Wado Heretic

The Meiji government, after the restoration, and the tumultuous period that followed saw the Japanese Government invite European, including French, Military Advisors to Japan to modernise the Government's new, standing army. A trend begun by the political powers of Japan during the Bakamatsu period (1853-1867) among the Clans and the Shogunate. The Army under the Meiji Government took on a largely French Character, and embraced many of its methods. Indeed, Yabu Kentus, is famously credited with helping make Okinawan karate training more militaristic. If we look at the manner in which Okinawan karate training was being conducted during the early 20th century, we can see a striking resemblance to French Savate drill training. Savate was codified during the latter part of the 19th Century, and was a part of French Military training by the end of said century, as filmed and written records attest. Indeed, there were over 100,000 practitioners of Boxe Francoise as it is better known in its native country by the turn of the 20th Century. It was also internationally known, being taught in London at Barton-Wright's short lived but influential Bartitsu Club, and there were a number of inter-disciplinary international bouts between English Boxers and French Tireurs over the 19th century and the early 20th century with the Jerry Driscoll versus Charles Charlemont being the best recorded and well known. The so called Merican Bouts were also popular in Japan during the early 20th century. Often between Wrestling and Jujutsu, with Kodokan Judo being the regular representative school, but often featuring other systems. Motobu Choki famously knocked out a foreign, often cited as Russian, Pugilist which became a wide spread story about the effectiveness of Karate in Japan. To think French Tireurs would have been absent from these sort of contests is unlikely, given the amount of French trade passing through Japan prior to the First World War. Then there are the films and books about the sport created at the turn of the century that made there way across the world, and to Japan, with the boom of the international media trade. Anyway, it is entirely plausible that Funakoshi Yoshitaka and other karateka of the time had exposure to the Savate, and frankly, I suspect it unlikely that they did not. The masters of Karate have always some what been metaphorical Magpie, embracing and adapting methods they encountered and making them part of their own approach. Sakugawa with Kusanku Kata, Matsumura with Chinto Kata and the Tsuken Bo tradition, Kyan with Ananku kata, Mabuni with various kata and methods of kumite, Miyagi with training tools such as the Kongoken, and Funakoshi with the Karategi and KyuDan system. I could see Funakoshi Yoshitaka, and other pioneers, being influenced by exposure to Savate as we know they were by Boxing, Judo, and Koryu Bujutsu. My main point of contention with Mr Enkamp's assessment is the excess of inductive reasoning, and over-estimation of the evidence he presented. The idea that Karate "stole" its kicks explicitly from Savate is not a demonstrable conclusion with the evidence available. The reasons I presented in my prior post, I feel offers more suitable explanations for why Shotokai-Ryu, and Nihon Karate Do in general, developed high kicks. Which is that the manner of Jiyu-Kumite as it was being practiced, and the group method of teaching which led to striking becoming over represented, led to the sport of karate being incredibly similar to Savate due to the resulting sport being incredibly similar.

Thank you both, but I will apologise for the sheer length of it, because the more I typed the more I realised there was to type, and I have still only touched on some essential points. Also, it did get rather off topic about the discussion regarding whether Yin style karate exists, outside of the matter of Bah He Quen which is considered a "soft" or "Yin" style of Quen'fa. Most systems are the sum of their parts framed by the conceits, assumptions, preferences, and innovations of the person that rationalised and organised the system. They are then further refined, diminished, enhanced, or confused by the environment they exist within. When it comes to fighters styles you have Out-fighters and In-fighters, in both striking and grappling. In striking you have your strikers and fighter-punchers. Strikers who want to be able to hit with both their hands and feet, and use movement and counter striking to maintain distance. Lyoto Machida, Anderson Silva, Connor McGreggor, Cang Le are just some of the names that fall into this category. Even then they differ: some use poking, and conservative and hard to catch movements to keep their opponents at bay to find openings, while others throw their strikes with power, and unpredictability to maintain distance through fear and with the hope of catching with a good set up. Fighter-Punches are the sort that want to stand and exchange, and connect with the hands. Be it at arms length, or inside the pocket. The Diaz Brothers, Roy Nelson, Justin Gaethe, and Chuck Liddell are all great examples of this approach to striking. Chuck Liddell is probably the most accomplished due to his ability to maintain his range, and be dangerous, going back as well as forward. Nate Diaz is always dangerous though no matter who you are. With grapplers you have your shooters: the guys who keep safe out of striking range, and whose defence is controlling range through moving, and then shooting in for the take down or clinch, to get top control and work from there: either ground and pound or to go for a submission attempt. Then you have your submission fighters, who want to tangle on the ground to secure a submission, and will use the opportunity that comes to them to get there. In modern MMA, most fighters are good at all the various skills as they do sport-specific training, but you will see most still lean into their strengths with their game plans. All fighters have habits, and what they are good for, and can be classified broadly into one of the above classes. You can take these basic premises to boxing, kick-boxing, and submission grappling but they have more nuance therein to the specific sport. Bringing this back to systematic appproaches or martial arts styles: those who rationalise a system do so based on what they can do themselves, what they have found useful for them, and what they believe is important. Thus, all systems lean into a kind of fighting profile even if they are a Hybrid or Free-Style approach.

I will state that the Chinese Arts are not my area of expertise. I practice Tai Chi for exercise. Outside of that my interest in the Chinese Arts tends to start and end with their relation to Karate and Kenjutsu: through Kata and Bladesmithing respectively. With that said, I have heard the claim that Spider Boxing (Zhizhūquen to give it a Mandarin name, or Kumo Kempō for a Japanese Transliteration) is a so called sub-style of Shéquán (Snake Style) and Tánglángquán (Northern Praying Mantis). However, I have never seen compelling evidence to demonstrate such. There are many snake styles, however, with there being a Northern and Southern Shaolin tradition, and the snake is also present as a form in Taijiquen, Baguagzhang, and Xingyiquen. Furthermore, there are at least six major forms of Northern Praying Mantis I can think of. I would not discount Spider style existing as a form on the basis I just do not know enough about the systems I have heard it might be a part of, but that is presuming there is truth to the claim I have heard. It is just as likely that claim is false, and looking into those two styles would be a false start. Otherwise, I once read in a book, of dubious quality, on the History of Bujinkan Ninpo Taijutsu that Spider Boxing is one of the historical sources of Gyokko Ryū Kosshijutsu. It should be said that only Kukishinden-Ryu and Takagi Yoshin-Ryu can be authenticated as historical systems Takamatsu Toshitsuga legitimately knew. Also, that the Shindo Fudo-Ryu taught in the Bujinkan likely came from Hatsumi's studies with Ueno Takashi, and that the Shinden Fudo Ryū Dakentai Jutsu was invented to give Hatsumi a further Soke title. Otherwise, the other six systems are inventions of Takamatsu, based on material plagiarised from the works of Ninpo and Bujutsu researchers Nawa Yumio Masakian and Fujita Seiko. Thus, the claim is patently false. Still, an interesting aside, but sadly the only other claim about Spider Boxing I know of, and perhaps where the rumour of spider boxing began.

In understanding the history of karate, it is important to place the influence of the Chinese Arts in context, while acknowledging the innovations of the people of the island of Okinawa. As we review history with the benefit of hindsight, we are also beholden to the rules of thumb: 1. The victors write the history. 2. Scholars have often been more interested in the story rather than the facts. 3. Each culture has preserved its history through its own world view and biases. The people of the Ryukyu Kingdom were fascinated, awed, and deeply respectful of the majesty of Chinese culture as they understood it. As were many cultures in the region which the Chinese diaspora affected over the centuries. Even in Japan, which historically rejected a tributary relationship with any Chinese Dynasty after the end of the Heian Period, exempting the disastrous “King of Japan” incident of Ashikaga Yoshimitsa, maintained a respect for Chinese culture. Indeed, many traditions in Japan historically had claims to a Chinese antecedent for the sake of having the claim. This trend, of course, came to an end during the Edo period, and regional tensions continue to keep the matter subdued. The idea of Karate as an art descended from the Chinese Arts begins with the 18th Century Okinawan Martial Artist Sakugawa Kanga, who is better known as Tode Sakugawa in many circles. He is famous, or notorious, for being the first known example of the word Tode: Tang Hand, or Chinese Hand. It is from Tode that the word Karate comes from: being a compound phrase based on the same characters but interpreted as Empty Hand instead. Sakugawa trained under Kwang Shang Fu, better known as Kushanku, in Quen’fa of an unrecorded system. Our only clue as to the content of this training is the Kata known as Kushanku and it has elements that can be related to Tiger, Crane, and Monk Fist. However, there is no extant Taolu (forms) to be found in any extant Chinese systems which are comparable. Otherwise, we can only presume, a hint dangerously, that Sakugawa taught a similar set of teachings to his most famous student: Matsumura Sokon. Mastsumura taught, as far as we know, naihanchi, passai, seisan, and gojūshiho from the older canon of Kata. He also taught Kushanku as created by Sakugawa, and Chinto which he created himself. Some state he taught a haku-tsuru (White Crane) kata but I frankly consider the claim dubious because of lack of compelling evidence. Before continuing, I would state that, historians of karate have retroactively come to identify Chatan Yara - Takahara Peichin - Sakugawa Kanga – Matsumura Sokon – Itosu Anko as the mainline of Shuri-Te. This is because each of them was incredibly prominent in Shuri as Martial Artists, and during the late 19th century and early 20th century, Itosu Anko was the de facto leader of martial arts in Shuri. It was him that pioneered the introduction of Te training into schools, and who started the activity of teaching in large classes openly, rather than to individuals or small groups in relative privacy (or secrecy in many cases). From Itosu Anko comes Shorin-Ryu Kobayashi, the oldest branch of Shorin-Ryu, and considered the spiritual successor to Shuri-Te by many. He also influenced Shorin-Ryu Matsubayashi through his student Motobu Choki. Itosu Anko also taught many pioneers of Karate and founders of the first modern schools, including Funakoshi Gichin (Shotokan), Toyama Kanken (Shudokan), Mabuni kenwa (Shi’To-Ryu) and Chibana Chōshin who founded the afforemention Shorin-Ryu Kobayashi. I mention this to put the following into its proper context: Takahara, Sakugawa and Itosu never went to China. Takahara was taught by Chatan Yara, who learnt his art in China off a Wong Chung-Yoh. Some identify this Wong as a Xingyiquen Sifu present in Fujian Province. Fujian province was the predominant location of Ryukyu missions to China, so it is plausible, but we have no confirmation available. Plus, there is little resemblance between the Shuri-Te Kata and Xingyiquen. With this said, we can argue that Takahara was taught a Chinese system, or at least a martial art influenced by Chinese Martial Arts, but he never trained in China or became an acknowledged representative of a named system. Sakugawa spent six years training under Takahara, and six years training under Kusanku, and his teachings, as best as we can identify them, show as much reliance on Okinawan traditions as they do Chinese. Itosu, as far as we know, never left Okinawa nor studied with a representative of Chinese Martial Arts, instead training under Okinawan Martial Artists in Okinawan Martial Arts. Furthermore, none of Itosu’s notable students ever went to China either (Toyama Kanken spent time in Taiwan learning Chinese Martial Arts but he is the exception), with their exposure to Chinese Martial Arts coming through Go Kenki, Uechi Kanbun, Arakaki Seishō, or Higashionna Kanryō. The latter two also having largely integrated the Chinese teachings with Okinawan Tradition and evolved and changed through their own personal innovations. With the above said, Matsumura, one of Itosu’s teacher, spent time in China and brought back martial teachings he received there to Okinawa. Matsumura also studied the techniques of Annan, a Chinese man stranded on Okinawa, according to folklore, from which Matsumura created the Kata Chinto. However, Matsumura was also an expert in Jigen-Ryu and his teachings were influenced by it sufficiently enough for him to create the foundation of what became the Tsuken tradition of Bojutsu, and he also saw sufficient value in Jigen-Ryu to instruct his student Asato Anko in the system. Ultimately, he was influenced by Chinese Arts, but was an innovator, with an appreciation for what he considered effective Bujutsu. Thus, in the context of what has retroactively become known as Shuri-Te it can be seen that it was strongly influenced by Chinese Martial Arts, but by the 1930s and the birth of modern karate it was already an Okinawan tradition going back 170 years. There are several breaks in the lineage where the acknowledged leader of Shuri-Te did not directly study Chinese Martial Arts: only those aspects that existed as part of the Okinawan Martial Arts. Kushanku comes from the teachings of Kwang Shang Fu, Chinto from the mysterious Annan, and there is a version of Seisan that still exists in Bái Hè Quán (White Crane Boxing). However, the other kata all seem to have Okinawan Origins (though Occam’s razor dictates we accept the possibility that the Chinese versions of the forms are simply extinct), and the techniques contained bear as much a resemblance to other potential influences such as Pencak Silat, Muay Boran, and Koryu Jujutsu as they do any known art from Fujian province: the main, demonstrable Chinese influence. Some of the older kata also potentially have a 400-700 year old history on Okinawa, even if the modern versions are very different from their medieval antecedents. Ultimately, karate is an Okinawan tradition that is greater than the sum of its influences, and is not a mere, regional continuity of Chinese Martial Arts. Rather, it is a martial tradition grounded in the indigenous arts of the RyuKyu People but influenced by regional influences including, but not limited to, Fujian Quen’Fa from China. With all the above said, however, we must acknowledge the debt to Chinese Martial Arts we modern students of Karate have. We can do this through historical review of the origins of modern systems. Goju-Ryu and Ryuei-Ryu both directly descend from the teachings of Ryo Ryo Ko via Higashionna Kanryō and Norisato Nakaima respectively. Miyagi Chojun, the founder of Goju-Ryu and Higashionna’s senior student, also spent time in China where he deepened his understanding of Fujian Martial Arts and created kata such as Tensho from the knowledge he gained. Uechi Kanbun studied what he called Pangai-Noon under Zhou Zeihe (Shu Shi Wa) in Fujian Province. As mentioned already in this topic, this became the foundation off Uechi-Ryu, which Uechi Kanei renamed the art after his father’s passing. However, It should be noted that Uechi Kanei, and his peers, significantly expanded the content of Uechi-Ryu beyond his father’s teachings and Pangai-Noon. There are many new kata present which were strongly influenced by local traditions, and the practice of formal Bunkai and Yakusoku Kumite are very much conceits of Okinawan and Japanese Karate. Thus, modern Uechi-Ryu is very much Okinawan Karate in spirit and nature. Kingai-Ryu, as exists as part of the Matayoshi Family Arts, was taught to Matayoshi Shinko by Kingai Roshi. This Kingai is supposed to have been a senior to the same Zhou Zeihe that was Uechi Kanbun’s teacher and thus taught the same Martial Art, or at least one with the same foundation. Interestingly, it is said that Kingai called his art Kingai-Ryu not after himself but based on an understanding of the characters of Kin and Gai. Kin refers to supplely reacting to change, while Gai refers to a steel like hardness. Essentially, the meaning is to combine hard and soft as one, as is the meaning of Pangai-Noon. Matayoshi Shinko was also one of Go Kenki’s most dedicated Okinawan Students and incorporated many of the White Crane Master’s teachings into his Karate, to the point it is difficult to disseminate the Kingai-Ryu from the Bah He Quen contained in Matayoshi-Ryu. In conclusion, however, it can be said the Karate of Matayoshi-Ryu is very much Chinese in origin. Arakaki Seisho was another direct student of Ryo Ryo Ko and taught a plethora of students including Higaonna Kanryō, Miyagi Chōjun (Goju-Ryu) Funakoshi Gichin (Shotokan), Uechi Kanbun (Uechi-ryū), Tōyama Kanken (Shudokan) and Mabuni Kenwa (Shi’to-Ryu). However, the spiritual successor of his teachings was Chitose Tsuyoshi, founder of Chitō-ryū, and it is that modern school which probably reflects Arakaki’s teachings most closely. However, Hangetsu is probably the most widely practiced Kata which owes its existence to Arakaki, in that it appears to be a blend of Arakaki and Matsumura no Seisan, and aside from existing in Shotokan is the point of origin of Wado-Ryu’s Seishan. Kojo-Ryu, I will mention to be fair, also has its origins in Chinese Martial Arts. Kojō Uēkata, credited as the founder of Kojo-Ryu, visited China during the 17th century where he spent a significant period of time studying. Sufficient to learn the Chinese method of creating calendars, and produce “the Almanac of Hours, Periods, and Seasons of the Great Qing” from the results of his studies. However, it is likely that Kojo Isae, who studied martial arts in China in the 19th century is the actual founder of Kojo-Ryu as was taught from his days until 1975, and the closing of the family Dojo by Kojo Shigeru. Sadly, Kojo-Ryu is in a state of disarray and the authentic, historical system is likely lost to history. The authenticity of those claiming to teach Kojo-Ryu today is disputable and none, as far as I know, are endorsed by the Koshiro Family (Koshiro is a modern reading of Kojo, and the preferred name of the family to avoid the controversy of Kojo-Ryu). There is a style called Koshin-Ryu founded by Irimaji Seiji. Irimaji was a senior student of Kojo-Ryu while the family dojo stood, but it is impossible to say how well Koshin-Ryu reflects its parent art. Though, based on my sources it includes a set of unique kata not found in orthodox Okinawan Karate but which are similar to kata found in Matayoshi-Ryu suggesting a similar point of origin: China. Controversy aside, Kojo-Ryu was of Chinese origin, and before the family dojo closed, generations of Okinawan Karateka studied within its walls and it has left its influence. There are some examples of kata out there developed later in history that are like Kusanku and Chinto in origin. Kyan Chotoku famously spent time in Taiwan studying the Chinese Martial Arts and codified what he learnt into the kata Ananku. One version of the kata is still practiced in Shorin-Ryu Matsubayashi and another in Shi’to-Ryu. Anaku, a kata invented by Robert Trias for his Shorei-Ryu/Shuri-Ryu, is an abridged version of Ananku as found in Shorin-Ryu Matsubayashi. Several kata unique to Shudokan, as founded by Tōyama Kanken, were created by Toyama based on his studies of Chinese Martial Arts during his time in Taiwan. These include Penpei, Penpo, and Empi Taki and Empi Iwa (Not related to Shotokan’s Empi which is a version of Wanshu) Lastly, Go Kenki (Wu Xiangui), whose name I have mentioned several times deserves a more thorough explanation. Go Kenki was a master of Whooping Crane Boxing, a branch of White Crane, active in Okinawa from 1912 until his death in 1940. However, his importance to the history of Modern Karate begins in 1918. That year, a collection of Okinawan martial arts enthusiasts formed the Ryukyu Tode-jutsu Kenkyukai: an exclusive research/knowledge exchange group for the study of Martial Arts. In 1915, both Itosu Anko and Higashionna Kanryo, the de facto grandmasters of Shuri and Naha, died and left the many of their students without guidance. The Kenkyukai hosted many names which should be familiar to any students of Okinawan karate and kobujutsu history. Names including: • Choshin Chibana: Founder of Shorin-Ryu Kobayashi. • Genwa Nakasone: Author of the Encyclopedia of Karatedo. • Hanashiro Chomo: Itosu’s senior student. • Kyan Chotoku: The pre-eminent Tomari Te Expert of the pre-modern era of Karate. • Kyoda Juhatsu: Founder of Toon-Ryu. • Mabuni Kenwa: Founder of Shi’to-Ryu, and considered the most accomplished karateka of his generation. • Miyagi Chojun: Goju-Ryu founder and Higashionna’s senior student • Oshiro Chojo: The pre-eminent expert of Yamane-Ryu Kobujutsu for the time. • Yabiku Moden: Introduced Ryukyu Kobujutsu to Japan and taught Kobudo notable Taira Shiken. • Yabu Kentsu: Noted for modernising Karate practice using military style drills. As part of the Kenkyukai, Go Kenki taught many things, and some we know about and can connect to teachings found in modern karate, and other things we can only speculate about. I will limit myself to what we do know. We know he is the source of the following kata, as preserved in Shi’to-Ryu as the Hakkaku-Ken Kata.: • Haffa: The simplest of the Hakkaku-Ken and some believe may have been an invention of Go Kenki, or perhaps Mabuni Kenwa, to introduce the basic ideas of White Crance Boxing. • Hakkaku: Kata of this name exist in Shi’to-Ryu, Matayoshi-Ryu, and Koshin-Ryu, but the Shi’to-Ryu and Matayoshi-Ryu versions are be based on Go Kenki’s original version. It also seems to have some connection to the Ryuei-Ryu kata known as Peiho. • Hakucho: A sister kata to Hakkaku which is shorter and less dynamic in performance. • Hakutsuru: Literally meaning “White Crane” this name has been used for various kata believed to originate from Bah He Quan, however, Go Kenki’s version is preserved in Shi’to-Ryu. • Happoren/Paipuren: A kata which is similar to Sanchin but is longer, more sophisticated, and contains more techniques. It is called Ba Bu Lien in Fujian White Crane. • Nipaipo/Neipai: Bears a resemblance to the Taolu “Er Shi Ba” which is still practiced in Fujian White Crane. Go Kenki either taught an alternate shorter version unique to his branch of Whooping Crane, or greatly abridged the form when he taught it to the members of the Kenkyukai, or Mabuni Kenwa simplified the version he preserved by reducing it to its distinguishing characteristics. It has also been hypothesised that Go Kenki influenced Kakei-Kumite as it became practiced in Shorin-Ryu and Goju-Ryu, as White Crane Boxing practices a lot of bridging, pulling, and pushing hand drills. This, however, is pure speculation in contrast to the Kata we can directly credit him with through written records. Furthermore, there is evidence that White Crane Boxing has influenced karate before Go Kenki. In Bah He Quen exist various Taolu with similar names to Okinawan Kata, and there are some forms which bear a striking resemblance to each other. San Zhan and Sanchin are a reading of the same characters: Three Battles. In terms of content, the version found in White Crane Boxing is like Shu Shi Wa no Sanchin as practiced in Uechi-Ryu in that it is an open hand form, however, it moves backwards and forwards as does Miyagi no Sanchin. How the Chinese version became what is practiced in Okinawa is easy to see. Furthermore, three versions of Sanchin come from Ryo Ryo Ko, and one from Shu Shi Wa, who were both teachers active in 19th Century Fujian Province. San Shi Liu, meaning 36 hands, can be read as Sanseiru. A name for a kata found in both Goju-Ryu and Uechi-Ryu. Although, the version in Uechi-Ryu was originally called Sandairyu, the meaning is still 36. Both Okinawan versions are different to one another, however, and neither bear great resemblance to San Shi Liu as practiced in Fujian White Crane aside from some passing resemblance of certain open hand techniques. Wu Shi Si Shou consists of the same character as Gojushiho, though, as with San Shi Liu and Senseiru little but the names resemble one another. There are some techniques which could be described as similar, but if these forms were once related it was as distant cousins many years ago now, and in the modern age they share no meaningful connection beyond the name. The most compelling connection in my view is the Taolu Si Men (Four Gates) and the kata Seisan (13). Though the names differ in meaning, they are phonetically similar, and Si Men is performed very similarly to Seisan, except it has a few additional moves. From the examples of Sanchin, and other kata, we know the Okinawans habitually abridged and condensed forms so Seisan being an abridgement of Si Men is plausible. Now, the matter is confused a little, as we know Seisan is a very old Kata on Okinawa, and as easily as Seisan made its way to Okinawa from China, the inverse could also have happened. We know a number of Okinawan masters travelled to Fujian province over the centuries, and many would have known a version of Seisan. The supposed White Crane “Seisan” could easily be a Chinese adoption and variation of the Okinawan kata. The prior is more likely than the latter given the historic relationship between the RyuKyu people and the Chinese, but we cannot discount the possibility. Thus, with regards to White Crane and Karate, we can say some kata were likely inherited from Bah He Quen Taolu in the distant past, and that some kata definitely were via Go Kenki in the early modern era. What strikes me as the most apparent influences from White Crane Boxing is the blend of Open and Closed hand techniques, approach to breathing, and naming conventions. If nothing else it seems likely that Ryo Ryo Ko and Shu Shi Wa both taught some sort of system related to Fujian White Crane, and thus Goju-Ryu, Ryuei-Ryu, and Uechi-Ryu are descendent schools of Bah He Quen. Returning to the Ryukyu Tode-jutsu Kenkyukai, there is an important factor to consider when discussing the formation of modern karate on 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. Therefore, 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 publicly around the same time. Many of their students also came together to form organisations such as the aforemention 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. Karate is the culmination of many minds, many decades, and many influences. With the Chinese influences put in context, we can see the Chinese connection and its importance, however, we can also see the Chinese connection does not answer all questions or give a satisfying answer to the origins and history of karate. There is a breath, and depth, to Karate better explained by accepting it is an original creation of the Okinawan people, who were strongly influenced by the Chinese Martial Arts, but also had their own rich traditions and embraced the many influences they encountered through the historical links to Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, and China. Regarding the matter of Mr Enkamp’s claims regarding Savate and karate. With all due respect, and I will add that I am fan of his because I believe he is a great force for spreading history and knowledge about Karate, and with all that said: I do suspect he has overstated the matter of Karate getting its kicks from Savate. First, Funakoshi Yoshitaka was not the Shotokan representative involved with karate being taught to Imperial Japanese Soldiers: that was instead Egami Shigeru. Furthermore, we must be careful not to give credit for an evolutionary path that seemed to occur in all systems of Karate to a single man whose lived influence was brief and limited by his health problems. Second, the kicks evolved in the context of the evolving kumite framework introduced by Ohtsuka Hironori and Yasuhiro Konishi through the innovation of Yakusoku and Jiyu Kumite in the 1920s. Both were exponents of Koryu Bujutsu including Jujutsu and Kenjutsu and introduced footwork from swordsmanship into karate practice, such as edging forward and back with the lead foot or back foot to maintain fighting stance and using cross-stepping to gain distance: foot-work fundamental to Sport Karate. This was simply reinforced by Funakoshi Yoshitaka, who was an expert in Kendo, when he became a full-time instructor for his father in the 30s. Third, Jiyu Kumite is fertile ground for developing new techniques for winning a point bout. Being able to strike your target with more weapons is essential. If we look at the way Savate kicks are performed and compare it to the advice given about kicking in Karate-Do Kyohan, we can see fundamental difference in method. The proposed karate methods are, as has been historically said, simply taking the traditional kicks of karate and chambering them higher to hit higher targets. However, they do recommend striking to vulnerable, non-sporting targets as per Okinawan Tode-Jutsu. Occam’s Razor gives us compelling reason to argue these kicks evolved as tactics for Jiyu Kumite, which were embraced as part of the new paradigm, instead of necessarily being a focused effort to take techniques from Savate as it is the simpler explanation. Fourth, the kicking repertoire was not complete by the time Funakoshi Yoshitaka died. Assuming Funakoshi Yoshitaka was the engineer, or the plagiariser, of Karate’s kicking techniques neglects the post-war work Nakayama Masatoshi, Obata Isao, and Nishiyama Hidetaka. Furthermore, it neglects the increased sophistication of kicking techniques occurring in other schools of Karate in the same time-period. Even if we accept the idea of influence from the Shotokan to other Dojo via Shobu Kumite competitions, it does not give satisfying answers to questions such as why High Chambered Modern Kicks appear in Wado-Ryu’s Kihon Kumite when Hironri Ohtsuka broke with Funakoshi prior to the supposed innovation by Yoshitaka. Similarly, the differences in kicking techniques between the various schools suggests a common goal, competition success, but independent development. Personally, I do believe Japanese Karate was influenced by Japanese impressions of Boxing and Savate, and also that the Japanese inclination to specialise and compartmentalise skill sets saw Karate in Japan becoming a form of Kick-Boxing. I think the Savate and Karate sport connection is that of independent development because of similar factors and environments. I do not think there is sufficient evidence for the Savate hypothesis, and I also feel the idea Karate kicks evolved as they did because of the growing trend in karate training towards striking and Jiyu-Kumite more readily answers the problem questions.

Orthodox Okinawan karate, in terms of application and ideas of fighting, is fairly homogeneous. Use uke-waza (receiving techniques) to deflect, stop momentum, gain superior position, or limb-control (or all of prior mentioned). Use percussive techniques, take-downs, and throws to knock-down and end the threat. Sometimes in the order given, sometimes not. There are some heterodox Okinawan traditions that could be described as leaning into Ju, or Yin, in principle. The Haku Tsuru tradition as contained in Kingai-Ryu comes directly from the Bái Hè Quán as taught by Go Kenki. It also contains an older Tora Tsuru kata, or Tiger Crane, which is a Hard-Soft form. Motobu Udundi, the family art of the Motobu family, as inherited by Motobu Choyu and now Motobu Chosei, has famously been compared to Aikijutsu: though in the context of of Tuide (grappling arts) and its practice of kumigata called sōtai-dōsa. Overall, it is better to review the kata in terms of Go and Ju, Hard and Soft, and you will find examples of both in every system of Okinawan Karate. A lot of the blocks, catches, twists, and turns in the kata demonstrate "soft" techniques which can be lost in the explosive performance of kata. The truth is you use explosive power even in soft arts: Aiki is to bring balance. Ai, or ju, is to create space for the technique to be performed, and ki is to express your energy and complete the technique. To move out of the way of the initial attack, to gain superior angle, to punch them in the head to disrupt their posture is a soft action in principle, because it is not using strength to meet strength. The idea of using an opponents strength against them is a simplification of a lot of ideas involving distancing, timing, intervals of movement, and posture. It comes down to creating space for your attacker to move into, and then pushing them into the space created from a place of positional advantage. Karate is a pragmatic, self-defence art, at its heart. As shown through much research on combatives and combat sports: the use of explosive power, and the need to go strength to strength, especially under pressure and in the chaos of real violence makes leaning on soft techniques an unwise training paradigm for self-defence. They exist in karate, but balanced with the hard techniques in a relative harmony, if you know how and where to look. Speaking of Nihon Karate Do: it is a different beast. It was transformed into a form of Japanese Pugilism comparable to Boxing or Savate during the 1930s, and the post-war environment which saw the rise of shobu kumite completed the transformation. The atemi-waza became the bread and butter at the expense of the rest of the techniques present in karate. Kata were modified to fit the idea of performance, and to fit the rules of competition (see Shotokan's version of Chinte for the worst offender), and the Shitei kata and the guidelines there in as produced by the WKF created a homogeneous idea about kata being a balance of grace and dynamic movement. With the above said: Wado-Ryu has a significant canon of kumigata innovated by Ohtsuka Meijin or inherited from Shindo Yoshin-Ryu which contain a broad repertoire of jujutsu "soft" techniques. Shi'to-Ryu and Shindo Jinen-Ryu both contain the Seiryu/Aoyagi kata which was designed expressly for women's self-defence, and contains many techniques designed to be used against bigger, stronger, attackers from a disadvantageous position: it contains techniques inspired by Aikido, Shindo Fudo-Ryu, and Nanban Satto-Ryu, and is grounded in the use of "softness". Yashuhiro Konishi included Yakusoku Kumite based on Aikido techniques in his Shindo Jinen-Ryu. Similarly, Mabuni Kenwa created a number of Kumigata based on his knowledge of Shindo Fudo-Ryu, and experiences training with Ueno Takashi and Fujita Seiko, for his Shi'to-Ryu though these excercises are no longer widely taught. Ineou Motokatsu, better known to some as Gonsho, was also influenced by Aikido and Fujita Seiko, and included many "Soft" techniques in the kumite of Yuishinkai Karate. Even the hardest of hard styles, Kyokushinkai, has exercises inherited from Daito-Ryu Aikijujutsu based on the idea of using softness against hardness (Though they are rarely taught anymore). Point being, as with Okinawan Karate, it is again a case of knowing where to look. You can find the Yin to the Yang as it were. I will say, even the softest of Chinese systems, Tai Chi Chuan, is a powerful, explosive style when applied properly. It is fundamentally a wrestling style designed to knock people to the floor. Hard and Soft are quite an inaccurate way to talk about martial arts, and I think much is lost in translation from the original premise as formed in China. It is a rather retroactive manner of looking at traditional martial arts. It largely comes down to the basic idea of cultivation and characteristic techniques. Hard generally refers to the use of dynamic, powerful movements improved, and cultivated through physical conditioning via weights and impact tools. Soft to the use of techniques designed to connect and control cultivated through the exercise of movement, and sensitivity training. However, all traditional martial arts have a mixture of both, and organising into hard or soft is for the sake of convenience, not a thorough understanding. Mr Miyagi, though practicing Hollywood Karate, is a fairly straight forward example of the ideas of Orthodox Okinawan karate. Use movement and deflection to gain position, bridge the limbs, strike to the places you yourself are most afraid to have struck, and put them on the floor as quickly as possible to finish the fight: to either give them a booting, or run away.

I have to echo the sentiment of Naihanchi. All I would add is that it is important to experiment with it to get the full experience. Look at different versions from what you know, and experiment with trying out the differences and see how they effect the techniques. I like to experiment with Motobu Choki's advice, but also the Shotokan and Wado-Ryu versions of the Kata, which have a different stance and hand movements to the Shorin-Ryu version. I also experiment going back and forth or to the corners with the kata, and with the Bunkai. The key thing, however, is the postural aspect of the Kata and getting that right and carrying those ideas into other kata. The more I study Naihanchi, the more I realise is there, and how little I know about karate and bujutsu. Aside from that, speaking of other kata traditions, there are a few sources I would recommend looking at: For combat sports one has to recommend Ashihara, Enshin, and Byakuren Karate, Nippon Kempo, and Shorinji Kempo. The kata in these traditions are done from a fighting stance, and are collections of techniques intended for use in Kumite against an active opponent. Shorinji Kempo is not so involved in the application aspect but still worthy of study for fighting techniques. Yoseikan Budo, Taido, and the new competition forms the Kukkikwon have created feature dynamic kicks, and techniques not represented in traditional kata, which are worth considering if you want to add such techniques to your repertoire or figure out a way to incorporate them in your shadow-boxing. The Yoseikan and Taido Kata also have examples of kata intended for practicing techniques suitable for combat sports as well, but I do not feel are as accomplished as those I mentioned in that context. The manner that kata are performed in Egami ha Shotokai-Ryu is also worth looking into if you come from a Shuri-Te background. It is a very different manner of performing kata and a very different mindset I have found benefit in experimenting with, especially when regarding the applications from the Irimi concept. Although I disagree with the global changes, and many of the conceits and assumptions, of Egami: his approach to the Taikyokugata made me recognise their potential value as a training device. For self-defence techniques, Short Form 3 from Ed Parker's Kempo Karate is a pretty good form to look at. As it is based on self-defence techniques, and built up from those techniques, it can be an interesting study in bridging movements to application. Simplified Yang Style Tai Chi is something I have practiced, and found a lot of the lessons about posture and structure incredibly useful. Many of the moves also reflect grappling rather than striking techniques, and it has helped refresh and renew my analysis of Karate Kata. A very different take on performing movement to a lot of traditional karate.

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.