Wado Heretic

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.

Most early American Kick-Boxers came from a Competitive Kumite back-ground, which in 1960s/70s America, meant a format where sweeping and throwing were allowed. I would say, yes. Boxers were at a disadvantage in not having a kick offence, however, several elements made this a moot-point: 1. High Kicks to the head and body, are readily avoided with head-movement and body swaying; something boxers are skilled with. Thus, they entered the American Kick-Boxing ring with a defence against high kicks. 2. Clinch fighting was forbidden as it is in Boxing; thus, so were sweeps, and throws. Boxers did not need to learn to fight in the clinch. 3. With the clinch eliminated, and range control, still isolated to the use of head-movement, body swaying, and foot-work; high kicks were moot as a weapon, except as one of opportunity. As such, American Kick-Boxing is Boxing with high-kicks. Therefore, boxers had significant success in American Kick-Boxing when it emerged in the 1970s. You can evade high-kicks with the same body movement you defend against punches with. This can even be seen in contemporary Muay Thai, and other kick-boxing bouts. Thus, boxing skill became the pre-dominant skill over a more rounded kick-boxing acumen.

It is important to distinguish between stances in a combat sport such as boxing or wrestling, and stances as they are contained within the kata. As Wastelander, and I, have alluded to, and to reiterate: the stances facilitate techniques, they are part of a technique, not a free-fighting stance. If one looks at them from that perspective; you can witness them in combat-sports from Kick-Boxing to Judo. I have used neko-ashi and kokutsu-dachi to shift my weight as a distance controlling movement in Kick-Boxing, and Shoot-fighting, to give examples from my own experience. In self-defence, I have used them to set up sweeps, when I worked as a doorman. Some very good Karate in MMA videos out there where you can also witness said stances being used. What I would say though, is not all stance work is in fact practically minded. Many stances, in several disciplines, have been modified for aesthetic reasons, or other impractical considerations. Therefore, I adopted the Shorin-Ryu Kata over the Wado-Ryu kata, because the stances (and the Kata in general, broadly speaking) of Wado-Ryu had become removed from the way I was being shown to perform applications, and general Bunkai theory. In contrast the Shorin-Ryu kata are essentially performed in the manner one does the inferred application. There is plenty of reasons to criticise stance work; but I would be wary of using one experience, and then to generalise it to a whole range of disciplines. Some karateka place little emphasis on stances, whereas others make a huge point of it. I try to stick to the middle; the stance must fit the individual, not be artificially deep or wide, and facilitate the application effectively against a resisting opponent. I do make people go slightly deeper than I believe they need to in the kata; but that is because I find people quite naturally find the right width for their stance, but will make the mistake of staying too up right.

Familiarity helps; you are probably more used to the range you have when you punch as per you were taught in Karate. That is what I found any way. I would some times throw a right straight, or left cross, in the manner I got used to in my competitive kumite participation. Old habits kick in, so when I saw opportunities; what I practised for longer came through.

Funakoshi also wrote: “Fixed positions are for beginners: later, one moves naturally.” Also, Itosu, Funakoshi’s primary teacher wrote the following: “In Karate training, one must determine whether a specific application is suitable for defence or for cultivating the body.” Ultimately; the inference is that there is an element of physical rigour added to the kata. After all, both Itosu and Funakoshi in their broader writings insisted on intensity in training. Thus, I believe it feasible that several kata movements are largely for exercise. However, with the above said, it is also important to contextualise the differences between fighting and Self-Defence. The kata were developed to practice methods for civilian self-defence, unlike Jujutsu or the Hand Forms of Chinese Martial Arts, as such they should be analysed in this context. In self-defence; the primary concern is the collapse of distance, and one is often confronted by an attacker trying to isolate and restrict your movement, not necessarily injure you. A mugger is not trying to fight you; he/she wants your money, to give an example. As such; one should look at the kata in the context of: 1. The distance between you and the attacker has already collapsed, or is about to. Several stances are well adjusted to counter an attacker whose weight is already on you. 2. You are not necessarily being attacked from the front, and may need to orientate yourself to the direction you are being attacked. Several stances make this easier. 3. Your attacker may not be making use of sophisticated martial arts, but rather, sheer brute force and shock tactics. Again, several stances are well adapted to giving you a tool to resist said brute force. 4. Several stances facilitate certain techniques, or tactical opportunities, in close distance fighting. 5. Stances can be transitional; in actual application they are not positions you would stay in, but quickly travel through. With all the above said; that is not to argue that all stances are by default purposeful, simply because we do not understand them at a glance. One of the reasons I now practice the Shorin-Ryu kata is that I feel the stance work is purposeful; I have encountered a lot of stance work which is unrealistic, and did not scale to inferred application or made sense as physical exercise. We tend to, I would argue, get absorbed with the notion of mono-a-mono fighting when trying to examine kata. That is the nature of the world, because people tend to watch combat sports such as Boxing, Kick-Boxing, and MMA and so that becomes their image of “fighting”. Sadly; karate training itself does not assist in this. We tend to emphasise fair sparring, and kumite drills traditionally emphasise facing the Uke. This makes sense from a safety perspective; but the kata techniques never presumed fairness. It is better to examine the stances in the context of the habitual acts of physical violence, and scenario based drills; for example, being caught against a wall. This can help explore the intent of the stance work, in the context of the original purpose of kata; civilian self-defence. If working from quotes, Motobu Choki once claimed that there are no stances such as Neko-Ashi, Zenkutsu, of Kokutsu in his karate. Which is true, in that you will not see the modern exaggerated versions in picture of Motobu Choki; however, if one looks at his kumite drills, you will see how he places his weight, and how the body mechanics very much follow such stances. Similarly; Funakoshi, in his twenty precepts did state: “Kata is practised perfectly; real fight is another thing.” Thus, it is important to be critical of your own kata practice. However, it is also important to keep in mind that you only get out of kata that which you put in. To quote Itosu again: “Handed down by word of mouth, Karate comprises a myriad of techniques and corresponding meanings. Resolve to independently explore the context of these techniques, observing the principles of torite (grappling/joint locks) with the corresponding theory of usage – and the practical applications will be more easily understood.” Which means; without an informed, critical eye, you will never fully explore the benefits of kata practice. A kata is not a fight; it is a training mechanism. A training mechanism is only as effective as how it is utilised. Traditional kata were designed for civilian self-defence, not free-fighting against a foe with sophisticated martial arts in mutual combat. As such; the traditional kata do not fit that latter context. Kata designed specifically for free-fighting are practiced by Ashihara, and Enshin karate, and their off-shoots. If one is looking for free-fighting kata; those are systems to seek out. Similarly; the solo kata of Shorinji Kenpo, and Nippon Kenpo, are essentially extended sequences of combinations, and thus readily applicable to free-fighting. It ultimately comes down to one’s end goal to their training: 1. Self-Defence: The traditional Kata are useful, if you approach them properly. 2. Free-Fighting: The traditional Kata were never intended for mutually agreed combat, and thus do not facilitate training for said fighting. Be wary of barking up the wrong tree, and make sure you have a clear vision for your continued journey.

You fight how you train, and you need to train for your intended fight. I would argue that is where many karate schools fail; trying to be a whole package, which does not in fact exist. If you intend to compete; your teaching regime must be geared towards the competitive format you intend to participate in. If your goal is self-defence, you must consider the self-defence needs you are catering to; do you need to focus on civilian self-defence, or combatives? Many karate clubs/dojo, I have found, have that misunderstanding of cause and affect. Which goes back to Sensei8's sentiment that it is down to the Chief Instructor. It also goes back Wastelander's argument regarding the nature of drilling; some are unrealistic, but effective drilling a proven building block on developing fighting skills. Being independent, and only part of the BKA for insurance purposes; I have a lot of flexibility in what I do. I tend to question students very early on regarding their ambitions and goals. If they are just along for the journey, or wish to study self-defence; then they are put on a training regime suited to self-defence. If they intend to compete; I coach them, and give them a regime suited to competing. Drilling is a huge part of both, as is sparring; but both have to be different. For example; no point making someone who wishes to compete do regular Mass Attack Randori, because that time would be better spent drilling wrestling or kick-boxing skills. So, I would argue that it is the rigidity of grading syllabi that causes many problems, but also a failure to appreciate the end goal of training regimes. Many instructors teach karate, but without an eye to the end goal except karate for the sake of karate. As such, they are stuck in a cycle of rigidly teaching what they were taught. Never evolving, or being flexible, and arming students with the tools most appropriate for that student.

No kick-boxing gym in the area, so I was rather stuck for choice. This was about eight-ten years ago, and my town did not get a dedicated martial arts facility until just over four years ago. There was a Kick-boxing club, but not a gym, so I preferred the boxing gym for the access to equipment, and the flexibility to train at my own pace. I was also pretty confident in my kicking, and kick defence, acumen from my point-fighting and knock-down experience. So the other reason I focused on my boxing is because of my lack of fighting experience in gloves. I would always say follow your passion. I enjoyed boxing, and still incorporate a lot of what I learnt into how I train, and what I teach. However, it was never my passion; it was a means to an end in my desired martial arts career. Did not pay off; I hit a wall I could not get past due to my health, but I would do it again.