Wado Heretic

Depending on where you are on your journey and your goals, I think that an argument can be made that you need both. Group classes are essential for a broad education. Working out, training, and sparring with people of various level of experience, body types, and fitness gives you are breadth of experience you need to grow. You can get tips and insights off your training partners, and people might think to ask questions you do not but find you needed the answer to. They are also the more accessible option, more often than not, regarding price. The issue with classes, however, are two fold: 1. You are taught what the teacher desires to teach at any given time. Not necessarily what you as an individual need. 2. The instructor has to work on what he feels the majority need to work on, while balancing it with it being something everyone can participate in to some degree. Group classes suffer from having to balance mechanisms that are of benefit to the teacher, and what is of benefit to the student. If you have a good coach the balance will not sacrifice much benefit to the student for the benefit of the teacher. That sacrifice still happens though in even the best classes. Individual lessons to do not suffer from the above considerations. They provide depth and individuality: the teacher can coach you on your specific needs, give you a depth of knowledge they cannot express in a classroom setting, and ultimately focus the lesson on you. This gives incredible depth and feed back, but is terribly skewed by what you feel you need, and the teacher is judging you in a vacuum: they may not realise what you need because they are not seeing you in context of others. Hopefully, they have paid attention to you during class so they have seen you in that context, but memories are malleable and not objective in contrast to having it right before your eyes. In an ideal situation you should have access to both, and take advantage of having access to both. Should engage in the group classes, but ultimately, when you have a goal to work on you should book a private lesson or two: perhaps a grading, you may be planning to enter a competition and need a sense of where to start, or you have something you want to work on as a personal goal like a particular form or technique. I, unfortunately, have to do the majority of my grappling and weapons training through private lessons because of prohibitive distance or time restrictions. I usually try and pick up a few drills I can each session, and then pad it out by going through them on training aids like my grappling dummies and Makiwara, or going through them with my students in the interim. It is not ideal, and looking back at my time at University in the Judo clubs, and when I had a local Kobujutsu instructor I trained with weekly, I do feel class training is essential to real progress. That breadth of experience, and not always being in your comfort zone because you do not have a say in the lesson plan, is irreplaceable.

If you can afford free lessons for the sake of promotional work, yes. First two lessons free has been a pretty effective marketing strategy for me. If I have learnt anything of recent in running my own club: you get the students you get. That does a lot to dictate what is viable as a training model, and methodology. The only way I have found to teach karate as I want to teach it, while retaining students is to run two systems pretty much. First system: Kihon Waza against the air, bag work as cardio work, basic body weight strength training, Kata, Rolling Bunkai/Kiso Kumite as set out in the syllabus, controlled Jiyu Kumite, Tai chi like soft pushing hands, basic self defence against various holds, and Grappling/ground-work parsed down to the essentials. I find this is pretty much what people expect when they think of karate - it is also the lowest stress level I can personally stomach without feeling I am letting the idea of self-defence float off into the ether. This is what I teach as the first session I give during the evening, or did before circumstances changed. Second System: Hojo Undo with various weights and body-to-body drills, Bag work is drill based and focused on fighting skills, Kata based partner work including flow drills and semi-free sparring, Jiyu Kumite is done in Bogu with both controlled and hard contact, a variety of Kakei Kumite exercises and wrestling practice, a thorough grappling regime grounded in Gracie Combatives and Judo Goshin Jutsu. This is the sort of regime I think is needed to practice karate as an actual model of self-defence, or as a foundation for combat sport participation. What I used to do was the following - Session 1 - System One going through the three K according to the syllabus. Session 2 - System Two focused on one skill set for that evening. What I found was most people would come to session 1, a lot would drop out before session 2, and a few would only come to session 2. Point being, you get the students you get. You are going to find what you can teach effectively, in many ways, once you start teaching. I tried teaching system 2 from day one to everyone, and it just put a lot off with the intensity. When I went back to basics, and the kind of gentle karate I did as a child (with a few things added in), I had much better retention. I had a run as a kick-boxer where I went 11-0-2, and had three professional fights I won. I also competed in shoot-fighting and went 3-0, and have done an MMA exhibition bout I won on the cards. None of it helped promote my karate aside from being able to take the fighting experience and using it to frame my teachings. Trying to promote yourself through fighting can be a double-edged sword. If it goes well, it could help grease the wheels among those who see such experience as essential in a teacher. If it goes poorly: you've just set yourself up for a fall. There are plenty of snake-oil merchants who have got by without any hint of legitimacy. Go out there and teach something good is my advice.

If one was to give a black and white answer for the topic title it would have to be an emphatic no. A Shodan grade represents having become competent in the fundamentals of the system, and that requires there being substance to your performance of the art. A person can learn, and emulate the motions via video training, but they cannot learn the other essential components: they cannot be tested for the effectiveness of their techniques. The only aspect of karate I think you can learn online with any success are the kata, and even then only the motions, and that is at most a fraction of the battle. You cannot begin to grasp the very idea of Bunkai without Kumite. It reduces the kata to cultural dances rather than movement drills relating to combat skills. With the above said, I do think that Kyu grades can be earned online to a limited extent, not unlike the Technical Blue-belt offered by Gracie University (which ultimately requires one to test for the belt in person), but I am speaking of the first two or three grades. You can test a number of things - 1. Performance of Kata. 2. Performance of Kihon Waza. 3. Ability to meet fitness criteria - Be able to do 20 Press-ups in a minute for example. 4. Run through of a virtual sparring session. 5. Performance of drills that test different skills relating to sparring - foot work exercises et cetera. At a distance, footage of such, can give the trained eye some inkling of the skill of the person being observed. However, without the pressure tests of having them hit something, or seeing them up against an actual person it can only give you so much information to work off of. I would be fairly confident awarding an 9th and 8th Kyu, based on observing the above, but I would be reticent to offer anything further without testing the person on the dojo floor. If some one trained diligently at home, but came to test in person for their 7th Kyu, that is the highest grade I would be comfortable offering to someone doing distance learning. Just because I ramp up the resistance work we do in the dojo at 7th Kyu - it is the grade where we start to do more kakei kumite and Kata-based sparring. Speaking of Martial Arts more broadly. There are some arts where it is less about preservation of one's life and well-being and more about preservation of a tradition: where the martial matters less than the art. This is increasingly true of those arts built around the study of weapons, and in particular, eastern traditions. I think, if someone trains diligently, in an art where the goal is preserving the tradition they can be awarded some responsibility for its propagation through some form of acknowledgement. Speaking from my own experience of the above I have teaching qualifications in Toyama-Ryu Battodo and the Weapon Arts of the Bujinkan. Both of which were earned via distance learning because I unfortunately lack access to such training on a local level. With that said - I augmented my distance learning through several things: 1. Taking full advantage of the online coaching offered. I film at least one of my training sessions each week and send it in for feed back. 2. Making myself present at any real-time, online, coaching sessions offered. 3. Attending any offered in-person seminars or residential courses I can that are in reasonable distance to myself. 4. Getting regular private lessons with the closest instructor I have found - prior to Covid Sars 2, with the the distance being prohibitive, it was usually once every other month. Furthermore, I continue to do this after earning the grade, because it is about knowledge not the rank. I sadly lost access to local kobujutsu instruction six years ago when my instructor stopped teaching, though I have maintained my training in Ryukyu Kobujutsu through course attendance and private lessons when time and funds allow, and have taken up studying the kobujutsu syllabus as preserved in Shi'to-Ryu. Yet, I do enjoy more regular feed back and structured instruction. Thus, for me distance learning to continue developing this knowledge was the optimum choice, and I have only pursued coaching to be able to pass the knowledge onto my students who are interested. I would not take my coaching credentials seriously though, if I did not put in the additional in-person hours, or did not already have significant experience in weapon arts prior to studying them via distance learning methods. I also make no claims to being an expert or master.

Frankly, no, but that is because I subscribe to a philosophy of sport specific training. You should not train in “styles” if you intend to become a competent Free-Fighter under modern Mixed Martial Arts rules: you do training that fits the sport. With that said, the likes of Lyoto Machida and Stephen Thompson have taken their karate background as a tool to reach the elite levels. In the case of Lyota Machida a championship level. To paraphrase Vinicio Antony, Lyoto Machida’s coach, the advantage of his karate was it allowed him to dictate the way the fight is fought. If he turns the standing phase into a karate fight, then Lyoto has all the experience and elite level ability to win said karate fight: if he fights like a kickboxer against someone that knows kickboxing then it comes down to who is the better kickboxer. There are a lot of great kickboxers in the elite levels of MMA. Thus, for those with a karate background who want to excel they should use their karate as a foundation to direct the fight as they want. This is what has made a number of those with karate back-grounds effective in MMA. One can argue this is how Chuck Liddell overcame Wanderlei Silva in their incredibly competitive bout. By using a more bladed stance, and fighting from the outside, and moving back and forth often made himself a difficult opponent for more traditional boxers and kickboxers. Even if Chuck Liddell is not a classic karateka, you can see the influence of his karate competition back-ground in how he moved and set up punches. Outside those examples of making your background in karate work in MMA as a part of your strategy to confound others, and play up your strengths, little in the world of karate translates to the sport specific training you need to do to be competitive in MMA. In traditional karate, we learn to punch and kick from a worst-case scenario perspective for the sake of self-defence. Non-telegraphed movement is important to disguise intent in self-defence because of how conflict begins in civilian contexts. Whereas in a striking sport, knowing when and how to load up for effect is essential. Our kata and their movements are about self-defence, not combat sports involving sophisticated martial arts – the tactics, if not techniques, of both are profoundly different. For those that train for the sports that have emerged from karate: it is either to perform kata well, engage in a form of tag, or bare-knuckle kickboxing. You can take shobu kumite skills as a foundation to training for MMA, but you need to strongly adapt them, and then add on wrestling and submission fighting training. Frankly, I would even have to strongly argue Muay Thai is a better striking skill set than Knock-Down Karate for a transition to MMA. With that said, I think most fighters and fight coaches know the way to train smart is to train for MMA. Learn to strike for MMA, learn to grapple for MMA. Training in Boxing or Kickboxing will make you good at those sports. Training in jujutsu will make you good at grappling. The reality is taking from those sources of knowledge what is relevant to the sport you are trying to be good at, and training based on relevant knowledge. From that perspective I would argue Boxing and Muay Thai are not essential or vital parts of MMA: knowing how to strike to be competitive in the stand-up is vital. Speaking to the history though, is a different matter than current perspective, and Boxing and Muay Thai were part of the backgrounds of many early successful fighters who came to the sport with well-rounded skill sets. Those skill sets came to be the foundation of MMA striking, in the same way Brazilian Jujutsu came to define the ground game and wrestling the clinch and shooting aspects of the stand-up phase. However, each of those skill sets has evolved their own MMA variation divisible, if closely related, from their point of origin. Similarly, karate had a dubious start in the History of MMA. Many early fighters had a karate background, and on paper were credible fighters from their various competitive histories. However, they ended being ineffective in stopping Royce Gracie, and were also remarkably ineffectual and inefficient against each other. Primarily because they had not trained for the sport they now found themselves in: Vale Tudo. They did not know several essential components of free-fighting, and came up against someone that did, and had plenty of experience in it. It is only years later, as sport specific training has become normalised, and people have brought applicable skills from karate to the cage, have we really seen karate earn back its reputation to an extent. It has been long dismissed as a skill set, and the sport of MMA is no longer a field of different exponents competing against each other, but well-rounded athletes engaging in sport specific training. There are skills from competitive karate that can be used in MMA but it is not fundamental, no.

For why one style considers a kata valuable and another does not practice it comes down to two factors: 1. Historical lineage. 2. Technical Redundancy. The kata was never part of the past of that system: it emerged from a different geographical location or was devised by an instructor in that lineage at one point but never gained traction outside of said lineage. This is the reason found in most historical discussions of syllabus rationalisations. The second is that it is felt that the kata offers nothing new or novel, or is made redundant by a kata that already exists in the system. This is a more modern reasoning, admittedly, as the world of karate has both grown and shrunk. As teachers came to create their syllabi they had to pick and choose what is relevant to teach, and thus parsed down their kata choice to what they considered valuable. If you already have two kata which both teach XYZ the logical thing is to choose the one you prefer and drop the other as redundant. System by system analysis, just because there are so many systems, would be an enormous and probably impossible task for one man making one post. However, I think one can speak to family of kata and make some reasonable discussion points. If we look at the Itosu no Kata then we see Naihanchigata are the foundation. The Naihanchigata teach postural ideas, how to generate power properly, and the use of the hands together. All ideas you need to be aware with as you study other kata which teach novel self-defence techniques. By being performed in a single stance: you make focusing on these ideas incredibly easy. To practice the techniques of the Naihanchigata as fighting techniques: just do the kata backwards and forwards, and add a step for each hand technique. The Ryu Ryu Ko no Kata, and by extension those of Shushiwa and his descendants, are largely grounded in Sanchin. As with Naihanchi, Sanchin teaches many ideas about posture, breathing, and power generation essential as a foundation for then studying the novel self-defence techniques of other kata. As with Naihanchi, one simply needs to perform Sanchin quickly to understand the movements as fighting techniques. Also, as with Niahanchi, the manner of performance is simplified to allow focus on the essentials, without worrying about Kamae, and other nuances, which can distract from these fundamental ideas. This is a fairly modern perspective, and at best my working hypothesis, but these are things that have been said to me by several instructors with no immediate connection to one another aside from being students of Okinawan Karate. It also makes sense of the mutual exclusivity of Naihanchi and Sanchin in most systems: they cover very similar ideas, and do so in a way quite easy to see. Aside from the big two as it were: we can speak to some other "Families" of Kata. The Aragaki family of Kata, although also incorporating Sanchin, do in fact seem to begin with Niseishi: with regards to introducing the conceits of his system of kata, and also the basic combat principles. The Kyan family of Kata begin and centre on Seisan for similar reasons to Niseishi in the Aragaki grouping: the other kata in the grouping all borrow and lean on ideas found in Seisan in a much more straightforward manner. The Pinangata, I would argue, outweigh the importance of the Naihanchigata in Nippon Karate Do systems which come from the lineage of Itosu Anko. Most tend to study the essentials of their arts through these early kata, with Naihanchi being a brown belt kata.

This is one of those questions with a "Yes and No" answer due to historical circumstances. The "Yes" part comes from the fact that a lot of those practitioners who taught what is now often called Traditional Tae Kwon Do in the 1940s and 50s had a background in Shōtōkan-Ryū or Shūdōkan Nihon Karate-Dō. During this time, the nine Kwans, as they have become known, identified their arts as Tang Soo Do (Way of the Tang Hand) or Kong Soo Do (Way of the Empty Hand), and largely taught methods based on Japanese Karate at it developed in the 30s. Many of the kata taught during those times have been preserved in the modern iterations of Tang Soo Do. The "No" part comes from the innovations that were occurring in the 1940s and 50s already in the Korean Arts. Including, but not limited to, the development of forms distinct from those inherited from Japanese Karate. Furthermore, the influence of Chinese Martial Arts, and Arts indigenous to Korea such as Taekkyon, was present in this early period. It is from these influences the way Forms are practiced started to change from the Japanese manner, and a greater emphasis on kicking techniques emerged. I would personally say that Tang Soo Do exists in a similar space to Kenpo Karate when we compare it to Nihon Karate Do and Ryukyu Tode. It is a descendent and cousin of Okinawan Karate that could be called Karate, but when we look at its content, there are important differences we should recognise. As Nihon Karate Do has an ideology of Kihon, Kata, and Kumite which makes it divisible to the Hojo Undo, Kata, and Bunkai approach of RyuKyu Tode and thus its own creature, Tang Soo Do has a similar relationship to Nihon Karate Do. The Kicking techniques, disparate form tradition, and conceptualisation of combat make it divisible. We can call it Karate because of a shared lineage, shared traditions (Kata), and indisputable similarities but we should not wave it off as Korean Karate as if it is just a version of its predecessor practiced in Korea. It is its own distinct art with distinct qualities. That is the danger in calling it karate. It is another branch of the tree, but in saying that we must acknowledge each branch as valuable in its own way. Sensei8 is on the point about the marketing element as well. In the 60s, many books about Chinese Arts were plastered with the word Karate so the lay person would understand they were about Asian Martial Arts. The Secrets of Chinese Karate by Ed Parker comes to mind, as does Modern Kung-Fu Karate: Iron Poison Hand Training by James Lee.

As mentioned above by Bulltahr this depends entirely on association and individual Club/Dojo/Dojang/Kwoon/Gym. If they are the Chief Instructor of their own club then it should be expected they can promote and process ranks. With that said, some general rules of thumb I have encountered over the years: 1. A Blackbelt can promote up to one rank below themselves: Thus a Shodan could promote up to Ikkyu in this model. 2. A Blackbelt can promote up to the same rank as themselves: Thus a Shodan can grade a person to Shodan. 3. A Blackbelt can grade up to a certain rank based upon their respective Dan rank: Shodan can promote up to Yonkyu, Nidan to Ikkyu, Sandan to Shodan, Yondan to Nidan, Godan to Sandan and so on and so forth. Yondan and above in this model tends to be reserved to promotion by system head or a panel of seniors. Plus, the prior example of respective ranks differs from group to group - some allow Shodan to grade the whole gamut of Kyu Grades for example. What tends to affect the model used in the system tends to be determined by local factors and what the highest rank in the system is. A lot of American Karate systems used the second model I mentioned in the early years of Karate in the United States. A number of systems use a blend of models, particularly those groups which do not have a grade above Godan. Back to the best advice though: ask your instructor.

Congratulations

Hello, and welcome to the forums. Joe Swift did this interesting series of articles on the origins of the initial fifteen kata Funakoshi Gichin brought and taught in Japan - this is a link to part one: http://fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=220 The other Kata brought into Shotokan-Ryu seem to be of two points of origin: 1. Invention of Funakoshi Yoshitaka. 2. Brought to the system by Funakoshi Yoshitaka, Nakayama Masatoshi, and some other senior students from studies with Mabuni Kenwa and Mabuni Kenei. My hypothesis on the Sochin of Shotokan is that Funakoshi Yoshitaka took the original, reorganised it, and used it as a vehicle for his own evolving theories eventually ending up with the version we see today. I suspect Sochin is an artefact of this development and he never saw fit, or perhaps more tragically did not live along to rename it fittingly. With regards to the Pinangata I would like to point out that the majority of evidence we have is that Channan is simply an older name for the Pinangata. Furthermore, if one studies the versions of found in Shi'to-Ryu and Shorin-Ryu, there are examples of novel sequences and techniques not found in Kusanku Dai, and are unique to the Pinangata amongst the canon of Okinawan Kata. There are allusions to sequences that repeat through older kata such as Passai, Jitte, and Seisan. Again, my hypothesis is that Itosu developed or learnt novel techniques he decided to preserve in kata, and framed them in sequences from older kata he felt important to prioritise, and the result has become the Pinangata. (Edit: I bring up the comparison of versions because Funakoshi Gichin, or perhaps his students, seem to have made a number of modifications to the kata to connect them all together. The Funakoshi line of the Pinangata seem to have more in common with Kusanku Dai in that the shared sequences are done the same way without nuances that differentiate them slightly) Meikyo is a reorganisation what is otherwise known as Rohai Shodan. The similarities can be difficult to see because of changes to the embusen, and differences in interpretation of certain techniques - The Hammer like motions are replaced with Gedan Barai (Heian Shodan and Pinan Nidan are an example of this change as well). Similarly, the "Crane" stance is interpreted as a back stance, and the double punch as a receiving techniques akin to the start of Pinan Shodan (Heian Nidan). It, however, is just a version of Rohai unlike Sochin. If one looks Rohai as found in Wado-Ryu, it looks like a half way version between Meikyo and the older version of Rohai. Embusen changes were made under Nakayama in the Japanese Karate Association branch of Shotokan-Ryu to accommodate the rules set up for Kata Competition. Meikyo and Chinte are the ones which suffer the most from these rules changes with regards to changes in Embusen. I sadly cannot provide any more than that. You have found much of the information that is out there to be found that I know of. I do find your Niseishi hypothesis intriguing. I look forward to reading more of your discoveries.

Thank you all for your nominations and votes. It is much appreciated and I am humbled to be a winner. Apologies for the late response: real life has been a bit hectic of late.

In total I count eleven but I shall explain as that probably sounds like a lot for the age of 31. In my youth I studied a heterodox from of Kempo Karate unique to my home town and surrounding area. That was from the age of seven to eleven. Sadly, my instructor was killed in a car crash around the time I began secondary school. From there I began studying under one of the Yudansha who began their own club at the Youth Centre down the road from me. He made many changes to the system over the years - some I agreed with and others I did not - so I do not necessarily consider it a continuation of my earlier studies. I eventually parted ways with him at the age of eighteen, after six years as a member, due to a profound personal disagreement. From the age of twelve to nineteen I cross trained in Shorei Kempo, again a heterodox system, and as far as I am aware unique to the school I studied at. It had its roots in Kajukenbo, Ed Parker's Kenpo Karate, Uechi-Ryu, Nippon Kempo, and various branches of New England Kenpo. Sadly, I had to cease training in said system because the instructor needed to relocate due to family reasons. From twelve to my early twenties I also trained in Historical European Martial Arts, with a focus on Quarter Staff, Long-Sword, and Sword and Board. I sadly phased out of it due to other martial arts grounded passions taking my attention and time, as well as the growing costs. I still dabble once in a blue-moon, and I do go through the movement drills most weeks once or twice. From nineteen to twenty six I belonged to a few Karate clubs. One at the local leisure centre and another at a gym where I studied Wado-Ryu, Shorin-Ryu, and Ryukyu Kobujutsu. They belonged to the same organisation, and the gym instructor was a fellow student of the leisure centre instructor, so he was my sempai, and I helped as as an assistant instructor at the gym from Brown Belt onwards. Thus, I consider them spiritually the same "club" in that sense. I considered them my "Home Club" as it were. I still train with the same organisation, though the club I belong to now is the one I run myself, and I consider it a spiritual successor to those two. During my time in university I also trained at the University Karate and Judo clubs. During my undergraduate years (Three in Total) I attended the Kumite sessions at the Shotokan Club, and the Kata-Geiko/Technical Demonstration and Strength and Conditioning sessions of the Judo Club. I would have attended the randori sessions but they conflicted with Karate at my Home Club. During my post-graduate, which I moved away to do, I trained at the local Shotokan Club and at the University Judo Club. At the Shotokan club I did all the training, but I was allowed to do my Shorin Ryu Kata as long as I joined in with everything else. At the Judo club they did not have fixed sessions so I finally got to get some randori training in Judo. Being a post-graduate course this was only for a year. I also dabbled in Shukokai and Wing-Chun during my post-graduate studies but those were cases of dipping my toes in when time allowed, so I never really joined those clubs. Now I run my own club, though I am thinking of taking up Judo again at a nearby club once my knee is rehabbed. Edit - Realised I forgot to do a tally: Kempo Karate - 10 Years (4 years first school/6 Years second school) Hankyo Sukura-Ryu Kenjutsu - 6 Years Shorei Kenpo - 7 Years HEMA - 11 Years (Rough estimate - I stopped when I was readying for my Wado-Ryu Shodan Grading) Wado-Ryu - 4 Years Taira Ha Ryukyu Kobujutsu - 12 Years (Present Discipline) Judo - 6 Years (2 years training informally with friends and 4 years training at university clubs) Free-Style Wrestling - 2 Years (Informal training with friends) Boxing/Lau Gar Kick-Boxing - 8 Months (Lumping these together as I only trained in them in a part time manner in the early days of my kick-boxing career) Shorin-Ryu Kodokan (Kobayashi Branch) - 8 Years (Present Discipline) Toyama-Ryu Battojutsu - 8 Years (Present Discipline) Chosui ha Kukamishin-Ryu - 8 Years (Researching presently) Shorin-Ryu Kodokan - 8 Years (Present Discipline) Shotokan/Wing-Chun/Shukokai - 9 Months (Lumping these together as I studied them all in a spotty fashion while doing my MSc)

I think for beginners and for people who only train part-time, it is important to settle on an approach they can absorb quickly, easily, and practice effectively in their own time. I do think the 45-degree is optimum for defensive tactics, because of how attacks happen in a civilian context. It is the least injurious angle I have found in my personal experimentation. Similarly, it starts the activation of the triceps and secures proper elbow alignment, thus not as powerful as a full rotation, but it is enough to start gaining some of the benefits. For people training full-time, or with more experience behind them, I do think one should broaden to finding the optimum alignment per target, distance, and angle relative to the target.

Congratulations, Sensei8. 15000 posts of what I have only known to be great content is an impressive achievement.

I personally believe there is a fundamental, false dichotomy that is often brought up regarding horizontal versus vertical alignment. Each position is optimized differently at the conclusion of the punch, and the position you begin your strike from relative to your target, and what the target is, should be considered. I can only recount from my experience and experimentation but the following are my observations. Before I begin, I mostly approach this from a bare-knuckle perspective because my focus is self-defence, although I do allow kick-boxing and free-fighting to inform my technical approach. When punching from a chambered position, a low guard (I call the hands being relating to the pectorals a low guard for content), or a hands-down position, and allowing for full-extension, I coach as following: - A horizontal alignment, with a slight slope downwards of the arm, when striking to the body. - The fist held at a 45-degree angle with the thumb leaning inward when striking up to the head. I find these positions allow two things which I consider most important: the greatest structural fixture in the limb allowing the greatest transference of power, and also makes it more likely to connect with the two large knuckles (with knuckles in line with the arm and tendons properly contracted) and thus the safest and most robust knuckles to hit a hard target with if aim goes awry or the target moves in an unexpected way. If punching to the head from a high guard (hands situated around head height) and again allowing for full extension, I coach the horizontal allignment but with a slight overturn of the hand as done in boxing. Mostly because one it makes it more likely to connect with the big knuckles or the back of the hand if the aim is off, it gives more reach, and if one practices it properly you can get a little lift in the shoulder to help protect against counter punches but without ruining your form by flaring the elbow. The last point I consider very important when it comes to exchanges of straight punches to the head from a hands-up position: that is a stand-up fighting situation where the enemy is going to be throwing shots back. Now, onto alternative punches to the straight, and to situations where the arm cannot be extended. I prefer the vertical punch when striking the body at close range, where I cannot straighten the arm and activate the triceps in the motion. The vertical alignment is better for activating the biceps and locking the elbow when the arm cannot be extended, and thus in that context produces a stronger punch. Furthermore, at extremely close range, one is more likely to have to punch across the centerline instead of in line with the hip, so the vertical fist is more likely to connect with the knuckle as intended, whereas there is a risk in catching the pinky at such range with the horizontal alignment. For hooks in general, I favour the vertical alignment just because I think it is more protective of the wrist, and again if the aim is slightly off it is a bit more forgiving to the knuckles and fingers. An exception to this would be the so-called Russian Hook, where the turning over completely of the hand gives protection to the hand and is ideal for bare-knuckle. With regards to palm strikes. If I am striking upwards from my hands being down then vertical. If I am striking on a plane then horizontal. I just find this is the most protective of the fingers and allows the part of the palm aligned with the wrist to connect first.

Congratulations.

I think we should perhaps consider the Dao in some ways: there was a long time where keikogi as we know them did not exists, and people trained in martial arts easily enough. We live in a time where many people do not train in a formal set of keikogi. The wide use of keikogi did not happen in Okinawa until the 1950s, and that was the birthplace of Karate. Simply put, the training suit we now associate with karate is a modern contrivance and has never been essential to training. I rarely train in formal Keikogi at home. I often train in a rash guard and shorts, or just shorts, if training alone. For self-defence classes, I just ask people to wear comfortable street clothes they would wear at the gym, and I have a few Judo Jackets I hand out as needed when we are training holds on clothing. In the Dojo in a Karate or Kobujutsu training situation though, no, I do not see Keikogi becoming obsolete. They are just a form of training wear and they are very effective in the venue they were designed for. Indeed, as the application of kata movements, and the recognition of the grappling aspects of self-defence have become more popular I feel that Keikogi has become more useful. They allow one to train against the use of one's clothes as handles in such close proximity fighting to state the most immediate advantage. Aside from that keikogi are solid year-round wear, suitable for warmer climates as well as colder. Similarly, to reiterate and support to Sensei8's point: they do also give a sense of belonging and recognition which a shared uniform gives, and the visual aspect of the Obi gives. With that said, I do hope aspects of the use of the Obi fall out of fashion. I do believe a lot of erroneous, egotistical beliefs have become conflated with the belt system. I also feel the sheer number of belts has stopped reflecting actual, meaningful skill development: especially at the rate they are given out. As a system, those of us using it, do need to take responsibility to make it work if only within our own sphere of influence.

The men behind it are investors which is where the initial money injection came from. Youtube money is part of the income generated, but it probably not their main income earner, no. Youtube has put money into the pot as a company though, using Karate Combat as a platform to sell Cobra Kai when that was still an original show on their platform. Somewhat of a Give and Take though. There about page also mentions a lot of the names that have been attached to Karate Combat at one time or another: https://www.karate.com/about As Bushido Man mentioned: commercial and team sponsorship is likely how they have brought in the majority of the money through their initial events. I have heard they also sold tickets at a premium price to their events, and that they were quite the party for the audience beside the fights being showcased. I would be inclined to believe they have actually operated at a loss for their first couple of years. They have now secured a network deal so I am thinking now is when they are going to start pushing for profit. I would not be surprised if they perhaps do networked seasons with Pay-Per-View championships. My hope though, is they do not abandon the audience they built up through youtube, and that they continue to provide free content.

Up to Kudan (10th Degree) as is traditional. The highest technical grade is Godan: a grading where one performs before a panel and is adjudged according to their skills. Again, as is traditional among the systems represented in the organisation, where the systems only have a technical syllabus up to fifth-degree as organised by the founders. The highest grading I have witnessed is sixth (Rokudan), however, that was done in the manner of observation: the candidate took on teaching duties for the day on the course and was judged by virtue of their capacity to pass on knowledge. They did have to perform a high-level kata at the end and offer technical insight into the kata but that was the lone "performance" aspect of the grading. As far as I know, Shichidan and above are honourary and given according to contribution to Karate and the Martial Arts.

I have yet to do an analysis of the latest season, but from eyeballing the raw data, I do not believe much has changed that is worthy of updating my original assessment. As far as I am aware, neither Michael Depietro nor Robert Bryan have backgrounds in martial arts outside of sports promotion, and they are the money men. I think they have just seen an opportunity in the Combat Sports world and pursued it because they see money in it. The only person on the management side I know of with a Karate Background is Adam Kovacs, the former World No. 1 in the WKF standings, and he was recruited in 2020 in the run-up to season 3. As such, I would have to challenge the idea that bias emerges out of any loyalty to a particular style or system due to the organisers. I suspect there is an element of opportunism in them pursuing the recruitment of World Karate Federation (WKF) Players. It is the largest talent pool of Shobu Kumite Players in the world, and the WKF has its own robust ranking structure they keep updated. Furthermore, Karate is an Olympic event for whenever the Tokyo Games happen, but back in 2018 when the set date was 2020 said games had a sense of immediacy. There is a huge amount of piggy-back publicity by association through recruiting names that might appear on the Olympic podium. Similarly, I think it is no small thing they have given Josh Quayhagen, a former UFC fighter, who is probably the most recognised name on the roster - beside Rafael Aghayev - four opportunities to fight over the course of 6 events. They also recruited Bas Rutten as an ambassador and commentator, one of the most recognised names in MMA, and a distinct and unmistakable voice and character. The people behind Karate Combat know the media game. Furthermore, when creating a new product, one must also do things differently from others to become distinct: by crafting a venue for people who do not otherwise get invited to such things they fill a vacuum. If I were a gambler I would put money on the fact the UFC and Bellator do not scout top WKF talent. Kick-Boxing promotions also tend to focus their efforts on Boxers, Nak Muay, Sanshou Competitors, and Knock-Down Karate Players. Karate Combat is recruiting from a talent pool no other promotion is tapping into and thus are not competing with other promotions to secure it. How this bleeds into the over representation of Shotokan is that Shotokan is over represented in that version of Shobu Kumite as well, so when recruiting from that talent pool, the same bias will emerge. Similarly, as stated in my opening posts, they can only get those willing to fight to fight, and said willingness will be affected by a number of factors: Venue, Notice, and how it fits into the rest of their competitive season. There are several players who have been present at several events, and some who appear to have been a matter of one and done. You get the people you can convince or who put themselves forward. Speaking of the rules, I believe the goal of the rule set is to differentiate the competition from other forms of kick-boxing or martial arts competition. It reminds me of the World Combat League and Glory Kickboxing with a focus on keeping the fighters actively moving by restricting clinching. They do permit some wrestling, which adds a further dimension by creating opportunities for throws and suplex, which can add dramatic moments to a fight. Similarly, I think they allow the limited five seconds striking to a downed opponent to allow the ground and pound spectacle of MMA, without including the ground-work which is the most oft criticised aspect of free-fighting as a form of entertainment. I do not think a traditional Knock-Down Karate Player would naturally have a great advantage by virtue of coming from a traditional, full-contact, background. All the Players in Karate Combat are athletes, with coaches, who will have studied the ruleset and conditioned their Players for the ruleset. Even if a Player has a back-ground in a style that is not traditionally full-contact, it would be absurd for them not to have prepared for full-contact, with proper training. Thus far, I have not seen anything that is incongruent with the rule set: the lack of elbow strikes, only being permitted to kick to above the belt or to between the ankle and knee, and the restrictions on clinch fighting dictate an out-fighting approach. Point-Fighting is characterised by outfighting because one is looking to score points while avoiding being struck, and so it is natural for fighters to bring their experience from that out-fighting approach to this full-contact variation. Keeping the hands down when in striking range is incredibly risky, however, when just outside said range it is a valid tactic to either invite attacks to the head (which are the easiest to see coming and avoid with head movement) and to make it difficult for your opponent to judge where your hand-strikes may come from and what angle: especially if they move in first. Boxers, Kickboxers, and Free-Fighters have all used it historically with good results. Within the context of a ruleset with wrestling allowed it also helps guard against shooting attempts. Using Knock-Down as an example, because Kyokushin has been brought up as the talking point, that Knock-Down Players would have greater success I think is a dangerous assumption. When you can punch to the head, but not throw elbows to body nor kick to the thigh, you have reversed the situation for most knock-down players. I think you would see the same difficulties suffered by them, except, they might show some greater confidence against body shots, and more willingness to fight in the pocket. The Slugfest style has emerged from the Miai forced by a lack of punches to the head. When you must punch down you lose reach, and so you must get closer. Now, as most karateka know, the proper form of punching lower is not to punch down, but to lower yourself by deepening your stance to keep proper hip alignment and posture. However, to do so in the context of Knock-Down would be a massive “tell” in contrast to other situations where your opponent cannot be sure you will be punching to the body or where you can hide a body blow behind a leading jab. Thus, in knock-down, the practice is to punch with a slight slope down. Now, when you have to strike to the body or the legs, you have to use pushing and shoving (Through Body-Shots and Low-Kicks) to control distance: you cannot control distance by putting your hand in your opponent’s face. Thus, punching down does serve a purpose and is not necessarily bad form in context. By bludgeoning your opponent with repeated body-blows you make it difficult for them to get their feet off the ground, and thus deploy their most dangerous weapon: a kick to the head. It also makes it difficult for them to breath, and anticipate powerful blows to the legs, and when you cannot try and render them unconscious with an elbow or punch wearing them down is as good a strategy as going for a kick to the head. Kicks to the head are also much tougher to set up when you cannot set them up with a leading punch. This, all in all, is what creates the distinct characteristics of Full-Contact bouts. Without that specific environment, it would be hard to say whether a Player’s ability in Knock-Down would cross over into Karate Combat. I have gone into such a break down of the conceits of Knock-Down Rules simply to illustrate my point to those not familiar with the experience. I apologise if at any point it sounded like I was talking down to anyone. Now, looking to other full-contact competitions and their practitioners: I could see someone with experience in American Full-Contact, Gloved, Bogu Kumite, or Irikumi Go having success under Karate Combat rules quite easily. If only because of a number of similarities in rules. With all the above said, however, I do agree that there is a lack of effective set-ups and attempts at combination attacks at this time. Which, I believe is down to an unfamiliarity with wrestling and the fear of Ground-and-Pound, among both Players and their Coaches. The longer you stay in the pocket throwing techniques, the more at risk of being tackled or grabbed you are, and so the defence against this that has been adopted is: throw big strikes and get out. The same problem happened with MMA and strikers: the kick became a rare sight in the cage and only came back through the likes of Cung Le showing ways to use them in that context. Only time, more experience, and the sourcing of relevant expertise will change this in the grand scheme of things for Karate Combat as well. This does come back to what I feel is the most appropriate critique of technical aptitude, or lack thereof, which is some Players not engaging in active defence when they have been taken to the ground. There is too much covering up and weathering the five seconds allotted, and I think referees should be given the power to penalise that as equivalent to a lack of aggression or unwillingness to engage. Furthermore, there is not enough use of Head-Movement, using the front-hand or push-kicks to control distance, and combining strikes with wrestling (Ground and Pound is a valid winning tactic). Admittedly, the goal is to create a venue to display karate, but there is no reason not to gamify if you want to be a success. As an aside, Shota Hara, the one Kyokushin practitioner (Kenbukai) signed to Karate Combat was active in the Japanese Promotion Ganryujima, where he went 4-1 under their ruleset. It is similar to Karate Combat but allows elbows, leg kicks, and is not as strict on clinching. It also has a ring out rule and allows 15 seconds of ground action (Limited to striking only). He is 1-2 in MMA and 1-1 in Kickboxing (International Rules), but his success in Ganryujima should bode well. I hope he gets an opportunity to fight soon. It would be great if they could tempt Katsunori Kikuno over, as he has had somewhat of a career revival in Ganryujima.

The best thing you can do prior is getting into a daily routine of strength and conditioning training. Especially, doing sport-specific training. Jesse Enkamp, of Karate by Jesse, has posted a number of karate specific exercises one can do at home: https://www.youtube.com/watchv=DyDxha9KZWA&list=PLnepTzrhzuB_GuacNc8YMT9KnQ25WscW1 Not all of those exercises will be suitable for a beginner but they are a good resource. Generally speaking for strength training you will want to work on core-exercises and postural exercises: Press-Ups, Crunches, Leg Lifts, Squats, and Lunges are all good exercises you can do at home without equipment which target muscle groups important to karate practice. They are also families of exercises with many variations you can use to increase the challenge, or target problem areas when needed. Cardio training is also important but doing the right cardio training: I suggest alternating between jogging and sprints. I would also advise a daily stretching routine. I found this blog a few years ago, and it was a good foundation for building my own stretching routine: https://oracle-base.com/flexibility/articles/weekly-stretching-routine/ In terms of learning the actual techniques at home: this can be very difficult. However, I saw you are interested in studying Kyokushin. The Taikyokugata are fairly simple, and there are plenty of videos online of them. There would be no harm in learning the general shape of Taikyoku Sono Ichi in your own time:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCS6QB3ODnM I would also advise studying the terminology as well in advance. Learn the terms of the basic techniques, and the formal etiquette, in advance and it will help you. Lastly, practice Humility. Approach the process with an open mind and a willingness to listen and learn.

For Jiyu-Kumite or Free-Sparring: Kakedameshi. A form of wrestling not unlike Tai Chi Chuan Tuishou (Pushing Hands) where you start with your limbs connected to your partner and always return to that position. The goal is to protect your centerline while simultaneously attacking your opponent's centerline, attack their base to potentially knock them down, or take control of their limbs. I consider this an excellent way to work on skills and techniques relating to kata because I am increasingly convinced that most kata movements do deal with this extreme close range. It allows you to also work on the limb control and takedowns common to almost all forms of kata application. Drilling in general: Flow-drills, though, I admittedly favour fewer flow drills which work on positions and where you can add active resistance in. There are a number of shapes that occur and reoccur through kata, so I try to isolate those shapes and drill them. Semi-Free Sparring with kata-informed restrictions: Have Seme be restricted to shapes from a specific kata, and have Uke be restricted to attacking relevant areas; they can only attack specific targets off of a specific limb for example. This way you introduce the stress of not knowing what specific attack will be coming for Seme, and you have them work on kata shapes under said stress. However, you still keep it relatively safe by keeping it to attacks you are confident those shapes will work against. I also like to remind people we are rarely attacked in a nice open space, so I like to do what I call wall drills, and the clue is in the name: we start the drill near to a wall so it is restricting our movement. Similarly, we will often be trying to reclaim the initiative after an attacker has gained some degree of control of the situation. Thus, the Uke will initiate a random grip before the Seme is allowed to initiate their defence. Add stressors to Kata practice itself: When students have some confidence in getting through their first kata I will then test their technique by getting out a striking stick and pad; I force them to have to block and strike strongly by giving them something to block and something strike. As students progress I will then make the attacks random, so instead of an attack on each block, it could be on any block so they need to do each correctly because it could be any of them. I also start adding attacks to when they move to reinforce that it needs to be done with that sense of speed and evasion. Some times we forget the arms entirely, and just do the footwork, with kettle-bells in hand, to maximise the work of the legs. I'll still have someone go around with the striking stick, or partner people up, to force that need to move. Last note: I put myself through all the drills as well so I know what it is like, and can adjust as needed. I also try to stay mindful that what is stressful to me after twenty years of practice and having a fighting career, is very different from someone without those experiences. Thus, the need to cater to how to add stressors to training to each individual. This can be very difficult if you have a large classroom. I rarely teach more than ten people at a time out of choice so I can do this kind of catered training. Edit: Just so I am not casting aspersions inadvertently. I cannot speak to most people's practice because I have not been and trained with them on their Dojo/Dojang/Kwoon/Gym floor. Thus, when I speak in broad terms, I am speaking to my personal witness. I have trained in Dojo in the Republic of Ireland, in Norway, in Japan, in Okinawa, and the East coast of the U.S.A, and all over the U.K. Few do what I consider kata based training: they do training including kata. Okinawa is about the lone place I have encountered traditional Kata based training. I have encountered the British strain of Practical karate which does but it is a reinvention of the wheel. I always go back to context-specific training in my thinking: If my Kata is not connected to my Kumite and Kihon in a logical, rational, and scaled manner, why do kata? Why train different skill sets under the same name, especially when there are kata traditions that suit kick-boxing style Kumite: Ashihara Kaiken, Enshin, Nippon Kempo, and Shorinji Kempo all come to mind. If your kata do not suit what you are doing, but you want to do kata training, find the suitable kata training.

The aphorism: You fight how you train comes to mind. More specifically, however, you will move in the manner you have conditioned and practised to move under stress through stress-inducing training. Very few people do kata in a manner that is stress-inducing. Either they will not practice it with sufficient intensity to do it is a credible aerobic routine, and there is an element of diminishing returns for kata and their effectiveness as exercise. Otherwise, their Kiso Kumite (Kata based sparring) is insufficient to induce actual stress: it is done in an overtly rehearsed and safe manner. As such. when you enter the stressful situation of Jiyu Kumite, your Kata training will have no bearing: because you have not conditioned and practised the movement through stress-inducing training. You will instead resort to what you can do under stress. Furthermore, as appealed to by others, modern Jiyu Kumite is rarely Kata based and might be better considered a Kick-Boxing training exercise than a self-defence exercise. The Kata are descended from pragmatic self-defence and thus a disconnect emerges. Without the stress training, you will unlikely be able to pull off sophisticated applications, and when the rules do not allow you cannot practice them anyway. With that said, kata does teach body mechanics and they are habit creating. If you practice them enough, you will develop habits through them which will appear during Jiyu Kumite. Under stress, you will fall back on habit. How you perform your techniques that emerge in Jiyu Kumite will be affected by how you rehearse them, and that includes through kata practice: thus your strikes and deflections. Maybe your posture and how you stand will also be affected. In that sense, if you go from one kata tradition you practised for a long time, and then went to another school where there are different nuances and practised there for a long time: you could expect to see some subtle changes. Now, if you do kata based sparring, and stress-based training with your kata, then how you perform kata will have a significant impact on your Kumite. Otherwise, under other circumstances, not very much.

It depends very much on the School and how decentralised that particular organisation is. Being JKA, generally speaking, it will depend on the school with regards to the Kyu Grades, and the branch with regard to Dan Grades. I know of people who have failed JKA gradings, yes, but I must admit I do believe one should not be submitted for grading unless one is ready. A failure on grading is very much a failure of the teacher. One should not fail a grading unless one absolutely falls apart under the pressure, because the pressure is a factor in life and in combat. If you fail the stress test that is one thing, but from a technical perspective one should be ready before the grading. However, it is indeed nonsensical to have a grading as a mere formality. Ultimately, it will depend on the school. I mean, I know of people failing ITF Tae Kwon Do gradings. Indeed, a student of mine did, but for all the wrong reasons. It was what drove them away from Tae Kwon Do. Gradings can be very damaging things for martial arts and martial artists. It is hard to find a balance.

This is an important factor to consider when discussing old kata from Okinawa. During the late 19th and early 20th century, a division did emerge between what has retroactively become known as Village Karate and School/Town Karate. School Karate is the ancestor of what might be considered Orthodox Okinawan Karate: Shorin-Ryu Kobayashi and Matsubayashi, and Goju-Ryu. In the Ryukyu Kingdom, and well into the 1800s on Okinawa, many exponents and experts of Chinese Martial Arts gathered on a regular basis in Matsuyama Park and exchanged knowledge. This is why we see a significant recurrence of various patterns of movement appear in the kata of distinct geographical origin and association. During the early 20th century the famed Itosu Anko introduced a version of Karate to the Okinawan School System. Hioganna Kanryo, the most prolific teacher of Tode-Jutsu in Naha, also started teaching publically around the same time. Many of their students also came together to form organisations such as the Tode Kenkyukai and engage in significant cross-training. Members of the aforementioned groups were also among the first teachers on Okinawa to accept the conceits of Nippon Karate-Do in the 1930s before said conceits were largely enforced in the 1950s by their export to Okinawa by the JKA. Through this long process, we have the existence of Orthodox Okinawan Karate, which is the most widely practised interpretation and most easily accessed. However, while the students of Itosu and Higoanna are those that most widely spread their karate, there were many who persevered in the "Old Way" and passed down a distinct lineage. There were also many who travelled to China and studied the Chinese Arts directly, and brought back with them a distinct art, and preserved said art as a family-style: Ryuei-Ryu being a famous example. Thus, there are many schools of Heterodox systems, and each would be worthy of an article themselves. As many kata originate in Chinese Kempo one can expect to see many versions of Kata with the same name, but with a different substance. In each generation, you have those who see their responsibility as preservation, and those who see their responsibility as rejuvenation. This is true now, and it was true in the past. There will always be those that follow the trend of the day to remain relevant, and there will be those who set the trend of the day and those who refuse to follow it. Some will change their Kata for the purpose of competition success. Others will undo such changes and try to reinvent the wheel and restore the Kata to its roots. Keeping in mind how this influences change from generation to generation is important for understanding change and deviation.

All styles are subject to the assumptions, conceits, and preferences of the founder. This is true of how kata is performed, and why they undergo changes. Some teachers make a number of global changes to their approach: by adding more stances or reducing the number of stances, for example, and thus all the kata they teach change according to this global change. These are usually quite easy and can be traced to an individual more often than not. Then there are are more subtle changes made to individual kata, usually because someone in the lineage felt there was a better way to perform a particular movement in a kata, and implemented said change. These are harder to trace as it could have been the senior student or assistant of the named instructor at the time, so credit is not awarded. This might sound strange, but I have seen teachers adopt useful innovations and ideas off of students. Some are gracious and give credit, but others, not so much. Age, as mentioned, can impact how a martial art is taught by an instructor. Experience may have given them new insights and so they have made changes as time has gone by. Age may have stopped them performing the kata as they once did. Thus, the version of the kata their student learnt will have depended greatly on when they trained with the teacher. With the above said, I have seen the kick done several ways in the same dojo. I have seen it done with the leaping front kick, two front kicks, or with a half-step to kick off the front leg. The important thing to the instructor seemed to be that there was a left kick and you ended with your left foot forward. Age and injury seemed to be the only justifications given: nothing to do with the intended application. Chinto, being so widespread, has been subject to both significant subtle changes and global changes as it as has been transplanted from system to system. In terms of disparity in the same lineage, I would give the example of a modern system such as Ed Parker's Kempo Karate: which has a much shorter history of six decades, and whose founder has only been dead thirty years. If one looks between his Kempo Karate as it was brought to the UK in the 1960s, his Chinese Kempo, the version propagated by the Tracy Brothers, and the last version he outlined in Infinite Insights they have numerous differences in the performance of Forms one through four. I give this example as the resources to see the differences are readily available, but it is not uncharacteristic of the way even one teacher can have students take profoundly different paths because of their differing perspective of the teachings.