would want to think the video recording shows us the Hakutruru kata that Hohan Soken intended to pass on is the correct version. However, if he did consider it a family secret, that had to be earned, he may have shown the "shell" of the kata with a few deliberate errors and omissions that only students would recognise, but still allowed him to leave a record of the Kata. Most teachers go through three phases: 20s-30s: The Youthful stage with all the positives and negatives that carries. A potential passion for competition which shapes their approach, and so what students learn off them is very energetic, physical, and goal orientated. 30s-40s/50s: Still have much vigour and energy left but the impetuousness and ease of youth is fading. Still teach a very physical approach, but a more introspective approach emerges as the teacher begins to reflect on their experiences, and derive ideas and concepts from them. May also start considering their legacy and their teacher's legacy, and start on figuring out what is valuable to preserve, while also creating their own path. 60s onward: A concern for their legacy and the preservation of their art. Having difficulty showing how a person with the strength and vigour of youth should be performing the art. Making adaptations that accommodate them, but also drawing from a vast amount of experience based on their early years. Depending on when you train with a teacher, and how long you stay with them, you may learn a completely different art to others but under the same name from the same teacher.

I suspect that Hakutsuru became a generic name that teachers used to refer to a specific kata they got from the White Crane tradition, or made up based on techniques that come from White Crane. As far as my research shows, there does not seem to be a historical Hakutsuru kata prior to the 19th century, suggesting it is a later edition to the Okinawan canon. Matayoshi-Ryu and Kojo-Ryu were codified in the 19th century, and all the well known White Crane Kata can as easily come from the influence of Go Kenki as being of historical origin. Apparently, the Hakutsuru kata of Soken Hohan was a secret tradition passed on only to immediately family in the Matsumura family. Which, to an extent, explains why it is absent in other Matsumura lines. After all, it has been said Matsumura was not in fact particularly fond of Itosu Anko. Similarly, if it was secret why it is absent in the teachings passed down by his other students. I fear the truth may be lost to history, and there is no single Hakutsuru kata. What I will say is, I imagine Mabuni Kenwa had a reason for calling the particular form he passed down as Hakutsuru: maybe it bears a resemblance to what he knew as Hakutsuru kata. That, however, is pure speculation. Yet, as the leading Kata expert of his day, often called a living encyclopaedia by his peers, if Mabuni Kenwa did not know what Okinawan Hakutsuru kata was meant to look like then I suspect very few or no one did. Edit: I wished to do some research and confirm dates, and certain statements about the Hakutsuru kata of Soken Hohan before I applied a critical eye. Admittedly, the story raises my eye brows because of a number of problems. Matsumura Nabe had one lone student which was his nephew, Sokan Hohan, who he taught the family art. However, Chitose Tsuyoshi, a maternal grandson of Matsumura Sokon and a celebrated karateka in his own right who lived in a similar time period, was taught nothing by the martial arts patriarch of the family. Hohan Soken was a maternal nephew, so it has nothing to do with patriarchal lineage. Furthermore, our only witness to the teachings of Matsumura Nabe is Hohan Soken. There are examples of family arts in Okinawa that were guarded jealously as family arts: Matayoshi-Ryu, Kojo-Ryu, Ryuei-Ryu, and Motobu-Ryu all come to mind. However, they were never so guarded as to one inheritor (Exempting perhaps the example of Motobu), and usually involved being of sufficient relation to the main-line to study. Which is how these arts survived the decades: they never rested on one survivor. This is not to say Hohan Soken's account was not true, but if it is, it is exceptional and it carries the problematic reality that we have to accept his witness as sufficient evidence. The lone single student to the mysterious master has often been used to protect an exaggerated lineage behind the veil of artificial scarcity. That the evidence is hard to find because it was secret. It is hard to discern where absence, and where omission begins. The idea of Matsumura Soken also having secret teachings does not fit with what we know of his character either. He passed on his knowledge of Jigen-Ryu to several of his students. He codified and passed on his knowledge of Chinto, which according to folklore came from the teachings of a man that fought Matsumura to a draw. He also, otherwise, taught all of his known students essentially the same array of teachings in terms of Kata, showing no favouritism as far as the records show. Bar, perhaps a supposed dislike of Itosu Anko, except Itosu seems to have learnt a similar canon of Kata to Ankō Asato, Motobu Chōyū, Kentsu Yabu, and Chōtoku Kyan. From what I have seen of the Matsumura Seito version of Hakutsuru as well, it bears a resemblance to a lot of "White Crane" as exists in Karate. Which is it has shapes from white crane but lacks whipping/shaking (or Ming He) which is the characteristic of White Crane. It is not unique, and seems akin to the homogeneous Okinawan approach to Kata. White Crane was not codified until the late 17th century, early 18th century, and seems to have been brought to Okinawan in the 19th Century by the Matayoshi and Kojo (Koshiro) families, and Go Kenki. Matsumura Nabe was contemporary to this period, and Hohan Soken himself contemporary to Go Kenki. Matsumura Soken was also the first notable bushi of his family name, and seems to have primarily learnt off of Sakugawa Kanga with no documentation of a family tradition. The question thus becomes where he got his White Crane from: he did visit China to train, and perhaps learnt some White Crane which became the kata passed down. However, why did he teach it as a secret art, and more importantly leave no clues as to its lineage, such as the name of his teacher and style, if it was that important. Hohan Soken also taught a fairly orthodox set of Shuri-Te or Shorin-Ryu kata. Which he did not, in theory, have had to have learnt from a unique source. No offence intended when I say this, but my two working hypothesis are thus: 1. Hohan Soken engaged in the age old tradition of embellishment to make his Hakutsuru form seem unique, when in fact he learnt it from a similar source as many of his contemporaries: Go Kenki. Which would explain its similarity to other Okinawan versions of White Crane. 2. It was a family tradition, but one that began with Matsumura Nabe who learnt it from someone that brought it from China to Okinawa, and only learnt the shape hence it lacking subtleties relating to the parent art. Thus, it is not a particularly ancient, secret tradition that has anything to do with the famous Matsumura Soken. Now, it could in theory be a kata that was named Hakutsuru from the romantic sound of the name, White Crane, and an illusion to the crane like stance. However, why would it bear the resemblances it does to other Hakutsuru traditions in Okinawa, that we know come from Fujian White Crane, if it was an independent development. It being a later innovation of Matsumura Nabe is the best fitting hypothesis in my mind if we want to accept Hohan Soken's assertion it is a family tradition as truth.