Wado Heretic

Sadly, it is old hat. Pro Fight Karate, a French promotion, tried a similar format starting in 2009/10 which lasted until 2012. To be fair, in comparison, Pro Fight did allow some limited clinching and grappling, thus a little different from what is being presented by Karate Combat. Also, this league does seem to have some promising factors: 1. A streaming service, and video archive, which will help people access it. Also, Bas Rutten on commentary is not a bad thing for an inaugural event. 2. A unique arena suited to the combat. It gives the viewing experience a unique look, and helps differentiate from kick-boxing and MMA. It also seems to contribute to the quality of the combat, judging from what I have seen thus far. 3. Over 100 fighters already signed from around the world, and including luminaries such as Rafeal Aghayev. It has a significant appeal to people who already follow Sport Karate, but also has the potential to draw in Kick-Boxing enthusiasts. Now, what I will add is that is has some very stiff competition. There is already Glory (Kick-Boxing) which has deals with UFC Fightpass and ESPN, and for those who are not fans or Free-Fighting or Boxing it is comfortably filling a niche. In terms of striking sports that allow throws, it must also actively compete with Shoot-Boxing, Muay Thai, and Sanshou. Now, one advantage it does have is that it is very difficult to access Shoot-Boxing outside of Japan, professional Sanshou outside of the Chinese mainland, and regular Muay thai events outside of Thailand. Also, the violence of Muay Thai can be off putting for some fight fans, and this Karate Combat League could offer them a less bloody alternative. Similarly, the clinch fighting of Shoot-Boxing and Sanshou can lead to turtling and some very boring competition. After all, Glory has made it's mark through rules which keep the fighting active. The trend of what I like to call Budo Shin-Kakutogi continues to go strong as well. In Japan you have Ganryujima, which is still going strong this year. Again, difficult to get good access outside of Japan, but it is very easy to find fights on Youtube if one looks. In the U.K, there are the ongoing efforts of Lee Hasdell, and though Combudo seems to have run it's course, I suspect more events of a similar ilk will be on their way. Also, at an amateur level, it has to be asked if this is providing anything that Daido Juko Kudo and Kenka Karate do not already provide. With the above said though, I see promise in this venture, and the timing is impeccable. With the Olympics only two years away, and Karate making it's debut as an Olympic sport in Tokyo; having a professional league established, and ready to absorb Olympic competitors, could be a very good thing. The main danger lies in the effort losing traction before that potential pay off in 2020. The main threat to that traction is a lack of support because of the stiff competition that exists in the fighting world.

WTF Style or WT-TKD is a well known colloquialism for the Tae Kwon Do as propagated by the Kukkikwon, and by extension is the style seen in WT sanctioned competitions, and is taught in WT affiliated schools. Any discussion about there being a WTF Style or not is thus an argument of semantics, and essentially pedantry. The main point is that WT and the WKF are very dissimilar organisations because the WKF has no relationship to any style specific body which dictates the "style". I shall put it this way. If you go to a World Tae Kwon Do School, then you are going to be taught according to the syllabus established by the Kukkikwon. The Kukkikwon which is well known as the World Tae Kwon Do Academy for that very reason. Your sparring will be the same as seen in the Olympic Sport, and your forms will be practised according to what is also expected in WT forms competition. In contrast, if you go to a World Karate Federation affiliated school you could be training in Gōjū-ryū, Shōtōkan-ryū, Shito-ryū, or Wadō-ryū, or any number of related schools. The kumite will be practised according to the traditions of the school, and the goal of the instructor. Not all WKF affiliated schools practice sundome kumite according to WKF regulations. All schools practice different kata, and different core kata, and a number of which would have been illegal in WKF kata competition until very recently. Not all schools adjust, and practice their kata, with success in WKF kata competition in mind. As such, the WKF succeeding in getting Competitive Kumite into the Olympics will not dramatically change WKF affiliated schools; the level of autonomy is significantly greater. Will the inclusion in the Olympics lead to more grass roots participation?As mentioned prior, I suspect that yes, it inevitably will. Will it fundamentally change karate? It will hopefully improve the quality of competition. However, all karateka react to the trends that are prevalent to them. People fighting for points is outside the radar of those who practice for realistic self-defence, or participate in full contact. That remains true even for those schools affiliated with the WKF. What I will say of Kata, is that it is like all training. You fight how you train, so make sure your kata training is goal orientated. If you have no goal for your kata training except "I have been told I need to do it for X rank" then it is not goal orientated. If you want it to be mnemonic device for the practice of self-defence, then have a thorough grounding in alive training methods, and make sure the kata movements are adapted to self-defence situations. If you want to win Kata competition; follow the methods of the competition winners, and practice the Kata that do well in competition. If you find kata a useful training device, but your goals are in the world of competitive fighting, look to the Kata of Ashihara or Enshin Karate, or perhaps Nippon or Shorinji Kempō. However, this is straying off topic.

As a kata it is found only in Chitō-ryū, and it's descendent schools. So far as I know Chitose claimed to have been taught the kata by Hanashiro, a student of Itosu, but it appears in no other descendent school of Itosu. As such, I consider such a claim a hint suspect. However, Itosu did teach according to the traditional Okinawan ethos of instructing a student in accordance with the character and needs of the student. Also, it should be remembered that Chitose altered many of the kata he had studied and all Chitō-ryū kata are distinguishable from their heterodox analogues. The above comes from me presuming Shi-oh-hai to be a a mutation of Shihōhai. If they are not one in the same then I must join the club of the mystified.

Probably not, as a comparison of the World Tae kwon do to the World Karate Federation is a poor one. World Tae Kwon Do is as much a style, as it is an organisation, and thus when that direction was taken it could adjust its syllabus and concept of Tae Kwon Do to meet the thrust of the organisation; Olympic Level Competition. In contrast the World Karate Federation is not in any way a style, there is no such thing as a WKF school. There are many schools which are associated with the WKF but there is no WKF style per se. The WKF is a huge alliance of national associations, and style organisations, and has three very specific goals based upon it’s primary role as a regulating body: 1. The training of referees and officials. 2. The hosting and commissioning of tournaments. 3. Facilitating coaching and training opportunities. Now, beside these three, there are tertiary aspects they do also oversee. For example, one can earn grades through the WKF, however, such a service depends on the local federation. Also, it serves more often to recognise grades than to award them and serves as a quality control mechanism. Furthermore, as a competition regulating body it does significant work in ensuring that competition records are maintained, and the top athletes properly recognised. It also focuses on promotion of the sports associated with karate. A great strength of the WKF, and its affiliate federations, is the lack of a “style” or indeed a syllabus. Although the sport aspects are promoted, it is not the essence of the organisation. One is relatively free to do as one wishes while enjoying the benefits of WKF membership, so long as one does not tread outside some of the golden rules. In short, no I do not think it will influence WKF Karate because there is no such thing as WKF karate. Now, do I think the inclusion of the sport promoted by the WKF in the Tokyo Olympics will change matters at the grass roots? Frankly, probably not. Those schools and clubs that wish to succeed in competition are already geared towards it and take advantage of the opportunities for coaching the WKF facilitates. All that will change is that with Karate as an Olympic sport that hopefully more funding will come their way if they are University or School based. I suspect it will have an impact on the popularity of the Sport, and there may be a spike in the number of Karateka who participate or at least finally give it a go, but beyond that I do not see it making a great impact. At the elite level, many kumite players I have met have been quite candid about not practicing kata since reaching the international level, or only participating in it inconsistently. At that level, they train with a linear goal orientated manner. The kata movements deal with do or die situations, not the Combat Sport Mat situations after all. I also wonder what this Japanese Karate is? Cannot say I have heard of it. I know of many styles of karate that originate from Japan, but I do not know of this Japanese Karate. Joking aside, that is a huge generalisation, and though it is just your observation it is incredibly skewed. Shotokan places significant emphasis on Yakusoku Kumite, as much as it does on Kata. Shito-ryu, as to be expected of its origins, has a long-established application-based approach to kata. Wado-ryu is structured around paired kata and Jiyu kumite. Goju-Kai also places significant importance on Jiyu Kumite. In fact, the practice of Jiyu Kumite, and modern kumite, as we would recognise it is quintessentially Japanese. Also, Kyokushinkaikan and its descendent arts pioneered Jissen Kumite (Knock-Down Karate) and at one-point Kyokushin was the most popular style in the world at 12 Million practitioners. I have rarely been a karate class where there has not been kumite, and almost every style of karate has kumite as an essential part of its syllabus. With that said, if you do not do kata then you are not doing karate. The Kata are essential part of what karate is. The key is to practice kata correctly. Many practice kata with maladapted movements, without exploring the intent of the movements. Also, I would also state that kata practice is useless without a strong base in Hojo Undo (Conditioning) and Kumite. It is kumite and hojo undo that develop the qualities that kata hone into a weapon. Kata are about study of self-preservation, and if you have no idea what it is like to go up against a resisting aggressor, you will have no understanding of kata. Any martial arts training that focuses on only one thing will fail; after all, combat is but a series of opportunities. Only well-rounded training will give you the tools to make use of the opportunities presented. Are there schools with an unfortunate similarity to dance classes? Yes, but is that the general trend. I would have to argue no. Since the start of full-contact karate in the 70s, many schools have incorporated the approach on some level. Since the late 80s and early 90s, there has been an increase of adherents of the bunkai model. Do they all get it right. No, they do not, but I would say most modern karateka practice kata with knowledge of bunkai. Similarly, the explosion of MMA competition in the modern era has been a huge wake up call for many karateka. Now, some reactionists have opted to remain one dimensional and not evolve, but the greater majority have taken the message that violent conflicts are not easily settled with the picture-perfect o-zuki.

There are not many ways to avoid seiza in the practice of any traditional martial art, never mind Iaidō. The version of Iaidō propagated by the Zen Nippon Iaidō Renmei is strongly influenced by Musō Jikiden Eishin-ryū. The majority of the Waza, or techniques, of said school are initiated from Seiza or Tatehiza. Similarly, all of the Koryū from which the Tōhō kata are drawn, and from which the Seitei-Gata were developed, come from schools where techniques are performed from Seiza. The most popular form of Iaido outside of Zenkenren Iaido, so far as I know, is Musō Shinden-ryū, which is a descendent school of Musō Jikiden Eishin-ryū and thus is similarly built around Waza from Seiza and Tatehiza. Koryū which have an Iaijutsu or Battojutsu curriculum generally practice drawing techniques from Iai-Goshi (kneeling position) or Tachi-Ai (standing), but getting involved in the world of Koryū is another kettle of fish. Toyama-ryū is a modern school of Battojutsu which I know to be fairly popular. It performs its techniques exclusively from Tachi-Ai, however, I am not sure how popular it is outside of California in the U.S.A. Otherwise, there are the various Iai-Gata found within the Kenjutsu of the Takamatsu Den. However, to find those requires entering the shadowy world of Ninpō Bugei and the X-Kans, and I would not advise that in good conscious to any one. On balance, and as mentioned by Spodo Komodo, it might be best to seek out a teacher willing to instruct specifically in the standing versions of the Seitei-Gata.

I would also say it depends on why you intend to leave. It sounds as though you have been very committed to your training, with both regular classes and a weekly private session. Is it a time commitment issue? Why do you "have" to leave? Why can you not attend both? Now, if you were just a regular student, I would advise just to leave. However, as you have very regular private lessons you probably do need to notify your instructor that you are leaving. Frankly, you do not need to explain your reasons, as at the end of the day you are a customer simply choosing another provider for your martial arts training.

I am fairly insistent on white, just because I value the symbolism of white in Japanese culture, and the original concept of the Ippon in Judo. That the Ippon represents death, and you have to be willing to accept the possibility of your own death to deliver it. I use it to reinforce the wisdom of picking your battles wisely, and also the reality that even the most absurd fight can be your last due to unintended consequences. However, I also like to use the analogy of white being a blank canvas. That through training in karate one will find their own "colour" as it were. Their own unique expression of karate that they will craft through their own hard work. With the above said, I do recommend the wearing of Black keikogi to my students when we have outside training sessions, or a grading where we will be having a Jissen Kumite line-up. Black is easier to get dirt and blood out of after all. However, those days are exceptions to the general rule, and are purely for practical considerations. Edit: Hit submit instead of preview. In a karate setting, I have only seen black trousers occasionally. My own teachers were fairly insistent on white keikogi, but I believe it was more due to tradition and aesthetic notions than the philosophical ones I adhere to. Definitely had an influence on my favouring white keikogi thought.

It helps keep my Keikogi in order. Joking aside, to me it is a symbol of all the hard work put into earning it. However, it is also a reminder that the hard work never ends. Getting the black belt is nothing in comparison to "being" a black belt. In terms of the ranks, I believe the ranks are important from a structural and organisation based perspective. When in that mindset, each rank is a stepping stone to greater power and responsibility, and to a degree autonomy. After all, many organisations will not allow someone the privilege of promoting others without a certain degree. I have set myself the goal of Godan before I turn 40 after all, so I do have a respect for the value of ranks in organisations. From a more face-to-face perspective, I have met many Dan grades more senior to me who know less than me. I rarely take grades at face value any more, I respect the colour of the belt as they have obviously put the effort in to earn it, and a black belt is no small feat. However, I wait to see what they can offer before I defer to their knowledge base being superior to mine. That is, unless it is a very different art to my own, or they are making knowledge claims outside of my own realm of knowledge. For example, I am more inclined to take a 5th Dan in Brazilian Jujutsu at face value, than I am the same grade in Karate simply because I am far more confident in my knowledge of Karate than I am of BJJ.

The modern sport of Tegumi, as far as I know, does not. It is much closer to it's Japanese cousin Sumo. Pre-War Tegumi did continue on the ground, and involved pinning and submission techniques, not unlike Indian Pehlwani. Regarding Tegumi and Karate practice, this particular aspect varies from Dojo to Dojo. I did not receive much direct Tegumi instruction, with what I did learn being through kata application in the form of Kiso Kumite. Most of my grappling knowledge is derived from Amateur Wrestling, Judo, Gracie Combatives, and Shoot-Fighting. However, I have been able to use that knowledge, and resources such as the work of Patrick McCarthy to develop a comprehensive approach to Tegumi for my students. I consider it an integral knowledge base to have, otherwise it is incredibly difficult to discern realistic applications from the kata. I believe a lot of kata applications would be vastly improved if those doing them had an actual grasp of going strength to strength against a resisting opponent.

First; good to read that you are progressing, and getting a step closer to being able to spar at the most intense level. This is good progress, and I hope it will be a good learning experience. However, I must now state the harsh truth; a good coach can judge a lot from bag work. Your bag work reflects your stopping power, and stopping power arrives from both hand speed and strength, as well as quality of technique. If you are looking bad on the bag; that implies you lack stopping power, which means you lack hand speed and strength. In full contact, your ability to stop your opponent is your best defence. Also; your bag work reflects your ability to effectively defend, from the perspective of power. Also; never judge yourself by your fellow beginners, especially if you have the prior experience you do have. Your Tae Kwon Do training will have given you hand-speed, foot-speed, a sense of distance control, and ultimately the experience of sparring. You are conditioned to an extent, and have prior relevant experience; against a complete or relative beginner you should be having great success, even coming from a different combat sport. What I will say is this; you have not provided sufficient evidence for me to judge your coach’s statement. Now, it sounds as though this sparring will be contact sparring; hence the statement about being floored. If it is contact sparring, and you are doing so much worse on the bags then everyone else; I would be warning you if I was your coach. I would not purposefully set you up for a fall, but I would not pretend that I would have full confidence in you either. Especially if you are facing intermediate level boxers; my guess is that this might be where you find the edge you carried over from your three years of TKD experience will run thin, or even disappear. You will be facing people who have been at the boxing game for a while now. If you feel it is a set up; then yes, you should leave the gym. If you cannot trust your coach, you should not stay. However, by the sounds of it, your coach is just preparing you psychologically for what might happen.

I concur to an extent; I try to pass the kata on as I was taught them, and to make sure they are practiced as I taught them. With some allowance for necessary personal touches. However, I also believe flexibility, and adaptation to the era and the needs of the student are required as well. it is striking that balance which I believe is most difficult; especially in a commercial school. Ego, does of course play a part in it, as people believe they know better than those that came before them, or want to make their mark on history. As long as the essence of the art is preserved, and it's context understood, and changes not made without consulting the past; then change is a good thing, or at worst, a necessary evil to keep the art alive if ever changing.

I have never broken away personally; but my primary instructor, and the man I considered my coach, both broke away from the organisation I earned my Shodan in, and I stayed with them rather than the organisation. I have not trained with either of them in a couple of years, after I moved away to study, and they closed their clubs in my home-town (Where I am now again). I am looking to return to training regularly with them again; I have been reliant on seminars, instructional materials, and training against my own students to progress, and I have hit something of a plateau. I have refused to continue teaching two students because of what they elected to do with their lives, and what I had taught them. One found employment with a Private Military Company; an industry I am ethically opposed to, so I have refused to continue teaching him. The other had become involved in the anti-fascist martial arts movement. I myself have supported anti-fascist activities, but I disagreed with the particular sort of Anti-Fascism he became involved with, in particular ties to certain individuals. I will not offer more details than the above, to avoid identifying any one, but I do take what i consider the misuse of what I teach seriously. Now; when someone commits a misdemeanour, I do prefer to keep them under my wing so I can hopefully support them in not repeating their mistakes. I believe it an irresponsible action to cut someone out for one mistake, when you could be the positive influence that stops them going down the wrong road. Yet, the two students above studied with me for years, and seemed to wilfully ignore my stance on such things; so the only sensible course of action was to discontinue our affiliation.

Depends on the student; I have a core selection of Kihon-Waza, which I was taught in Shorin-Ryu, and which I have mapped to the Kata in my teaching approach, so my students can under the integral links. In terms of formal Kihon-Waza, I have incorporated a few from my Wado-Ryu and Kempo background, but because they are largely variations on the formal Kihon-Waza of Shorin-Ryu, and I consider them useful for pragmatic self-defence and application study. About 15% of the fundemental, and required, Kihon-Waza I teach is not found in the kata. My students who come to me to study Karate as a reality based self-defence system; I do teach a number of techniques from Gracie Combatives, and other self-defence paradigms. My students whom compete I teach a number of kicking techniques, kick-boxing combinations, and shoot-fighting techniques which are not readily found in the kata. So really depends on the student; depending on the end goal of a student they might learn far more techniques than found in the kata, or kata applications. So might learn a few variations I show them, but will be very grounded in the kata.

“Context determines the meaning of things.” – Noam Shpancer “You must decide if karate is for your health or to aid your duty.” - Itosu Ankō If one is in an occupation where one can expect an increased chance of physical confrontation; then you will practice your karate with the notion it is to be able to protect yourself. Thus, the meaning of your karate will become pragmatic self-defence. If karate is but a hobby, or a past-time, then it is for your own sense of indulgence and enjoyment. Essentially, for your health. Thus, your karate is only as meaningful as the effort you put into it. “Karate ni sente nashi.” - Funakoshi Gichin Often translated as there being no first strike, or first punch, in karate, however, “sente” more literally means aggressive intent. Thus, I treat it as being like another maxim; If one goes looking for a fight, then you are likely to find a fight. “When you step outside your own gate, you face a million enemies.” – Funakoshi Gichin To quote another precept of Funakoshi, which implies that one must be prepared to defend one self. I would argue you could sum up Funakoshi’s philosophy in the precepts as; “Do not go looking for fights, but be aware you may need to defend yourself.” I tend to treat my karate as a personal journey; a challenge. It is very difficult to lie to one self on the dojo floor if you train earnestly. Hence; I only have one banner I hang up, Makoto, which means sincerity. If you train sincerely, I believe you will find the meaning of your karate. That is something I enjoyed about Kuro Obi; neither of the primary characters paths were portrayed as fundamentally wrong. Misguided at times, both made mistakes on the paths they took, and the final lesson was that if you live by the sword you should expect to die by the sword. However, on the other side of the coin; that if you have the capacity for violence when it is a justifiable, last recourse, and yet you do not take it, then you are merely condemned to passivity, not choosing pacifism.

If they came to learn from me with such an attitude, and it did not change by the time I tested them for their entry belt; they would not make it any further regardless. I am not a commercial teacher; I instruct for the pleasure of it, and because of my passion for karate. What this means, is that people get a trial period to demonstrate that they are the correct fit for my group. The only answer I can give is that I give them my 100% as a teacher until they are no longer my student. I do not teach a style or a syllabus per se; I just teach karate, so it is hard to say whether I am passing on full knowledge because that is rather nebulous in my case. I just pass on all I can, and try to give my students the knowledge that fits their goals and needs. This question essentially sums up why I got out of teaching commercially.

That statement was regarding Olympic level boxers suffering a lot of head trauma; especially with Olympic boxing now being open to professionals. At that elite level, you have to compete a lot, so are subject to more regular, hard contact. Comparatively speaking; amateurs, and hobbyists, who might only compete once in a blue moon for fun, do not receive any where near as much head trauma. So, the use of helmets to prevent otherwise superficial wounds such as cuts, or more immediate injuries such as broken jaws, makes sense at that level where the onset of CTE is not a realistic concern. You can probably develop into a decent, club-level, boxer from a technical perspective; in that you can probably develop solid technique. My point being; if you want to the know the answer to a question, you have to ask the question. If you want to know if you have fighting ability; you have to fight. Be that, just trying a hard spar in the gym, or trying to get into an actual competitive bout.

To reach that level, you have to compete, and competing means getting hit in the head a lot. You are not getting noticed for Olympic selection without a winning record, so that means competing as regularly as is feasible. One of those cases where there were a number of reasons; but the over riding logic being that helmets were not contributing to safety. Well; when you are ready for a hard spar, just ask for one. If you want the test, go for it; no one is going to line it up for you without being asked.

As mentioned prior; it very much depends on the gym, but there are a few rules of thumb regarding a good gym, versus a bad gym. 1. Sufficient drill work: One should be learning the ins and outs through drill work, before you even get into the ring to spar. You should have some knowledge of how to protect yourself with head-movement, and foot-work, as well as covering up before you start sparring. 2. Appropriate gear for the task at hand: Right weight of gloves, helmets, and other relevant padding for the level of intended contact. 3. Appropriate level of sparring; for someone boxing for fitness, regular hard-sparring is a terrible idea. Even for a professional, far too much hard sparring, is a terrible idea. Regular sparring is good, but hard-contact should be reserved for preparing for an actual bout. Otherwise, light sparring, and drilling is enough for skill development. 4. Always be supervised; there is nothing more dangerous that two people in a ring, sparring, unsupervised. 5. Be conditioned; you should not be allowed in the ring without being sufficiently conditioned for the rigours. This means you should have some time under your belt at the gym, and they should know what you can take. You should not be thrown in the deep end, regardless of prior experience. 6. Limit head contact to when you are training for an upcoming bout, and do not engage in boxing with head-contact too close to the bout. One can get away with just allowing the head to be threatened, but require the punches to be pulled. All the above are just rules of thumb, not a gold standard, and probably better advice for a gym owner than an attendant. For the gym goer, I would say trust your gut, and if you feel it is dangerous for you; do not spar. Regarding Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy; the evidence is that for people competing at an Olympic level, or as a professional, that helmets do little to impact the outcome of whether they develop CTE or not. Now; these individuals compete so often, they receive regular levels of head trauma. However, in the Gym, the primary concern is more immediate injuries such as bad cuts or broken bones. No one wants to cancel a bout because they got cut up sparring. Regarding the Olympics; it is a lot of boxing over a very short period, depending on how far you go. Thus, the thinking is that it is safer for a boxer to be stopped earlier in the tournament through a TKO, than perhaps continue through what would have otherwise finished a bout due to the helmet, and suffer more unnecessary trauma and potentially concussions.

From a traditional perspective, I would probably argue that Inoue-Ha Shito-Ryu probably possesses the coolest kata. After all, the coaching of Inoue Yoshimi produced Mie Nakayama, Rika Usami, and Antonio Diaz. Names that should be quite familiar to those who follow kata competition. Rika Usami is the person I most recommend people watch when it comes to trying to appreciate kata. The way his students perform have that unique mix of poise, grace, and power that is rare to find, and the moments of sheer athleticism are left to where appropriate so that they stand out. In terms of flashiest; you cannot really reach above the absurdity of Extreme martial arts (XMA) which combine martial arts with acrobatics and gymnastics. Free-Style Karate, which exists as a vehicle for competition, and the American Kenpo Karate tradition have also produced some uniquely “Flashy” kata too. Some of the native Kata of Tae Kwon Do are also rather flashy, in that there are techniques you would not find in traditional kata; for example, high-side kicks, and even turning kicks. I do prefer to give TKD forms the benefit of the doubt though, because several I have seen, are very good for practicing basic techniques or even combinations. You then have ways of performing Kata which are different, and thus are cool or flashy, in that they go against expectations: Shotokai, a direct cousin of modern JKA Shotokan, has an approach of minimum contraction and absolute commitment to a technique. Unfortunately, this means many practitioners look sloppy when performing its kata. However, the best of Shotokai karateka do have an oddly compelling look to the way they move. Tani-Ha Shito-Ryu, and Shukokai, kata can look different from other versions because of many of the underlying principles being slightly different from other schools. Most of the details are minute, but to a trained eye can be entertaining to watch for. Chito-Ryu evolved from a relatively heterodox tradition, so again, it’s kata is very distinct from the main-stream. Ryuei-ryu is quite similar in that respect, and is of course the system practiced by Tsuguo Sakumoto; whose performance of Anan has yet to be surpassed, in my opinion. Ashihara and Enshin Karate kata were both developed with competition in mind, and in a lot of ways appear more like pre-arranged shadow boxing, than a traditional kata. Thus, they can make for interesting viewing. I would argue that Shotokan in many respects does not in fact stand out from the crowd. If one looks at the advanced kata past the Pinan (Heian), Naihanchi (Tekki), and Kusanku (Kanku); the kata are not all that distinct from the versions found in Wado-Ryu, Shito-Ryu, or Shorin-Ryu. This, of course, makes sense as Funakoshi was Ohtsuka’s primary instructor, and Mabuni and Chibana trained under Itosu at roughly the same time. What I would say though, is that after the influence of Gigo Funakoshi, and later Kise and Nakayama; that deep, long stances became a visual cue of Shotokan, as did an exaggerated level of Kime (or fixture) on techniques, and performing kata with intensity and big movements. Thus, I would say that is not the kata of Shotokan that are cool or flashy, but rather the result of the training culture of Shotokan. The stances have become deeper, so the contrast and angles are more obvious, which has a certain aesthetic appeal, compared to the more natural stances of other approaches. The big movements are not necessarily practical, but they can be seen and against the air they look powerful; even if making the moment so big detracts from the intended application. Basically; take any kata from the Itosu tradition, increase the stance size and perform the movements as big as possible, and you will get a similar result. That is not to detract from the Kata of Shotokan, or to say they do not have unique elements, but rather illustrates that the differences emerged as part of a change in training culture, rather than decisions made in advance. Also, that the kata are largely interchangeable, and that the differences seen are often nebulous, and the reasons they emerged not always logical. Regarding Shorin-Ryu and the hip movement; it is power generation to an extent, but is also to do with pelvic alignment, and can also hint at what you are supposed to be doing with the front hand when applying the movements. I personally suspect that it is in-fact a very late innovation of Itosu’s, or even an innovation of Chibana’s further developed by his students; which is why it is seen in Shorin-Ryu today, but is not apparent in the Karate of Funakoshi, Mabuni, or Motobu, even though they were all students of Itosu. I do agree with Wastelander, though, that there is also a distinct possibility that such approaches simply disappeared in the evolutionary path that some descendent schools took in comparison to that of Shorin-Ryu. Regarding, its appearance in other styles with no direct link to Itosu, or Chibana, then I would argue two points: 1. There are only so many ways to move the human body effectively. 2. Concurrent development; in trying to solve the same problem, they stumbled upon the same solution. Kyokushin being a great example, where hitting hard is the name of the game. So, it does not necessarily mean such a movement was ever universal in Okinawan Karate. For example; it is not prevalent in Isshin-Ryu or Uechi-Ryu. Also; regarding deliberate movement. In Japanese Karate; the trend is to try and do everything at once. In Okinawan Karate, it is more important to do what needs to be done as it needs to be done. Neither approach is necessarily wrong, but they do produce a different way of performing kata.

Unlike Japanese and Korean Karate; Okinawan orthodox karate very rarely takes a concept from one kata, and then makes it universal to general practice. However, there are several kata where you can find ideas like the knee-spring performed; often transitioning from one stance to another, because it is a natural way to generate power. You can also find some examples of the Sine-Wave motion, in spirit, in kata such as Annaku and to an extent Passai; where one moves one’s centre of gravity to facilitate a technique. So is it in karate styles per se; I would say no off the top of my head. I cannot think of any system of karate which utilises it as a globalised concept. However, if one looks hard enough, in can be found in some of the kata. The only style I can think of which has anything similar is Tani-Ha Shito-Ryu, and by extension Shukokai, which both employ the principle of kick-shock; which like the knee-spring, is about the use of the leg to generate power.

Thank you all for the congratulations. I would also like to thank others who contribute; without them I would have nothing to respond to after all. I really enjoy the forums, and the discussions they inspire.

I believe they were just being honest; despite solid punching skills, at the same time they lacked a lot of the head-movement and foot-work. Joe Lewis used his formidable side-kick for distance control as much as he used a jab, and Bill Wallace used his exceptional kicking off his left foot to control distance. Joe Lewis did have a solid right hook, which he used more than once to catch those without boxing knowledge out. If, in Joe Lewis' case, you look at any of the good heavyweights of the boxing world in the 70s, and then look at the boxing Lewis demonstrated; he was making a fair assessment of himself. After all, the 70s was probably the peak of heavyweight boxing. Should be remembered Lewis made that assessment of his boxing when asked if he would try professional boxing. I reckon Lewis and Wallace as pretty solid boxers at an amateur level; in that they both show some good defence and offence. They lacked the polish a professional needs.

My pragmatic response would be this; some knowledge dies with us all. Maybe because the way we approached a technique was uniquely our own, and we never had a student that could emulate that personal approach. Perhaps we have never been asked the right question to invite the divulging of some knowledge, that we would otherwise not think to share. Similarly; we encounter questions we never thought to ask our teachers, and suddenly realise, we did not receive the full extent of their knowledge. Wilfully holding back though, is foolish, if we take the above into account. Something will die with us, but if we provide all we can, those that come after us can find their own answers to the questions they failed to ask. Anyway; I would say it is wise to hold-back until a student is ready to progress. I admit, I have frustrated students in the past because they think they are doing well because I am not giving them many corrections; but that is because I teach in a layered approach. So when I feel they are ready to progress, I come along and give the critique, and the next element they need to work on. Some get demotivated by this, but most accept that I just hold back until I feel they are ready to progress. There are a few, dangerous things, I do not readily teach just because I would not like a student to consider said dangerous things a go to tool in self-defence. Similarly; I do not teach my students who are interested in self-defence, and traditional karate, too much from my knowledge of Kick-Boxing and Shoot-fighting. In the same sense I do not make my students who intend to compete engage in Kobujutsu practice, or application work beyond Kiso Kumite and Oyo Bunkai. It would be redundant for their training goals. I also have kata I have learnt in my own time, and certain techniques not in the syllabus, that I do not readily teach; except to students I feel would benefit. So; I would say context really gives the meaning of holding back. Holding back for the sake of it is reckless, and back ward thinking. Holding back because the knowledge is unnecessary to that student is just being conscious of your students growth.

First; apologies for not getting back to this sooner. I have not been able to make time to compose a response. I addressed it in its original context; the 1970s, when American Kick-Boxing was a young sport. You had kick-boxers with a professional karate back ground, and then you had kick-boxers with an amateur boxing background. Under the early rule-set; with no kick requirements, with the restriction of kicks to above the belt, and rules against sweeps and throws; the defensive, and evasive tactics of boxing were effective, because they are as easily used against a high-kick as they are a punch above the belt. Similarly; this rule set reduced American Kick-boxing as a skill set to boxing with high-kicks. I never made an either or either assertion, nor did I make the claim an American Kick-boxer is at a disadvantage by default. My assertion is that boxing skills are the predominant skill set of American Kick-Boxing, and thus the most effective boxer (which I used to mean the competitor with the better hand skills) is the one with an advantage. Joe Lewis is a great example of this; because of his training back-ground, which involved training with Joe Orbillo (Notably after Lewis had retired from point-fighting, and had also become a training partner of Bruce Lee). To paraphrase a statement from the man himself, when he was asked whether he intended to try professional boxing; he claimed he was far from proficient enough, he just had a better boxing acumen than his early kick-boxing opponents. Joe Lewis’ natural athleticism (He earned his blackbelt in 7 months, and won his first championship with only 22 months of training under his belt), his eclectic training approach inspired by Bruce Lee, and with his boxing acumen being ahead of the curve; meant that Lewis dominated during the first years of American Kick-Boxing. Simply because he was a better boxer than his opponents; not a good boxer, by his own admission, but better than his competitors. In some ways Lewis was the Ken Shamrock of his day. A strong, and surprisingly fast, heavyweight; with a knowledge base ahead of the other players, which meant he dominated while he was pioneering the sport. However, once the knowledge of the competition caught up; he crashed out from his top place in the pecking order. Even in those early days, from 1975 onwards, the Kick-Boxers developed boxing skills because it was realised very early on that the point-fighting skills of Professional Karate did not carry over well into the rule set of American Kick-Boxing; especially in the boxing gloves. I cannot find any records of professional boxers trying their luck at Kick-Boxing; but that is because I cannot find the PKA records to be fair. I would not be surprised if Club-level professionals, or Amateur boxers, participated at the local levels; but cannot find evidence of Journeymen and above being anywhere close to a PKA event. It should also be noted that during the unregulated and unsanctioned days of Kick-Boxing; many bouts took place on boxing under-cards, blurring the lines a little. Boxers being dominant in Kick-Boxing is, to be fair, not a reason for the minimum kick restriction I have encountered before. The reasoning I heard was that many early Kick-Boxing matches under American Kick-boxing rules simply looked like bad amateur boxing matches, and were not readily distinguishable as a sport from boxing. Hence, when trying to get the sport recognised, the minimum kick amount was introduced to ensure kicks were thrown during bouts to make them distinct from boxing matches. Benny Urquidez was primarily a WKA fighter, although he did participate in a handful of PKA fights, and the WKA pioneered the low-kick as a weapon. If it was under WKA rules, it could have been an interesting and competitive bout.

Bobbing and weaving was a bad habit in Free-fighting in the early days; a lot of people had not adapted it to deal with the concerns of wrestling and kicking, but you see it a lot more today as coaches have gained more insight into the wrestling game. A bad habit was to bob and weave with out acknowledging the danger of that distance being closed ,or intercepted with a kick. Few people have that bad habit today. In early American Kick-Boxing, and American Full-Contact Karate; the top fighters were largely from a competition kumite back-ground. For example Joe Lewis, or Bill Wallace; interestingly, both had a wrestling back-ground. Just because of the rules; the better boxer has the advantage. So it I would give the edge to who ever has the better boxing acumen. If it was two boxers of equal skill; the one with the better kick acumen.