Wado Heretic

I would propose one of the Olympic Combat Sports for childhood and seeing what stuck: Boxing Free-Style Wrestling Judo Roman-Greco Wrestling Tae Kwon Do These are huge sports, and you will likely find a dojo, gym, or school program that provides at least one. Judo or Free-Style Wrestling would be optimum based on the history of most of Mixed Martial Arts most capable fighters. The advantage of any of them though is they pave a road to high-level international competition saturated with huge amounts of competitors and talent. If they compete, and do well, in any of those sports they have a good athletic grounding for the future. After peaking in any of those sports, it is time to begin building the weapons for the future. I would argue the number one priority is Brazillian Jujutsu or Submission Wrestling. A strong striker needs to learn how to move on the ground, and survive against a grapplers offence. A strong wrestler needs to learn the nuances of submission fighting and positioning when ground striking is involved. Dan Severn taught us a lot with his early, high profile losses. For many, it can take a couple of years to get comfortable with the idea of trying to finish a fight on the ground. Thus, getting started early is important. After that, I would advise a Wrestler or Judoka add boxing to their toolbox. Learn how to use the hands, because they are the primary tool in striking, and the footwork and head-movement to deal with striking. A boxer or Tae Kwon Do player would benefit more transitioning to Muay Thai or Lethwei. Adding the rest of the tools to their striking regime that they need: the elbows, knees, leg kicks, and fighting in the clinch. Then it is getting the mat/ring/cage experience. The obvious path is Amateur MMA competition, but, there are alternatives for getting more experience: Combudo Combat Jui Jitsu Combat SOMBO Daido Juku Kudo Shoot-Fighting To name a few. All are formats which can be competed in as tournaments, and thus provide an opportunity for the most fighting experience. They all have different rule-sets, which accommodate different strengths, and have elements of MMA. It would allow a person to begin the transition to free-fighting under Unified Rules, without diving in recklessly and losing time to injury. Plus, these can be competed in during training to be ready to transition to MMA proper. The key thing is doing something big to get noticed, and doing it with a degree of swiftness. The general rule of thumb is a person needs to be aspiring to a professional debut before 24 if they want a meaningful career. Following the rules though: Childhood: Judo and Free-Style Wrestling. Teen-Age Years: Boxing and SOMBO.

The Frog in the Pond does not yet know the Ocean. Both Karate and the world of Chinese Martial Arts are vast arenas in which people with profound and deep knowledge exist. There also exist a lot of people with shallow knowledge and ignorance. Finally, the vast array of styles in each, and the various purposes each style vies to achieve makes it very difficult to make broad statements. All I can say for myself is I prefer Karate, and despite enjoying researching Chinese Martial Arts, my passion is for the Okinawan arts. They tick all the boxes I want to tick. The Chinese Martial Arts have a profound depth of knowledge that I feel has been better communicated down the generations. Especially those systems that managed to transplant themselves to Hong Kong, Taiwan, and to an extent the West. Thus, avoiding the Cultural Revolution, which led to the extinction of many schools. The Chinese arts have largely been given to the world by the Chinese who have understood the thinking behind the transmission. In contrast, Karate though taken to Japan by Okinawans with a deep love of their culture and appreciation of their martial heritage, was largely given to the world by the Japanese or Westerners. In Japan, Karate became a form of Japanese Pugilism to fit into the rigid classification of Martial Arts enforced by the Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. Despite some trying to retain the broad, and deep, knowledge of Tode-Jutsu as a pragmatic system of hand-to-hand combat, they could not work against the current that made Karate-Do a fundamentally Japanese art in the 1930s. We must not forget the loss of life, and knowledge, that occurred due to the Battle of Okinawa and the Pacific War in general. A generation of Karate practitioner was decimated, and again, lineages and family systems were lost to the violence of war. Karate on Okinawa itself was profoundly changed during the late 40s and 50s, as Karate instructors took on and adapted to the need to teach karate to survive. Karate-Do was effectively exported back to Okinawa in the 1950s by the Nippon Karate Kyokai and other initiatives, and this had a lasting impression on “Orthodox” karate in Okinawa. A lot of foreign students took interest in Karate due to the American Military Presence, and naturally, instructors who needed the financial benefits took on foreign students. Few who spoke Nihongo, never mind, Uchināguchi. Ultimately, with their handful of months or a couple of years’ worth of training, with a language barrier in the way, meant they at best had rudimentary knowledge. A rudimentary knowledge with which to spread karate to the rest of the world. Finally, in the 1950s, many Japanese systems took the effort to send instructors around the world. These instructors primarily came from the Nippon Karate Kyokai, and the Wado-Kai, who spread Shotokan and Wado-Ryu. Japanese systems that were very much gestated in the Showa years, and from a Japanese perspective. The karate that got spread to the was Japanese Boxing or Rudimentary Okinawan Self-defence. That is not to say the pioneers lacked a depth of knowledge: anyone who has seen the likes of Kase, Kanazawa, Suzuki, Shiomitsu, Nishiyama, or Harada will recognise the depth of knowledge they had. However, what they taught was regimented, Japanese, karate built upon Kihon, Kata, and Kumite. Lacking the nuance of Bunkai or deeper analysis of the ideas behind Karate, and focused on success in the ruthless competition that emerged between the different systems in the 60s and 70s. That is until later in life and by then generations had passed through the systems they brought. One should also consider the remarkable students such as Joe Lewis who achieved much, but whose martial knowledge came from a lot of hard work after his studies in Okinawa. With all that said, it is thus difficult to compare Quen’Fa and Karate and argue if one is a simplified version of the other. History shows us that the Karate the world got is not the Karate that started life in Okinawa as Tode-Jutsu. There is a depth of knowledge that karate has that I would argue is equivalent to the profundity of Chinese Martial Arts. However, it is hidden behind a time and language barrier. Because of how the arts spread, there was a time you were more likely to find deep, traditional, knowledge as passed down from teacher to student walking into a Kung Fu school than you were a karate school. That is not to say that makes a Kung Fu system more complete, effective, or relevant to self-defence. Just the culture and history is different: Chinese Martial Arts were taught to the Chinese first, and often Chinese immigrants who spoke both their native tongue and the language of where they lived. They understood the nuances of how techniques were described. Similarly, if you wanted to open a school unless you rebelled against your elders, you were expected to gain permission from your teacher. In contrast to Gendai-Budo where being a member of Yudansha is usually taken as an implied nod that you can instruct others. Thus, the Chinese arts were passed onto others in a very rigid, and controlled manner. You could usually be assured you were being taught by someone acknowledge as able by their teacher. That is no longer true due to the explosion of people’s knowing of Quen’Fa in the 70s. Plenty of people has masqueraded as experts in Chinese Martial Arts as they have any other since then. However, Japanese Arts did get an unfortunate start in people with sub-par knowledge teaching and starting their own systems. Not necessarily their own fault in that they only had the opportunity for limited training, and they returned home to a desert of where they were the lone exponent of their discipline. It was either get creative and steal from others where you could or stop training and teaching. The shame falls on those who continue to do so out of egoism and opportunism for profit in the modern age where necessity no longer demands it. Ultimately, the short version is that international Karate was simplified for many reasons: some incidental, and some purposeful. In contrast, Chinese Arts were largely not, there are exceptions, and so the depth of knowledge as passed on was greater. Wushu, as propagated by China now, is rigidly controlled for quality by the Chinese Government, so there is strict quality control on the Arts as they come out of China. Especially in contrast to the lackadaisical regulation martial arts of all origins have in the rest of the world. Tode-Jutsu, the origin of Karate, owes a debt to Chinese Martial Arts but to say it is a lesser descendent ignores other influences. Nippon Bujutsu as introduced by the Satsuma Clan, specifically Jigen-Ryu Tenshi Hyoho, practised by important forerunners such as Matsumura Sokan had an influence on Tode-Jutsu long before the 1920s. We can make educated assertions that Siamese Boxing influenced Tode-Jutsu based on trade records from the 1600s, and techniques found in both Muay Boran and Tode-Jutsu are explained more easily by mutual influence than the phenomena of parallel development. We must also remember the native arts of the Ryukyu Kingdom that existed prior to the 1400s and the influence of China, from which Tode-Jutsu developed. Finally, our perspective of Quen’Fa and Karate is skewed by recent developments, and the fact Tode means Tang Hand quite literally. The individual known to history as Ryū Ryū Ko' taught numerous notables of Okinawan Martial Arts in the 1800s: Higaonna Kanryō (teacher of Goju-Ryu founder, Miyagi Chojun), Arakaki Seishō, Norisato Nakaima (founder of Ryūei-ryū), Sakiyama Kitoku, Kojo Taitei, Maezato Ranpo, and Matsuda Tokusaburo. His teachings essentially became a cornerstone of what we know as Naha-Te, and in turn had an influence on Shuri-Te and Tomari-Te, as practitioners came to together in the later half of the 19th century and the turn of the 20th to study together. Similarly, Sakugawa Kanga, who first identified his Art as Tode primarily gained his knowledge from Kwang Shang Fu, an ambassador and martial artist from modern day Fujian province. Sakugawa was the teacher of Matsumura Sōkon, who is considered the root of modern Shuri-Te. One cannot get away from Chinese Martial Arts as an influence on Okinawan Martial Arts. However, I would argue that Karate is its own creature, with its own profound knowledge, born from the creativity of the Okinawan people. It owes a debt to the Chinese Arts, but it is not a lesser or simpler version of one of its influences: it is its own thing. I will say this. As far as we know, it was the Chinese that innovated the practice of Taolu, not shadow boxing or pre-rehearsed movements for which we have evidence of both being practiced in ancient Egypt and Greece, but sophisticated routines at least. We also know that tradition credits most Kata as having their origin in Chinese Martial Arts. No Chinese influence would likely mean no Kata, or Kata as we know them, and thus no Karate as we know it. That is a huge debt and should be acknowledged. I have a working theory that most Okinawan Kata are based on applications from Chinese Martial Arts and other sources, rather than having a direct origin in a parent system. There are numerous kata we cannot find analogues for in China suggesting Okinawa is the origin point. Though we can argue that the Taolu they are based on went extinct elsewhere, however, we would expect that considering the many versions that came to exist on Okinawa that we would see many versions exist in China or at least in Historical Hokkien China. The oral traditions for certain kata support this notion, though I will not hold them up as indisputable proof. Reportedly, Sakugawa based Kusanku Kata on the teachings of Kwang Shang Fu: it is not credited as a form or Kata of Kwang Shang Fu. Suggesting Sakugawa systemised the techniques and tactics he learnt into an original kata. A similar version of the origin tale of Chinto kata exists, with Matsumura developing the kata from the combat methods he learnt off of the possibly semi-mythological Annan. More recent examples exist with Kyan Chotoku and Miyagi Chojun. Kyan likely developed Annanku Kata from martial arts he saw and researched during his time in Taiwan. Miyagi likely developed Kururunfa from his experiences of Praying Mantis during his journey to China in search of Ryū Ryū Ko. All of this is based on oral traditions, and several different versions do exist, however, the trend appears to be that Okinawans developed the kata from Chinese Martial Arts rather than adopting and passing on Taolu. Essentially, I think Okinawan Kata are shorter and more dynamic is because they are about combat techniques. The movements represent what were once very specific combat techniques, or self-defence tactics against specific attacks. To contextualise this, I need to talk a little about Chinese Martial Arts, and the use of language in the arts. I am not an expert by any stretch, however, I have some years’ experience in Simplified Yang-Style Tai Chi and Sun Style, if mostly for exercise. Plus, my first art was a heterodox system of Kenpo which did incorporate Hung Gar and White Crane. Most movements in Taolu have a phrase to describe them, and a lot of movements in Taolu are interesting for one factor: You will find movements that start differently but end of the same, or start the same but end differently. Looking at the descriptive phrase then often has a similarity but a subtle difference. Each movement is also described as a form in of itself. A great example from Tai Chi is Parting the Horse’s Mane and Pat the Horse’s Mane. The foot movement is similar in both, as is the scissoring movement of the hands, but one starts with the hands high and low, and the other with both hands high. Functionally the same movement but applied to a different target area. Throughout Tai Chi, horse is used to refer to motions of foot work where you go from a long, straddled stance, to a narrow step with one foot off the floor. In Animal Styles, if an animal is mentioned it appears to mean a specific motion relating to the tactics associated with that animal. For example, if it mentions a dragon it seems to indicate one should use the characteristic Dragon Stepping to enter into the application. This can be seen in observing the two man sets that survive in several systems. I suspect Chinese Taolu are longer and more complicated because it repeats movements that are similar but adjusted to stand for different applications. In Bunkai we often take one movement and give it several applications, however, I suspect this is reversed in Chinese Taolu. All the applications are represented even if the base movement is the same. This, I have seen when I have watched Chinese Artists show applications. If someone asks what if the attacker does A instead of B, the Sifu has responded then move as in “Name of this Form” instead of using this “Form” in contrast to Karate. In Karate, in response to that question, we often say you perform the movement this way instead of done exactly in the kata. We adjust the kata movement to fit the situation. We do not have a grab bag to just say “Do that form instead” which Chinese Taolu seem to have. Admittedly, much of this thinking does come from looking at the development of the Technique Forms of American Kenpo, and also how Japanese Paired Kata seem to work in principle. Ed Parker developed Short and Long Forms 3, and Long Forms 4, 5, and 6 from the self-defence techniques he had been teaching as part of Kenpo Karate. Each movement in these forms relates to a self-defence technique found in the system. Ed Parker also devised the concept of extensions for these self-defence techniques: extensions are basically ways you can take a technique further, or how you can transition into sequences found in other self-defence techniques. Essentially, he built the forms up from the techniques he wished to impart. If this was done in the modern age, and it fits the oral narrative we have about certain Okinawan kata, I think it is a compelling example of kata coming from techniques. In Japanese paired kata, your often end up in the best position in relation to your foe. If anyone is familiar with the Kihon Kumite of Wado-Ryu, you can discern how you always end up in a position to take greatest advantage. Although you might not feel the kata is a fight ender, you do end up in the position to do great damage. This pattern occurs in almost all Bujutsu traditions where there is paired kata. Aikido, Judo, Kendo from among Gendai Budo, and it is descended from the practice in Koryu. You go from a position of disadvantage or readiness, to a position of advantage. This does also happen in a lot of Chinese Paired Forms where the winner takes the initiative or succeeds in reclaiming it. My hypothesis, now, is that language barriers and time has changed how Okinawan Kata developed from Chinese Taolu. I believe Okinawan kata come from self-defence techniques, but the “optimum” pathway has been chosen to be represented. Whereas Taolu have all the redundancies and variations the creator could produce. Another possibility is that the Kata creators had an incomplete knowledge of the tactics they were codifying in the Kata, and thus the techniques held are simply fewer than found in Chinese Taolu. Personally, I feel we can counter that by pointing out that a lot of movements from Okinawan Kata can be found in Chinese Taolu, but not the exact same form. I feel the Okinawans often likely took what they felt was useful, and codified it in their own tradition, while leaving out what they felt was superfluous. In that sense, yes, I believe Karate Kata are more straightforward, and I personally prefer them. However, in this case, straightforward does not necessarily mean a better source of knowledge. Perhaps more efficient, in that allows more creativity thus fitting the chaos of violent confrontation, and means less time spent on the movement drills alone. As proposed by the gentleman mentioned in the video. How true that assessment is, however, is like an individual matter.

I have always helped students plan home training models if they have asked. I generally include home training ideas in my student handbooks. I do have stratified strength and cardio goals for each grade as well for people to work towards. Knowledge is what really matters, and I do not expect an 18-year-old and 50-year-old to have comparable fitness goals, however, conditioning is a part of effective martial arts. I have used video training for a number of years with select students. Primarily those who have trained with me yet have to move away but want to continue training. Thus, they have a strong foundation in physical in-person training prior to transitioning to video-based training. I also run a couple of residential courses a year during bank-holidays which I invite them to at a discount, and let them stay with me if they need. I also have an expectation that they make a point of coming to train when they are in the area. Ultimately, the video training is to help them work on things I have started them on in person: refining kata, or working on certain movement drills. I do not see much point in using video sessions for rote moments or exercise. I expect people to do a lot of that in their own time. On the dojo floor, I believe in having people doing partner work or learning something new. Refinement by repetition, and improvement through conditioning, can be done in your own time. I have been experimenting with releasing short videos on drills to do at home for my students. I have carried on running my private video lessons, and have expanded them to include my usual in-person students, but I have not tried classes. I have tried a few group sessions with students who live together or students who are happy to share time, but one-to-one seems optimum to me. Some guidance from instructors is useful in this time, and for those people that benefit from being directed on how to train, it can be an invaluable resource. It is also important from a business perspective to keep interacting with your students for retention purposes.

Apologies, but I read the story around the time you did, and my gut instinct was that it was a hoax very early on. As a McDojo story, it was "Too Perfect" and had too many compelling twists: such as the challenge fight that did not go terribly for Master X. I can tell you the story existed, based on my recollection, and I can tell you with a high level of certainty that it was deleted for being a hoax. However, I have provided all the details I can recall.

I would argue age is a moot point in most regards. We should remember that Kanō Jigorō founded Judo at the age of 22. Similarly, many of the pioneers of Karate that founded their own systems were in their thirties. Today, one can be a Godan, fifth-degree, by the age of Thirty-Five. For most systems that is the end of their technical syllabus. We just think of founders as aged men because of memetics, and the fact that after the explosion of styles through the 30s to the 50s, the big camps were established. Then factionalism began, and so starting up as a young, independent, became difficult in the face of the well-established styles. Becoming a founder became associated with the concept of McDojo. Thus, I would argue against stressing extant rank and age in making this decision. Rather, you need to have a hard look at the experience and knowledge you have, and whether those resources give you a way to create something novel. Bushido_Man and Nevinyrral have already asked some solid questions you should be considering. I would also agree with Wastelander than you should be wary of taking anything from fiction wholeheartedly. After all: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness." It will cast a shadow over all your future efforts unless you transform expectations, and take ownership of the word and idea. Taking ownership means doing so with ideas that have gravitas and speak to others. If you cannot do that then you should appeal to the power of originality: name it something of your own creation or after a principle you believe in. With regards to the question of competition, that all depends on your end goal. The short answer is that competition is a great form of advertisement if, and it is a big If, you have a good showing. A poor showing, especially one which shows up your ignorance or flaws, will kill your idea before it starts. Now, discerning customers are not going to take your art seriously as a form of self-defence if it does not perform in full-contact. However, you do not necessarily need competition to provide proof your contact training is meaningful, nor do you need competition success for that either. Become educated, look at what others in the world of Full-contact and Self-defence are doing, and copy it. How well your teaching serves your student is going to be the proof of its validity. With that said, few people coming into martial arts are discerning. They do not really know what they want when they join up beside vague ideas about what Martial Arts can do for them. Physical fitness, confidence, and self-defence being the general trio. If they like you and your instruction, and you give them a broad range of opportunities: they will find their own way to want they want. Your responsibility is to decide what you want your teachings to provide: competition success or self-defence being the broad questions. Personally, I would advise competing just to test your own validity. Can you make function the teachings you intend to pass on? Really, what is the testing ground you are using to determine your systematic approach to training? If your option is competition, then use competition. Finally: 1. That is a principle found in most striking arts. Single-Knuckle Strikes, Ridge-Hand strikes, and the use of the Elbow and ball of the foot all fall into that. Focusing on that idea is a dead-end unless you contextualise the idea with realistic tactics which allow that strategy to suceed. 2. Even in Wudang and Shaolin, not all students study the entire catalogue of the cultivation arts. They focus on what is relevant to their fighting arts. It sounds as though you have what you intend to focus on realised, however, the traditional conditioning arts are time-consuming, exhaustive, and often boring. From your basic premise, I have to argue you are not offering anything that striking arts with an empahsis on traditional conditioning do not offer. Uechi-Ryu, Goju-Ryu, Shorin-Ryu, Muay Boran, or Wai Jia Quen'Fa. Systems which can be found around the world. That is going to be your main barrier. What are you going to do that is not already in existence and possesses an pedigree?

Yes, but I will admit I do not practice it in a classical manner. I avoid the Valsalva breathing method often used. I much prefer the method of breathing I learnt in Tai Chi: I move as my breathing dictates instead of controlling my breathing. I also tend to focus on its isometric qualities with regard to muscle training. Thus, I tend to move in cycles of tension and relaxation, rather than maintaining tension throughout. Personally, it takes the boredom out of isometrics for me. I do not particularly enjoy isometric training, but it is useful for training to avoid injury. Furthermore, training to breathe while holding your self in a combative state is always important to return to. I generally use it at the end of my strength training to cool down. Finally, I practice a number of Naha Te Kata, and the root of them is Sanchin. There are principles of motion in the Sanchin Kata, and rudimentary techniques, that Sanchin has and I need to practice.

If, and it is a big if, memory serves correctly it was a hoax presented as an investigation on the old, euphemism combined with Shido forums. Someone wrote a series of posts about visits to the Dojo/Dojang/Kwoon/Gym of this Master X. After so many posts the hoax was revealed, and I believe deleted. I do believe it received a heavy dose of scepticism when a post about a supposed episode of Dojo Yaburi appeared. An outside fighter, supposedly trained in MMA, challenged Master X and it was apparently quite the even fight. Involving Master X having devastating strikes even from the bottom position. That post started it towards the "investigations" end. As far as I know, it was deleted due to the intentional deception, and it undermining the intent of investigations.

If you have been a consistent student and have developed a friendly dynamic with the teacher: I would advise informing him you will no longer be attending. Frankly, I do believe honesty is the best policy, but at the same time if you are committed to moving on offering last-minute insight and critique is futile. It will simply come across as hurtful and flippant. If you were a senior student, and your intent was to help the club out by correcting the instructor in their conduct, and you were committed to staying and seeing the matter through: you have an obligation to express this to help the club and the instructor. I have in the past gently nudged instructors on attitudes which have come across as misogynistic or their use of language. Most have been ignorant of this, being products of their generation, and have generally been receptive to the input. Mostly because I have made sure to present it as not a criticism or judgement, but a desire to help. Now, speaking more broadly, if you had been an inconsistent student and had attended for only 3-4 months I would advise just to stop attending. If they get in touch to ask why: just state you have other commitments. There is no point getting into a back-and-forth with someone you have removed from your life already. Now, if someone does something profoundly offensive, or reckless, and that is why you are leaving: report them to their association, and/or the appropriate authority. You have a duty of care to other people that could come to harm under the auspices of a bad instructor.

I thought this would be rather challenging due to the number of the kata I know, but I found it surprisingly easy once I put my mind to it. Naihanchi Shodan - The root Kata of most systems of Shuri Te descended systems of Karate, and it contains the principles of body alignment and dynamic motion essential to perform techniques effectively. Plus, it is my favourite Kata. Uechi no Sanchin - Though I personally prefer Higoanna no Sanchin, the Uechi no Sanchin more readily demonstrates, and contains, the Hard-Soft dynamic at the heart of Naha Te and Fujian Chuan'fa. Again, choosing it as the root kata of most Naha Te descended systems. Miyahira no Seisan - Simply my favourite version of Seisan that I have learnt, in contrast to Itosu no Seisan and Aragaki no Seisan. However, I have chosen Seisan as it is a kata found in all three of the predecessors of Karate. Motobu Choki cites it as one of the oldest Kata practised on Okinawa. Furthermore, Seisan seems to have been the definitive kata of Chotoku Kyan's approach to Karate, and thus representative of Tomari Te. Kusanku Dai - Likely the first Karate Kata with a history we can trace. Created by Sakugawa "Tode" Kanga: the de jure founder of Karate. It is also the primary source for the Pinangata, so far as sources reveal. If I could not have the Pinangata as a whole I would want the Kata which contains as much of the same knowledge as possible. Admittedly, I am biased towards them as a Shorin-Ryu practitioner. Kyan no Chinto - Again, just because it is one of my favourite Kata, and it is characteristic of Shuri-Te and Tomari-Te. It contains techniques that seem to inform the Pinangata, and it is also a very challenging Kata to perform. The movements and motions also have plenty of possible interpretations. Performing the kata in of itself can be a workout as well. Just a note on an earlier post. Gekisai Ichi, also known as Fyukyugata Ni and sometimes called Gekisai Dai Ichi, was developed as a collaboration between Miyagi Chojun of Goju-Ryu and Nagamine Shoshin of the Matsubayashi branch of Shorin-Ryu. It was first taught in 1940 or 1941. Now, Gekisai Sho of the Kyokushinkaikan is evidently based upon Gekisai Ichi. However, aside from a number of techniques proceeding in the same sequence and the shared embusen, the Gekisai Sho of Kyokushin is very evidently the invention of Oyama Masutatsu. The key similarities are from the opening to the sequence beginning with a Mae-Geri and ending with a Gedan Barai off of the back-hand before turning to 6 O'Clock with a Shuto-Uke. After that sequence (which comes exactly from Gekisai Ichi) the Kata is very different. Until that point, it is pretty much Gekisai Ichi with a handful of additional movements, and that is where I imagine the confusion arises from barring the name.

I think there is but that one has to think in terms of Karate as a source of Knowledge originating on the island of Okinawa, and Karate as a collection of various systemised approaches to imparting said knowledge. In the world of physical violence, there are no golden rules, but only degrees of guidelines. Some of the guidelines need to be followed at all times, but there will be times to break them given context. In that regard, in interpreting movements and motions, the guideline is simple: did it work as intended? If using soto-uke as boxing like cover works against an attack that is A. Realistic, and B. Done with speed and force then it is not wrong. People talk about true and false because they want to believe they belong to some special. When you get into that dynamic one is talking religion, not martial arts. Now, historical martial arts should be preserved as best we can for their historical value. However, we best do that through video recording, and written instructions and records, and making sure we listen to our teachers on the essential points. Yet, we invite these arts to die if we refuse to rejuvenate and innovate within sensible degrees for each generation. We must give each generation a purpose to preserve the arts. Plus, the human body, unlike other weapons will never become obsolete: you should always keep your hand-to-hand skills relevant to their purpose. People who value the right way as an absolute way are the worst enemy of preserving the arts. Bringing me, full circle (I hope), to my point. There is a proper way to do key things as passed down by our teachers. There is a proper way to do certain kata, and there are certain key mechanics to techniques. Each system has its assumptions as part of its legacy that must be adhered to preserve that legacy. However, that still leaves you a vast space to experiment and express yourself. Test the assumptions against cold, hard reality. Ask the questions those assumptions do not have answers to, or if they do, find more questions. Look to Judo: look at how competition continues to expand its catalogue of techniques. Look at Koryu and the relationship with Battojutsu and Iaido. Treat the system as a house you have brought. You might not have built the house, but you will decorate it and fill it with furniture, and more importantly, care for it. Finally, look to history. Itosu's students created Shotokan, Shorin-Ryu, and Shito-Ryu, and that is just mentioning the best known. These systems, in turn, have produced numerous successor systems. I think the question really is: do I have to go into the wild to forge my own path? Sometimes you do. That, however, is the nature of people.

Hello, and welcome to the forums. I would not wish to speak as an authority, but I am a student of Shorin-Ryu and have trained with several teachers in the discipline, both on Okinawa and elsewhere. I would thus be willing to say I am 99% sure that is not a kata of Okinawan, nevermind, Shorin-Ryu origin. I have in the past done research of Masaru Shintani because, as mentioned I am a student of Shorin-Ryu and I find rare kata fascinating, but I also have a background in Wado-Ryu. I will summarise my thoughts. It is entirely possible that Akira Kitigawa taught a heterodox form of Shorin-Ryu. Also, one should never have the hubris to presume what we now know as karate is the karate as happened earlier. Considering Shintani received that training in the 40s in an internment camp, we can presume it likely was heterodox. It is possible this kata is one with a historical lineage but through the horrors of the second world war, no other family system or ryu inherited it. However, for my money, it looks like it takes its primary body of techniques from Naihanchi Shodan, with elements from Seisan, Wansu and Rohai Shodan integrated into it. Masaru Shintani was a very inventive man, and from 1982 and the death of Ohtsuka Meijin, he is known to have continued to innovate. Several kata of the Shintani Wado Kai are not found in Wado-Ryu as taught by Ohtsuka Meijin, nor are they found outside the Shintani Wado Kai. I personally believe Masaru Shintani invented many of the kata, based on his studies with Akira Kitigawa, and his exposure to other systems of karate. Just to be sure, as it has been a while, I have done a quick search to check if it may be of Chito-Ryu, Toon-Ryu, Ryuie-Ryu, or Isshin-Ryu origin. There seems to be no kata of that name in said systems. All systems closely related to Shorin-Ryu but taking a different path. Outside of the Shintani system I can find no mention of this kata. This is not to say it is a bad kata, or that it violates the principles of Wado-Ryu, and more broadly Shuri-Te, but that it is likely a modern invention. Attributing it to Akira Kitigawa just gives it a lineage, and Shintani, and his followers that have maintained that story, would not be alone in such a strategy for enforcing a sense of historicity. After all, there remains the Heian Period myth about the Pinangata in certain Shotokan and Shotokai circles.

Appearance matters in all combat sports. There is judging in most sports of perceived aggression and passivity, and the effectiveness of landed strikes or techniques that have connected. Most forms of point competition have rules about the appearance of techniques: to score they must be “seen” to have been performed correctly. In Knock-Down Karate and Full-Contact Tae Kwon Do, a technique must be seen to affect the recipient, or for enough force to have been registered to score. In most professional combat sports, the metrics of judging strikes landed is based on the appearance of the technique and reaction to it. It is a judging aspect that is integral to objective judging in Combat sports. I think the important thing to keep in mind is that combat sports are just that: sports. From the perspective of Familienähnlichkeit, they are indivisible from combative and self-defence systems. The techniques, the conditioning, and certain essential tactics are one in the same. If a punch knocks a person out in the cage, it will knock a person out anywhere to give an example of this. However, in watching a combat sport you are not watching a fight: you are watching two people play a game. Now, certain rule sets such as MMA and Vale Tudo, with their full contact nature and limited restrictions on what you can do, are incredibly close to an actual fight. However, there is still a referee, there are still boundaries of conduct, and there are still conditions of winning and losing. It is still a game, and so every game needs to be evaluated on its own merits. If you want a game which will tests people’s skills in a way that map to actual incidences of physical violence: then it must be full-contact, and it must lack restrictions on what techniques are allowed. However, a combat sport does not need to map exactly to actual, physical violence. All it need do is be based on skills derived from martial arts and place them in the context of competition. Point sparring does test timing, distancing, and precision, and to an extent the quality of one’s striking techniques. Kick-boxing tests one’s striking ability, toughness, and mental fortitude. Submission grappling tests one’s wrestling ability, submission awareness, and positional controls, as well as the ability to apply locks and holds. Free-Fighting presents a situation where all the potential aspects of fighting are present. MMA and Vale Tudo present one of the few sports where you can face the worst-case scenario of physical violence: someone on top of you trying to pummel you into unconsciousness. Ultimately, it comes down to your goals and what you want to do. Playing a game of point fighting has no purpose for you if it does not fit with your general goals. Yet, if you enjoy it and find it fun, why not just enjoy. Now if your aim is realistic self-defence, however, MMA might supply a venue to test your skills in a more relevant setting. My overall point being, there is no king of combat sports, and when we get into the perspective of judging one against another we might as well be judging people for playing football/soccer instead of Rugby. As a competitor, I have come full circle. I started in Shiai Kumite according to WKF rules as a pre-teen, Semi-Contact/Kick-Light until I 13-16, Knock-Down 16-18, and then as a young adult worked my way through Low-Kick, Oriental rules, and Muay Thai on the Pro-Am level in an effort to make a career of it. I have dabbled in Sport Jujutsu, Free-Style Judo, Cornish Jacket Wrestling, Scottish Back-Hold Wrestling, and Amasumo in the world of grappling. I have fought three times under Shootfighting rules, competed in Kudo, Combat SOMBO, and Combudo Tournaments, and have an exhibition MMA match to my name. I have also been a bouncer in another life and had to use my skills in self-defence on several occasions. What that taught me is that all combat sports have something to do with fighting, but no combat sport is about fighting: it is about playing the game. Whether you are good at that game is whether you train for that game.

This has been, as you can imagine, a rather contentious bout in UK Shiai Kumite circles. After all, a DQ ruling would have awarded Jordan Thomas, the English competitor in Blue, the Bronze Medal. Oddly, at the podium, however, Pokorny was instead given the bronze. This has been challenged by the EKF. My personal view and I would mention that it has been some years since I officially refereed or judged, is that this was indeed a case of insufficient defence. Looking at the technique in slow motion, the kick was pulled and controlled. Although fully extended, as per the rules, Pokorny did not drive the hip through, and there was no dangerous follow through. However, even a controlled kick will take you down if you meet the knee with your head while it is being thrown. I will say that I agree with the final decision of the judges to award Pokorny (Red) the win after further deliberation. Prior to the deciding kick, Pokorny was the more active fighter and had sought more opportunities to score. Thompson took a controlled kick in a bad place, but it is a combat sport, and competitors need to be held to standards of aptitude. He approached nakedly and left his head open to a kick. Pokorny's error was he set up a rote combination, and Thompson did not pull away to where Pokorny expected him to be. Thompson instead kept coming forward to try and score with a Gyakuzuki, and thus the crash occurred. With that said, I will defend the general attitude to defer to the notion of a lack of control on behalf of the one causing a knock-out or injury. As often, it is the truth. I will, however, also say that there does need to be greater clarification on expected degrees of defence under WKF rules and that referees and judges need to be considering that as well. After all, to score against an actively defending opponent, you must throw techniques with speed. To maximise speed, you must use effective body mechanics, which will also maximise power. That is why point fighters train to engage at the full reach of their limbs, as the natural limit of their reach will allow them to control their blows. This is also influenced by the rules requiring techniques to be "Seen" to be properly performed to score: hence a punch or kick must land fully extended. Yet, even at the elite level, this is not always achievable, especially during clashes or when competitors completely misjudge their opponent's movements. Hence, the matter of defence and responsibility for adequate defence needs to be considered more often than it is, especially in this age of easy access video equipment where clashes can be recorded and examined. End of the day, though, it is a combat sport and a game. If you breach the rules, then you lose. If one of the rules is against excessive contact, or willingly endangering the health and safety of your opponent, then you should lose in the instance you break this rule. In the event a winner does not need to be declared, you could declare bouts a draw or no contest, when accidents happen which prematurely end the bout. However, problems do arise when you must declare a winner due to it being a tournament format. The judges have a few considerations based on the question: who is responsible for the stoppage? The person who got knocked-out or the one that knocked them out? If you decide it is a matter of insufficient defence, then it is the one who got knocked-out that is the loser, because they were at fault for being unable to continue. If you decide it is a matter of excessive contact, then it is the fighter that was left standing that loses by disqualification. The TL:DR version, as the kids say, is I disagree with the decision made on the mat. I would have called this as a case inadequate defence on Thompson's half. I agree with the later overturn of the initial decision and the awarding of Pokorny with the win. I would have liked Thomspon to have won, but I have to give this one to Pokorny. Thompson met his knee with his face, Pokorny did not appear to be trying to knee Thompson in the head.

Kenkasho appears to have elements taken from Kuskanku, Unsu, and Wanshu. Kintano, on the other hand, appears to take primarily from Kushanku with elements from Fyukyugata/Gekisai or Kururunfa. Both display the issues of creativity I expect from newly developed kata. Non-combative movements such as the fall back onto the side, the roll across the stomach, and the kneeling punches in Kenkasho. Too many movements being done on the spot in a posture not suitable for the techniques being done, standing and moving to face opposing sides, and moving from one posture into a mirror of the same posture in Kintano. The names are also functionally nonsense, even to an absolute amateur in Japanese such as myself. Kenka, broadly speaking, can mean fighting or brawling, and Sho in the context of martial arts practice is usually used as Beginning. Thus, Kenka Sho could be transliterated as Fighting Beginning or the Beginning of the Fighting, but Kenkasho as a compound phrase is nonsensical. Kintano appears to me like someone heard the myth of Kintaro and changed the Ro to No. Which changes the meaning from Gold, Fat Son, to Gold, Fat My, presuming we use No as a possessive. Could also be Gold, Fat Of if we used the older meaning. All the evidence points to these Forms being created specifically for this particular branch of the Karate tree. Would I consider them worthy of study from what I watched? In all honesty, no: I would advise one goes study the original kata from which these forms borrow heavily. I would replace Kenkasho with Unsu, and if you have time to practice Kintano you have the time practice Kushanku. Mostly because more people practice said kata, and you will have more luck finding resources to help you improve, and get a deeper understanding of the kata. Also, I fear from what I have seen that both of those forms encourage unsound ways of moving in actual physical combat. Generally, when it comes to unusual versions of the Pinan I usually suspect reverse engineering from the Cat Kata of Nick Cerio's Kempo Karate, or the Pinion Forms of Shaolin Kempo Karate or Kajukenbo. I must say I have never seen that form, never mind seen something like that called Pinan Sandan. None of this is a remark against the system of Kernow Karate in general, just these particular kata. Regarding the system as a whole, it is very much the general Middle of the Road Karate I see in most of the United Kingdom. The people in the video seem to deeply enjoy their practice, and that is what matters at the end of the day. Edit: What sort of Form competition you enter will depend on the kata you can submit. The WKF and associated groups have moved away from the Shi-tei Kata, which were mandatory qualifying kata every competitor had to perform. They were controversial for being from Shotokan, Wado-Ryu, Goju-Ryu, and Shi-te-Ryu alone, meaning if you did not practice one of these styles you would have to learn a shi-tei kata from one of these systems to simply compete. They may be gone, however, the WKF does still have a list of recognised kata which must still be adhered to. You could enter such Forms in an Open-Style competition, just make sure to enter the right sort. Free-Style often includes a lot of "tricking" even if the forms are based on traditional ones. Extreme Martial Arts, or XMA, incorporates acrobatics and gymnastics and focuses very much on showmanship. I should also explain what I mean by the middle of the road. What I mean is three K karate that does Bunkai and Bukiwaza. It does not seem to be a form of Jissen Karate as propagated by Abernathy and that ilk. A form of Koshiki Karate as from Okinawa. A form of Kenka Karate as Kyokushin and its descendants are. Nor Shiai Karate which emphasises competition as is promoted by the WKF.

Apologies for the delayed reply to this. Now, I would question both assertions with some degree of vehemence, gentleman. First, I would challenge the notion that Funakoshi Gichin “watered down” karate or that he was not a primary contributor to what became Shōtōkai-ryū. If one looks at the 1925 book, Karate Jutsu, by Funakoshi one sees instances of him displaying the combative techniques of Karate in the early pages. His stances are also wider and larger than the more compact stances of Shōrin-ryū and Shi-tō-ryū even in 1926, although not to the extent of modern Shōtōkai-ryū. I suspect the influence of his other primary teacher, Ankō Asato, on the difference in stances. https://web.archive.org/web/20150924025457/http://www.hawaii.edu/asiaref/okinawa/digital_archives/pdfs/funakoshi-retan1926.pdf If we move ahead to the 1935 book Karate-Do Kyohan, the original, then Funakoshi Gichin has adopted even wider and deeper stances by then, if again not to the extremes Nakayama and Egami would take them. We also see Funakoshi show examples of the application of kata movements and the practice of Yakusoku Kumite with Obata and Ohtsuka. He also demonstrates Idori no Goshin (Seated Self-Defence), Nage-Waza (Throwing techniques: the infamous nine forgotten throws), Bukiwaza (Weapon techniques), and Bukidori (Defences against Weapons). Although, Ohtsuka and Konishi appear to have taken the lead on the Bukidori admittedly, however, Funakoshi is the main actor in the rest of the material. https://web.archive.org/web/20141129114056/http://www.hawaii.edu/asiaref/okinawa/digital_archives/pdfs/funakoshi-kyohon1935.pdf I would also like to quote the man himself: “In karate, hitting, thrusting, and kicking are not the only methods, throwing techniques and pressure against joints are included. All these techniques should be studied referring to basic kata” Regarding Jiyu-Kumite, Ohtsuka and Konishi were innovating the practice of free-sparring the 20s and it formed part of their philosophical disagreements with Funakoshi. This was before Yoshitaka was asked to take the lead of instruction at the Shōtōkan in 1936. We should also remember that Funakoshi was also a Tegumi player in his youth, and a Judoka and thus familiar with the effort needed to stop a resisting opponent. He also came from a generation where the practice of Kake Dameshi was still a regular occurrence, and it is not implausible that Funakoshi refereed or even partook in his youth. I suspect he recognised, as we do today, that the no-contact/light contact form of sparring, especially when it becomes a game of tag, is not an effective way of developing self-defence skills. At least in Ippon Kumite your opponent can attack with power and intent. We should also remember that Funakoshi Gichin was writing for an audience searching for Modern Budo, and in the society of post-feudal Japan, the notion of modern Budo was highly specialised and distinct. Judo was Jacket Wrestling, not a branch of Jujutsu and a pragmatic form of self-defence. Kendo was fencing, not the art of the battlefield sword. Thus, Karate became a form of Boxing in the hands of the Japanese second generation, who sought to make it distinct from the other martial traditions of Japan. Funakoshi evidently by his own words, and the material presented in Karate-Do Kyohan which presents Karate as a pragmatic system of self-defence did not intend to diminish his karate but he could not fight the times alone. We should also remember that Karate only avoided the post-war Budo Censure placed on University Budo associations because of two factors: 1. It was actively compared to Western Pugilism as a similar sport but one that included kicks. 2. Its Chinese origins were exemplified over its adoption of the Militaristic Era’s Budo culture. It did not suit, politically, for anyone including Funakoshi to continue to exalt Karate as an effective tool of physical education for soldiers. Thus, displaying it as the pragmatic form of self-defence karate originated as would not have been done following 1945, and it would take until Ōyama’s 1958 work “What is Karate?” for the martial art to once again be talked about in terms of effective self-defence. At least with regards to the printed word. Rather, karate as a form of physical education for all, a sport, and as a vehicle for a philosophy of violence as a final and last resort became the model going forward. Regarding the theory of Yoshitaka being the primary architect of Shōtōkan-ryū I would offer the opposition that it does not adequately explain the post-war development of the style by people such as Masatoshi Nakayama, Isao Obata, and Hidetaka Nishiyama. Said people had never studied with Yoshitaka but had been students of Gichin and had been peers of Ohtsuka and Konishi when they were Gichin’s primary assistants. Even if we acknowledge that Genshin Hironishi became the primary instructor at the Shōtōkan in 1943, had been a close student of Yoshitaka’s, and was the leading force in re-establishing the Dai-Nippon Karate-Do Shōtōkai in 1949/50 this is insufficient to argue that Yoshitaka was a significant influence on the Karate of the Japanese Karate Federation: the system of karate commonly called Shōtōkan. In 1949, the leading figures of the JKA were Obata Isao, Saigo Kichinosuke, Takagi Masatomo, and Nakayama Masatoshi. All men who had not been students of Yoshitaka. These men were also the ones most responsible for the University clubs and associations. In contrast, the close students of Yoshitaka: Egami Shigeru, Okuyuma Tadao, and Genshin Hironishi, were nowhere to be seen in the leadership of the JKA. Indeed, of all those who credited Yoshitaka as a teacher, Kase Taiji alone remained with the JKA. They instead continued the legacy of the Dai-Nippon Karate-Do Shōtōkai after the death of Funakoshi Gichin in 1956. Yet, even in the Shōtōkai significant parts of Yoshitaka\'s karate are no longer practised. For examples, the stance Yoshitaka formulated Fudodachi (unmoveable stance), and his \'Ten-no-kata\' are rarely seen nowadays in any branch of the Shōtō Ha Karate Tree. The Ten-no-kata is only one kata of a series consisting of Ten-no-kata, Ji-no-kata, and Jin-no-kata, standing for Heaven (Ten), Earth (Ji) and Man (Jin). As far as I am aware Ji-no-kata and Jin-no-kata no longer exist. Instead, the karate of the Shōtōkai is very much a reflection of Egami’s personal reflection on the Karate of Funakoshi Gichin, an exploration of the physical feats he attributed to Yoshitaka, with influences and ideas from Okuyama Tadao, and his own thorough experimentation with technique and body dynamics. The the creation of JKA Shōtōkan, and the so-called University Shōtōkan, was in the hands of men who never trained with Funakoshi Yoshitaka, or if they did, they did so very briefly. Even the Shōtōkai whom credit Funakoshi Yoshitaka as a great teacher has not perpetuated much in the way of his innovations. I suspect Yoshitaka’s legacy is the dynamic kicking he introduced through the war years, that were then adopted by returning senior students, however, I would not credit him as the real architect of Shōtōkan or Shōtōkai. I believe one must argue Nakayama and Egami deserve the credit, respectively. With regards to Funakoshi’s competency or lack of training, I believe that is entirely superfluous. Funakoshi Gichin, by most accounts, started his training in karate no later than the age of eleven. He was born in 1868 and thus began training no later than 1878/79. His primary teacher Asato Ankō did not die until 1906, and his other teacher Itosu Ankō died in 1915. Giving Funakoshi at least 27 years of training under Asato, and 36 with Itosu. I believe rumours of this nature come from remarks from Konishi and Ohtsuka about their training with Mabuni Kenwa and having their Pinan Kata corrected. As far as we know, the final version of the Pinan was not created by Itosu until 1905. At this point, Funakoshi was already 37, had started a family, and was active as both a school teacher and karate instructor. He had completed his regular karate instruction with Itosu some years earlier. There is an interesting tale from Motobu Choki that is relevant: “I was interested in the martial arts since I was a child and studied under many teachers. I studied with Itosu Sensei for 7-8 years. At first, he lived in Urasoe, then moved to Nakashima Oshima in Naha, then on to Shikina, and finally to the villa of Baron Ie. He spent his final years living near the middle school. I visited him one day at his home near the school, where we sat talking about the martial arts and current affairs. While I was there, 2-3 students also dropped by and sat talking with us. Itosu Sensei turned to the students and said, ‘show us a kata.’ The kata that they performed was very similar to the Channan kata that I knew, but there were some differences also. Upon asking the student what the kata was, he replied ‘It is Pinan no Kata.’ The students left shortly after that, upon which I turned to Itosu Sensei and said ‘I learned a kata called Channan, but the kata that those students just performed now was different. What is going on?’ Itosu Sensei replied ‘Yes, the kata is slightly different, but the kata that you just saw is the kata that I have decided upon. The students all told me that the name Pinan is better, so I went along with the opinions of the young people.’ These kata, which were developed by Itosu Sensei, underwent change even during his own lifetime.” It is likely that Funakoshi learnt this same Channan kata as Motobu did, and that is why Funakoshi’s version of the Pinan have some idiosyncratic details such as age-uke not found in the Shōrin-ryū and Shi-tō-ryū versions. I suspect the Shōrin-ryū and Shi-tō-ryū versions are the final versions intended by Itosu as Mabuni and Chibana regularly trained with him right up until his death. Funakoshi Gichin did have a friendship with Mabuni Kenwa and it has been theorised he learnt the Pinan series in a brief period off of Mabuni before his move to Japan in 1922. It is plausible as Funakoshi and Mabuni were both members of the Karate Kenkyokai from 1918 onwards. My guess is that the “errors” in the Heian kata come from the older Channan version of the kata or are a result of Funakoshi’s own approach to karate, rather than actual errors implied by the wording “corrected by Mabuni” as used by Ohtsuka. However, the idea that Funakoshi had insufficient training with either of his teachers is at best absurd, even if we accept that he might have not had perfect knowledge of the Pinan no Kata. I would also argue that the choice of Ohtsuka and Konishi to train with Mabuni and Motobu does not truly speak ill of Funakoshi’s abilities but rather the brilliance of Mabuni and Motobu. Mabuni was considered a peerless technician by his peers, including Fanakoshi, and Motobu was considered an expert on fighting who had proven his reputation true by defeating a foreign boxer in a fight. What bujutsu enthusiast would have refused the opportunity to train with the two if they could. Now, I do have a question about where this claim of Ōyama Masutatsu being award a Yondan from Funakoshi comes from. I can find evidence of a Yondan in Judo under Sone Koji, and a Rokudan from Yamaguchi Gogen in Karate (Though I have seen as high as Hachidan claimed too), and a teaching licence in Daito-Ryu but I can find no evidence of a grade awarded by Funakoshi.

To be a pedant, if we acknowledge Wittgenstein and the concept of family relations, karate combat is a form of kick-boxing. It fills all the criteria of being part of the family of combat sports covered by the umbrella term kick-boxing. 1. You can strike with more than your hands, 2. You cannot engage in submission fighting, and 3. You achieve victory through knock-out, technical knock-out, submission, or a judge’s decisions based on points awarded on effective strikes. With the above said, Karate Combat has unique nuances which are worth acknowledging. Its rules allow throws and sweeps, which outside of Lethwei, Muay Thai, San Shou, and Shoot-Boxing are illegal in most kickboxing rule sets. They also allow single-leg takedowns which you will not find in kick-boxing outside Shoot-Boxing and Karate Combat. You are also allowed five seconds to strike a downed opponent from the top position, which you find in nothing else except MMA. Meaning that a strong wrestling game has the potential to be a winning edge in Karate Combat, unlike most forms of Kick-Boxing. The wearing of the much lighter MMA style glove which is close to bear-knuckle in terms of how you use your hands. Most forms of kick-boxing use boxing gloves: which allow you to catch punches in the air, takes the edge off using your hands to deal with kicks and allows you to use covering up as a practical defence. In contrast, with a lighter glove, the hand speed and size of the glove makes catching punches difficult if not impossible: you must rely on movement, distancing, parrying, and aggression to undermine your opponent’s hand attacks. You also cannot hope to take a kick with the lighter glove as, although I do not recommend it, you can use a boxing glove to cushion a kick to a limited extent compared to the MMA glove, meaning you can try to tank some kicks with a solid guard. Lastly, because of the size of boxing gloves, if you cover up your opponent will struggle to slip punches past your cover due to the size of the gloves: getting punched while covering up still hurts, but unlike the Lighter gloves which slip through, you are not getting hit in the face and ribs which is where the damage is done. As such, the punching range is much closer to MMA and Bear-Knuckle boxing than conventional boxing or kick-boxing. You also can kick the leg, but unlike most rule sets which dictate between the knee and the hip (essentially the thighs and quadriceps) in Karate Combat, it must be between the ankle and the knee, thus the shin and calves. I believe this is to encourage sweep attempts, but it does open the possibility of downward cutting kicks and oblique kicks we do not otherwise see. It also encourages the use of the leg-kick to engage in attacks, rather than as a distance controlling method (The Leg-Kick is akin to the Jab of boxing or the tackle of wrestling), or an attack to control your opponent’s movement. Similarly, with all other kicks having to be above the belt the use of head movement as a tactic of evasion becomes more workable than in most forms of kickboxing. Excessive head-movement in most rules of Low-Kick will just get you knocked down by low-kicks. In many ways, all the above means a miai like American Kick-Boxing, but with certain nuances which create a different fight game altogether. Going for the high-kick knock-out or moving aggressively forward with punches could lead to one getting caught in a take-down like in Free-Fighting. The low kick to below the knee also changes the distance of attacking: if you whiff a kick that low you are at once in your opponent’s punching range, compared to kicking the thigh where you still maintain a distance from your opponent’s extended punch. The bottom line is that Karate Combat is what you get when you take the rule of WKF Point-Fighting, make it a continuous format, and make it full-contact. In that regard, I feel it does more than aptly. However, I do wish to see the emergence of competitors who train for Karate Combat from scratch and aim to be good under these rules. Develop a good boxing and wrestling game and getting good at the Fight Science will then allow competitors to bring the character of karate to Karate Combat as Machida did to the UFC. Right now, it reminds me of Savate, but with take-downs to remind me it is not Savate. With all the above said, I would also like to point out other competitive venues which I think fit the desires brought up here. Ganryujima is a form of Budo Shin-Kakutogi where competitors wear keikogi. It also fought on platform and throws and ring-outs are awarded points and can be a means of victory. It is a venue for seeing Sumo and Judo techniques you will not see elsewhere. Like Karate Combat, the emphasis is on striking and aggression, and the ground fighting is limited to 15 Seconds, and only striking on the ground is allowed. As such, there is no submission fighting. Similarly, there are several accomplished karateka on the roster demonstrating their skills. There was, and possibly is, the Combudo format run by the famous Lee Hasdell. He is still involved in running Fighting events, but I have not heard much since 2017 about Combudo itself. The few professional events I am aware of also took place back all the way in 2009. Combudo is a form of free-fighting done in Keikogi and it does allow techniques done using the jacket. It also allows simulated ground-and-pound, which brings it closer to Unified Rules than most other Free-Fighting formats. You then have the long-running Kakutogi rule-set promoted by Daido Juku, which is now better known as the sport of Kudo. Although it disallows striking on the ground and makes use of protective helmets, it is an excellent free-fighting format grounded in Kyokushin-Ryu and Kodokan Judo. Then you have Nippon Kempo, and Combat SOMBO, and karate rule-sets such as Irikumi Go that fit the bill of allowing a range of techniques, without being a variation of Unified Rules or neglecting the use of the Jacket in Traditional Japanese Bujutsu. Basically, it is out there if you look for it. However, much of it is enjoyed only by those involved in said sports or people who are combat fans in general and not restricted to something such as boxing or MMA alone. The reason it has remained at the amateur level or at most of the national interest is because of limited appeal. I do use a variation of Unyo-Ho for sparring which is what I like to call kata based. Unyo-Ho comes from Shorinji Kenpo and is a form of Bogu Kumite where one is a designated attacker and the other the defender, and you swap roles. However, we focus on movements and principles from a specific kata for that specific session. In this way, we get to practice taking the initiative and retaking the initiative and explore the limitations of the kata movements in these contexts. Part of this approach is starting in different positions: sometimes we start in the clinch, sometimes a jacket grip, sometimes in bridging hand, or even at conventional sparring range. Now, I find this form of sparring fun and informative to training for effective kata application. To anyone who does not understand what it was about it would be as boring as sin. This is also where I would like to discuss the lack of a number of Karate’s characteristic open hand techniques in competition and why they are often banned or not apparent: 1. The open-hand techniques in kata represent body-checks, limb-control or distance control (a shove) and so they are present in competition, but they appear in body-to-body combat or clashes and are thus difficult to see. 2. The open hand techniques which exist as strikes are designed to perform maximum damage. The sticking of the finger into the eye or an orifice, or into soft-tissue such as the neck. Exerting maximum force on a weak point such as the jaw below the ear. The open hand-techniques are within the realm of what would be called “Purposefully Injurious” within the context of friendly competition. Now, I do allow the use of these techniques to a limited extent during semi-free sparring and the type of sparring I mentioned above. However, we do use protective equipment and what I would say is that it makes moot in their effectiveness. Where there is protection in the way, using a fist often makes more sense. I believe I would enjoy a competition circuit designed to show-case Kata-based and application orientated karate. However, I think I would be in the fringe, and I would admit to being sceptical that it would be any more successful, or more useful, than Daido Juku in the pursuit of a practical karate competition format. I fear kata-based-sparring is firmly within the domain of the dojo floor. With that said though, I would sign up right now to even a small circle of dojo that just took turns hosting a joint kata-based-sparring session or competition every couple of months. Combined with the technology of streaming, it might not become a popular sport, but it might be a way to promote practical karate. With all that said, I prefer a world where Karate Combat is a thing rather than a world where it is not. I believe it could be a gateway to good things, and even if it is not reflective of the karate of those of us who favour application-based karate framed by a reality-based mindset, it is reflective of the karate of those doing it. The great thing about karate is that it is for everyone, and as long as you are doing it sincerely that is what matters.

Fairwind was perhaps a harsh way to put it. Rather, I do not think Oyama was a student on the radar of Funakoshi even during his training with Funakoshi. Similarly, in the time frame we are discussing, Funakoshi left teaching to his primary assistants such as Obata. I suspect Oyama was a face in the crowd.

Ōyama Masutatsu had little respect for the Teachings of Funakoshi Gichin. To quote the man directly: “It’s not karate. What he taught me were etiquette and exercise. Too slow”. Furthermore, Ōyama described Funakoshi as “soft and gentle, good for teaching karate to little children as he did in Okinawa. But he is not a real karateka. It was all kata with the old man”. With the above said, Ōyama did later state that Funakoshi was his true karate teacher, and that of all the things he learned from the founder of the Shotokan system, kata was the most important. Considering the emphasis Ōyama placed on Jissen Kumite, Tameshiwari, and Hojo Undo, and that his favourite Kata to perform was Tensho (a kata created by Miyagi Chojun) I cannot help but suspect this might have been an example of Ōyama’s dry wit. Regarding Ōyama’s experience with Funakoshi, I suspect it was far more limited than the two years he claimed. I would also point out one should be incredibly sceptical of Ōyama’s own claims about his experiences until 1952 where we have third-party evidence of the U.S Tour he did. After all, he claimed his first training was with Funakoshi Yoshitaka (Gigō) at Waseda University School in 1946. Funakoshi Yoshitaka died in November 1945, and we should remember that the practice of Budo (Including Karate) in schools and universities was functionally banned until 1949 when Judo lead the way in being reintroduced. My guess is that 1947 is the proper date of the start of Ōyama’s training under Funakoshi Gichin at the rebuilt Shōtōkan. With all the above said, I somewhat doubt that Funakoshi lived long enough to form an opinion of Ōyama. Funakoshi died in 1957, after a period of illness, but had retired to a largely private life earlier in 1956. Although Ōyama founded Ōyama dojo in 1953, it was just another Goju-Kai dojo that was part of the growing IGKF. It was not until 1956 that Ōyama began to gain his reputation for rough, but effective training, and the Kyokushinkaikan was not founded until 1957. I suspect, however, that Funakoshi would have had the same dim view about Ōyama as he did Motobu Choki (if without the personal grudge), and would have probably opined as he did about Ohtsuka Hironishi and Yasuhiro Konishi adding too many elements of Nihon Bujutsu to the art and encouraging the practice of Jiyu Kumite. In terms of an actual, direct, relationship I doubt Oyama was anything more than another fair-weather student to Funakoshi.

I must admit I felt its inclusion in 2020 was part and parcel of the politics of the Olympics. I did not expect it to survive past this initial inclusion: it is not the first sport to have been included in an upcoming Olympic Games, and then be dismissed before its debut from the following. It probably will not be the last either. I suspect the failure for the sport to do much to differentiate itself from Tae Kwon, on a superficial level, is why this decision has been made. Karate has appeal in Japan for a home crowd, but this would not prove true in Paris 2024. Breakdancing will probably suffer the same fate because of similar politics. I believe it is a bad thing for those who have a passion for the Sport, but as I have said elsewhere, I do not think it will have much of an effect on practitioners of Kakutogi Karate and Reality-Based Self-Defence. The spheres both worlds travel in are completely different.

Ōyama Masutatsu did modify the Mawashi Geri he was taught: making use of the instep, greater rotation of the hip, and the sinking the weight of the kicker into the target. As such, it does have a distinct character from the form as developed in the 30s-60s in University Association Shiai: the form of Mawashi Geri found in Shotokan and Nihon Karate-Do in general. Similarly, most schools have developed the Mawashi Geri along different lines over time. Some schools favour connection with the shin, and others the instep. Some practice to come across on a horizontal plane, others up into the body, and others with the aforementioned downward motion. Anyway, to return to your initial question: Yes, you can aim at the thigh or leg with a Classical mawashi Geri. However, it requires a downward motion to be effective and requires the Hip Flexibility and Strength I mentioned earlier. The opening of the hip is also a big tell to a trained opponent, and the commitment the kick requires makes it dangerous to use in a combat sport where one can clinch or go for a counter-punch to head. This is why it's not seen often, as it leaves the kicker more vulnerable than more conservative styles of low kick.

The Muay Thai Te Tat is a low kick, and it's the type you see most often used, even in Knock-Down. If you watch Knock-Down, outside a few examples, most use a low kick more similar to the body twist version we see in Muay Thai and Kick-Boxing The classical Mawashi Geri, with the opening of the hips, and the swing round, is not often seen as a low kick. There are exceptions, but they are the exceptions that demonstrate the rule. The problem, as mentioned prior, is the hip flexibility to make it effective is difficult to achieve even with training: and then you have to develop the hip strength. Ultimately, the classic Mawashi Geri also swings wide which for a low kick is a problem when you might wish to strike the inside of the leg. You are also more likely to inadvertently connect with the foot, rather than your shin, which is dangerous in a full-contact context. Edit: It also ultimately depends on the organisation, the dojo, and the individual. Many schools that engage in full-contact have been influenced by Muay Thai and Kick-Boxing, and thus the Muay Thai Round Kick (Te Tat) is popular. If you do see low Mawashi Geri, it is usually for the purpose of training or an idiosyncrasy of that particular instructor. With regards to traditional systems, unless it was a dojo focused on full-contact, I would be surprised to see the practice of leg kicks beside sweeps.

Couture-Toney is probably the most recent "Old-School" UFC fight because you never see Couture attempt such a naked low single against a solid wrestler. You will rarely see such a thing happen in modern Free-Fighting as if you fail, you end up on your face, with your opponent in top position. I would not try a kick, especially if we are talking about the grappler already making a forward move to connect. A decent wrestler knows how to prepare himself physically and psychologically for impact when going in for the clinch or the takedown: because hitting someone with your body hurts, and hitting the ground hurts if you miss. If you can absorb a tackle, you can absorb a kick with the timing thrown off. It is also a factor of physics: to make the kick work I have to come forward with my weight, and if I connect with impeccable timing, all my weight and force is transferred through the focus of my foot and will apply the greater force. However, that requires impeccable timing and aim, if I throw the kick while dealing with someone already coming forward and moving down it makes it unlikely to work. The kick will possibly whiff and go above them. They may connect with the leg part way through the motion, making the kick weak and ineffectual even if the kick catches them, and I have effectively gifted them my leg to grab hold of. Otherwise, I am connecting at speed with my opponent while I have one foot off the ground, and they have two on the ground, which means they will probably win the meeting of forces. I would not try to kick if my primary concern is them coming forward to try and clinch up, or secure a takedown. If I had the choice between a punch or a kick: I would focus on the jab and using that to at least bloody the nose, or throw the timing of the takedown off. At least, once they connect I would have both of my feet on the ground with a punch, giving me a better defensive base. Realistically, the last twenty-five years (not including the lessons of Combat SOMBO, Nippon Kenpo, and Daido Juku to name a few) have taught us that pressure, movement, and a wrestling defence are the effective defences against a grappler just closing the distance. Throwing a strike and hoping for the best never worked, and has never worked. If I was going to use my striking in a self-defence situation where someone closed the distance: sprawl and knee to the head, or a North-South Elbow onto the back. Something I could do without sacrificing my grappling defence.

It does require an element of hip flexibility that makes it rarer to see in comparison to the Muay Thai Te Tat, even in Knock-Down Karate, but yes: the Mawashi Geri can be and is used, as a Low-Kick. Hajime Kazumi is a solid example, and he used the skill to win Five All-Japan Championships. It is rarer to see in Kick-Boxing or Free-Fighting due to the Maai, which makes it more difficult to deliver without getting caught with a counter-punch or caught up in the clinch. In comparison to Knock-Down Karate, where arm's length is the ideal range to connect with a Mawashi Geri to the leg. Edit: To make the low Mawashi Geri as effective as possible, you do need to cut down with the kick, and that is where the hip flexibility becomes an issue.

For grading, it is mandatory for Blue Belt (7th/6th Kyu) and up. However, for Gokyu it is traditional Knock-Down Style Sparring, and for Sankyu to Shodan it is Kudo/Irikumi Go like sparring. Yet, with the above said; we have at least two Kumite session in Bogu a month. I also make use of it for self-defence, and application training, so that we can apply our moves with actual contact and force. I like the use of the Bogu, because it allows us to train with contact safely, compared to having to train with control; which can sometimes lead to the development of bad habits for full-contact fighting, or self-defence. Admittedly, this was an approach I adopted from Nippon Kenpo, after finding myself at a tournament. I was impressed by the much reduced injury rate from other contact formats, and it just struck me that it makes sense to use it.

Work hard on the role of the Uke in the Kihon Kumite, and the Ohyo (If your group does them), and just do those roles against the air like short kata. They will help you develop good basic set-ups for sparring. A good drill for developing your defence if you can find a partner: Key thing to remember is that you are in that tricky phase where talent still has a big part to play in sparring ability. All I can do, is as Mushybees stated, is to enjoy yourself and focus on getting experience.