Spartacus Maximus

The bigger the governing body is the more political it gets. In general. Whenever things other than training, learning and teaching become a goal, there will be politics. Wherever there are gains of any kind such as influence, profits et cetera there will be politics. It is impossible to avoid completely because it is part of human nature and has probably been going on since the first sensei started to teach more than one person at a time. The only difference between now and then is that there are many more issues to be political about.

4 hours a week is one of the lowest points reached since re-starting to train. A huge change from the 10-12 hours before.

Accidents, safety precautions and possible legal liabilities are the reasons why head contact has been forbidden or heavily regulated in martial arts schools and at competitions. There is just too many risks for serious and permanent injuries. If allowed, it ought to be reserved for those who are able to fully control their movements.

maybe this will complicate the initial subject, but here is a follow-up question: How about someone who lacks experience, but was taught by an instructor who does? If the instructor has experience(competition or whatever else) and is a competent teacher, should it not follow that the student's skills be credible and legitimate even though said students do not have their teacher's experience of applying their skills?

It depends on the purpose and focus of training. If it is for maximum realism and dealing with a self-defense situation, everything and anything ought to be practised. The head and upper body are a common target in self defense situations as well as some completions. Even if one trains only for the ring, one ought to learn and be prepared to face those who may not care for "rules". Adapting to the situation is much easier when one has trained and practised for what is most likely to happen.

Guns are obviously made for killing from a distance and as such those who intend to kill with a gun never get closer than needed to shoot. The only type of situation when a gun is drawn at close range(in arms reach) is to threaten or coerce. A mugging, a robbery or taking a hostage for instance. Knives, on the other hand must be used at close range. And yet again, when killing is the intent the knife is not shown or brandished. Gun disarms might work, but only if trained consistently AND if used with a set up to engage the mind of the attacker. This is the same thing criminals use to distract their victims before suddenly attacking. Still there is a good reason why gun disarms are not recommended: They are incredibly dangerous to attempt and have a very small probability of working.

The only thing possible to do in writing is a rough approximation based on English pronunciation. Getting the exact pronunciation and rythm of spoken language requires hearing it, listening and repeating.

This question in one that comes to mind when thinking about the life of skilled martial artists. Especially those who have managed to continue training for decades while living a successful professional and family life.

Here is the dojo kun as shown on the official website in Japanese. Hitotsu, ware ware wa shinshin o renma shi, kakkofubatsu no shingi o kiwameru koto Hitotsu, ware ware wa bu no shinzui o kiwame, ki ni hasshikan ni bin naru koto. Hitotsu, ware ware wa shitsujitsugou ken o motte, jiko no seshin o kanyou suru koto. Hitotsu, ware ware wa reisetsu o omonji, choujou o keishisobou no furumai o tsutsushimu koto Hitotsu, ware ware wa shinbutsu o toutobi, kenjou no bitoku o wasurezaru koto Hitotsu, ware ware wa chisei to tairyokuto o koujou sase, koto ni no zon de ayamatazaru koto Hitotsu, ware ware wa, shougai no shugyou o karate no michi ni tsuuji, kyokushin no michi o mattou suru koto. Instructions on how to correctly pronounce Japanese can easily be found on YouTube. Listening and repeating will help but here is a rough guide "F" is a sound between "f" and "h" in English. "R" is approximately between an English "L" and "R" "A" as in "father" "E" as in "elephant" "I" as in "ee" in "meet" but shorter sound "O" as in "old" "U" is like the "oo" in "boo" but slightly shorter These are just approximations based on English sounds. The actual pronunciation should be learned by copying acutal speakers. Good luck

When one understands the principles and mechanics of a technique as well as its purpose, the importance of kata becomes clear. kata is essential for learning these points and feeling how they function. Kata is a drill in body mechanics and movement principles. These, however must be correct and understand otherwise it is a dance. Or like memorizing and singing a song in a language one neither speaks nor understands. Kata is but one part of karate and is of no use if it is not fully integrated to kihon and kumite. The three are meant to complement and complete one another. They are not meant to be considered separately. When a training partner or your instructor is available practise the techniques together. Kata is for when one is training alone to practise and reinforce what was done with partners.

Seen it. That's one of the best parts of that movie.

A question for anyone training regularly while holding a full time job (that is not teaching martial arts) and having a family. How much time are you able to spend training in a week, not counting time at the dojo or school? Personally, it is a great week when 4 hours total is possible. Average is slightly less and not including 2 hours at the dojo on weekends. Maybe more can be done, but it is doubtful with 10h of work and family/children/household to mind.

One thing that these types of annoying comments and questions have taught me is to become expert at changing the subject or stirring the conversation in a different direction. Luckily this is only necessary for the few times when avoiding the subject is not possible.

This issue is obviously more complicated than it appears at first glance. None of my instructors ever set foot in a ring or engaged in "free sparring". Only two of them had the misfortune of having had to use if "for real". This happened decades ago in different times and in places where violence was quite common. Okinawa is the late 50's to mid 60's was not a nice place. Those who had the experience see it as a trauma. The one thing they all have in common is their constant reminders for students to avoid all types of fighting and never give in to provocations.

A common theme in discussions about martial arts is that to be considered "effective" and "legitimate", a person must have experience in the ring or in a actual situations. Martial artist who have neither or are unable to prove it are instantly dismissed, or labeled as "fake". Does a lack of experience using martial arts in live situations or full-contact type bouts really disqualify someone from being a knowledgeable and skilled martial artist? How about as an instructor? A ring fighting record is as easy to verify as it is to hoax. "Real world" experience is impossible to verify with any accuracy because such instances rarely have an audience or witnesses.

What exactly would qualify as a "traditional style" logo? How exactly could one identity elements that might suggest such a tradition or trend exist? If such a thing does exist, where could it be said to originate? The birth country or region of a given martial art? The only quasi-universal trait martial arts logos appear to have is that as a general rule, smaller and older martial arts dojo with strong ties to their region of origin tend to favour more sober designs.

This sort of thing is one of the reasons why one might choose to keep one's interest in martial arts and training to oneself. After dealing with such things a number of times it reaches a point where any answer, attempt to explain or any reply becomes a waste of time. The majority of people who do not train do not understand and do not care to try. Mentioning martial arts or attempting to talk seriously in all but the utmost superficial way about it is akin to have a serious debate about life with a 3year old. Avoiding the subject and restricting who knows about one's interest in it seems like a good way to get along. It sure spares a great deal of headaches.

Belts or any other objects may come sooner or later. It is different for everyone and only relevant in whatever dojo one trains. All that is left when one changes back to everyday clothes and outside of that context is what one can or cannot do. What counts is what one has learned and how well.

Simplicity is always best when it comes to martial arts schools. Overly loud, complicated and colorful designs are not necessary and can often be distracting.

Context is everything with kicks or whatever other martial arts technique. A roundhouse kick has an optimum range and applicability. How effective it is depends on how well the kicker can kick, and more importantly how good said kicker is at knowing when and where to kick. To kick for maximum effect, all this must be done with great speed and timing. All of this can only be achieved with diligent and assiduous training. Like the song says "kung fu (and martial arts in general) fighting has got to be fast as lightning. You've got to have expert timing"

In general there are two reasons why certain techniques in certain kata might be done slowly. As others have explained, this varies from dojo to dojo and even from one instructor to another in some cases. The first reason for slowness is to emphasize a key point and make it easier to teach. Slowing down any movement, especially subtle or complex ones also allow one to feel and remember the required body mechanics to make it effective. The second reason is a question of rythm. Each kata has its specific rythm and some parts are easier to evaluate by instructors or judges when done slowly.

It is entirely possible to train in a traditional way while taken full advantage of the modern equipment and knowledge available. Modern knowledge of how the body functions, for example, is very useful for planning and optimizing training sessions.

The logo of my dojo is simple and "boring" compared to most others. It is the Okinawan three-pointed symbol(looks like three sickle blades stuck together) in a circle with the three Japanese characters for the name of the association inside it between the points of the symbol. No colours except black. The name of the association is embroidered in black calligraphy on the upper left side of the karate-gi. There is no patch and the logo is not worn anywhere on training equipment. It is only displayed on the dojo's main door. A few dan grade students as well as the instructor have a small pin slightly larger than a penny. Mine is pinned to my gear bag.

The man made a foolish decision to resist and ended up getting injured due to his lack of better judgment. The entire physical struggle was both trivial and unnecessary. Much trouble, aggravation and pain on both sides was entirely avoidable if only the man had swallowed his pride and sense of entitlement. It was his choice to stubbornly refuse to move and cause the authorities to remove him by force. His choice again to resist when said authorities came to do their job. What happened was no surprise at all given the man's behaviour. A wiser man would have quietly moved or left on his own and taken up legal and service issues with the concerned parties afterwards, instead of causing a commotion and inconveniencing everyone else around. If he had done that, then perhaps he might have had some recourse, instead he chose to act belligerent and got injured for his trouble.

Putting a specific age requirement to consider an instructor acceptable and credible doesn't make much sense. There are much more important factors to consider. In theory and hypothetically a younger person could be a better and more experienced teacher than someone older, but the fact of the matter is that most people, especially men, will find it more difficult to accept being taught by someone much younger than themselves. A teacher of any kind is a position of high responsibility and authority over other people. A person I that position ought to have the moral character and mental maturity to handle it. Without this one is unfit to teach whether one is 20 or 50