DaveB

I agree that promotion through rank should in general be based on progression through a syllabus, but... The point of a karate syllabus is not to teach you moves or dances. The point of a karate syllabus is to teach you how to fight. To promote someone who can do the moves but cannot fight to an appropriate level is demeaning to the school and the art. To withhold rank from a person who can fight above the level of his rank but whose techniques against air is not right because you are effectively holding them back instead of pushing them forward. Now what should happen is that a point of equilibrium is reached where sloppy technique starts to become a hindrance in his fighting and at that point the students rank should be frozen until he makes progress. At that point making the student focus on and develop his basics should lead to clear improvements in the areas in his fighting that are lacking. When that happens he can progress. This will only work if the teacher understands combat and the relationship between fighting and form. So ultimately rank in my view is about grading against yourself but going towards a well defined and understood objective goal of applying martial arts to violent conflict (or sport combat if that's what you want). After that is achieved (post Dan/senior Dan) it's about politics and thus is relative to others, but that side of things is far outside my interest. One final note on syllabus. If the aim of karate is learning to fight (and it really is), then holding someone back from ranking because they can't do certain things is the same as the teacher saying "I can only teach you one way and if it doesn't fit you I can't teach you." Nidan above mentioned not being able to head kick. We'll to me the solution would be to identify what part head kicks play in fighting and provide an alternative that fits the same niche. The same goes for disability (obviously this has limits). There is more than one way to fight and it is the student who gets hurt if the teacher can't or won't adapt to them rather than the other way around.

These body alignment principles are common across southern Chinese kungfu (probably northern too) and though the word isn't used this is standard Shotokan technique as well. As I understand it, learning this kind of body alignment is one of the main purposes of Sanchin kata. Previously I've discussed my definition of a fighting style on this forum. The key being that any style is a combination of interdependent principle of the types tactical, strategic and mechanical. Well body alignment (mechanical) principles such as these are part of why you don't find a huge amount of boxing style bobbing and weaving in karate and southern Chinese ma. Though present they are not common aspects of the styles because they don't fit well with the mechanics. There are strategic reasons as well but it is the interdependent nature of these three areas that is so key in defining a given fighting art.

All that pre-judgement would bar you from grading in my imaginary character driven school.

There's not alot to tell. Goju ryu is based on southern kungfu and Tensho kata appears to be an attempt to catalogue some if the more subtle skills Miyagi encountered when he studied in China I trained in a southern tiger-crane combination system for few years but my main interest is in applying shotokan kata. The 5 crane forms I know have some great concepts and techniques which I have incorporated into my martial arts. However the movements which train these concepts are spread out, some are not even in the forms at all so I adapted Tensho to hang onto them. I've recently started to blend some elements of siesan (hangetsu in Shotokan) as well since my favourite crane form is a likely forerunner to naha-te siesan and I like the ideas on the shotokan version as well.

I'm not a Gojuka, but I practice a version of tensho based on the Goju kata and crossed with the southern kungfu I trained as a way of linking and preserving both. Like most I see it as a way of refining soft skills. These are the methods of putting your opponent at disadvantage by guiding or avoiding his force. Also it is practice for the flexibility needed to avoid falling prey to such methods. So your solid punch to the face can melt into one of the tensho deflections when your opponent slips around it.

Cheesyfry We're on the same page about kata's importance. What I was disagreeing with was the suggestion that partner training was "supplementary" to kata study. IMO partner training IS kata study. I don't think there should be a distinction or de-emphasis of either aspect. One does not work without the other.

I'm not sure I agree with this. At least I think that partner work and Kata study should be one and the same. Even the bookish Funakoshi said that karate must not be a wholly intellectual pursuit. We can learn fighting without kata, but we cannot learn kata without fighting.

Judging Kata performance is akin to judging a javelin thrower on how beautifully he lifts weights in the gym. To do this at all misses the point of kata, as has been stated. That said I think the team kata with an appĺcation segmeby is a nice idea. Synchronicity is a difficult skill and one that has a value in combat. What I dislike is a tendency to aesthetics in the application part. I think it would be better if the kata was announced at the time the competitors stepped onto the mat. Then that would be a real test of combative synchronicity as well as well as of their application knowledge. The application segment would be self defence focussed and the ability to make realistic and powerful attacks as well as defend effectively could all be judged with much less subjectiveness and bias. That would be a competition worthy of martial artists IMO.

I'm not an instructor, but I find teachers who try to restrict a students training opportunities distasteful. Training in multiple styles or at different schools can impede a students progress in the short term but once the challenges of managing vthe differences are overcome the benefits are obvious. Unless your goals are short term I'm a bit of a cynic and so talk of loyalty to services that charge for my custom always sound to me like they are worried about their own revenue, ego or both. Certainly not about my best interests. Anyone concerned with your best interests won't mind hearing that there's someone better out there or that you want more than they are offering. They might disagree but you should not have your choices held against you. I think a good option for a teacher faced with a cross training student is just to warn them that rank exams may have to wait if they are impeded by the extra material. If the student is genuine about wanting to learn and not wanting a belt it won't trouble them and the instructor doesn't have to worry about the student lagging.

You poor thing, you don't know what your missing! Pretty coloured cones are the best bit!

If your background is Uechi ryu you might find more comfortable training in a southern kungfu style. My base is in Shotokan and your dojo sounds like it would bore me to tears.

I'm not sure I agree with that either. A martial art is nothing without the martial artist, so for me it's about making your chosen art work in the environment you want it to work in, not expecting it to happen on it's own. You'll notice that nowhere in my style definition do I mention training methods. This is because training methods vary within a style from school to school. They develop with the understanding of the teacher and thus are incidental to the style. Yet it is how we train and our understanding of the combative environment and the place in which our techniques fall within that environment which determines our effectiveness. We expect, quite reasonably, that when we go to learn a martial art we also learnto apply it. Really what most of us learn are the three areas above and little else. This is also reasonable because we are not most if us in places where we need to fight very often. I advocate folks learn kapap or Krav maga for self defence or Muay thai/mma for ring fighting, not because karate doesn't work, but because these are places where the training is geared to the goal. Once you know that side of things making your art work for you, gendai or otherwise, is easy.

I think this may be true of individuals, and that people being people we all want to be able to say that our chosen art can do it all, but I don't think martial arts are designed that way at all. I have found that the combination of the three areas I describe above, that which makes up a given style, are each distinct to the art you are looking at. I think most folks compromise their style, doing what is natural to them or what is culturally popular and finding ways to claim it as always being inherent in their art. Only a few persevere to bring all the elements together and embody the art rather than making the art embody them. I say that with no sense of judgement, whatever works for you. It's your dollar and your journey, do as you please. I admire those who can embody the art and it is what I try to do with very limited success. I think I have a long way to go before I fully understand my chosen path. Until then I mostly do my own thing.

Personally, when I think of fighting styles I define them asthe blblending of 3 major elements Mechanics Strategy Tactics Mechanics is the power generation and ways of moving the body. Strategy is the game plan for any fight you're in. Tactics are the key methods and movements, the signature hit making methods of the art. With the above as a guideline, How would you describe the fighting style (or styles) of your branch of Karate? How would you describe your own personal fighting style?

My own personal view on rank progression is that the teacher should observe the students and give out rank when the student displays the proper abilities consistently. The only need I can see for a test is to stop teachers playing favourites If you want to do tests, I do think that the teacher should decide who should test, but on the basis of ability. I just think we should leave character out of it for the reasons given above. I steer clear of concepts such as "worthiness" too for largely the same reasons. We're not in feudal Japan and if we were its not karate we'd be learning.

I guess I think about it differently. I think that you prove your character to your instructor over time going through the myriad of things that transpire in a studio. I don't think of character as a set of finite criteria that can be checked off during a test. Quite the contrary, I think of character, along with skill and ability, as an element that inspires your instructor to invite you to test. The test I think is strictly about curriculum. I understand, but that doesn't answer any of the awkward questions I raised above. Those questions arise from holding good character as a requirement whether it is tested for or not. Furthermore I feel that such an approach invalidates the testing altogether as the instructor should already know the outcome. I argue in favour of a test because it would remove ambiguity and show at least that all students are being held to the same standard. Please don't think I am trying to change anyone's mind. At the days end folks will (and should) do whatever they think is best. I don't expect anyone to care what I think, but discussion is how I make sense of the world.

In the thread I started on tests of character, one member suggested that he would fail one of my tests. Does not the subjective nature of rating character bother any of its advocates? Is being judged a"good" person by someone who may not themselves be a good person a meaningful thing? Or worse, how will you feel if someone's darker side comes out after you've promoted them? The more I think about it the more I feel that holding character as a requirement for black belt which is not specifically tested for, is very dangerous ground. It sets up an unobtainable standard of responsibility on the school and teacher and open's the door to accusations of hypocrisy and cultishness, just because one man's mentor is another man's monster. Unless we send every bb candidate for a full psychoanalytic evaluation, interview friends, family colleagues and associates, I think we're making a claim we can't really support.

While it's nice that folks are contributing, I raised this in a new thread in order to be a separate discussion from kensei's thread. What traits do you guys value in a person's character? What will you let slide and what is a complete red card? It's easy to say you value good character, but without a definition it's just words and waffle. The testing part was just my analytical side coming out, feel free to ignore.

Lol, that post was meant to go in my new thread, my apologies!

Hello In the recent thread about Kensei's "Odd experience", the point was raised about good character being part of the requirement to be a black belt. This kept me coming back to the idea that if it's a requirement it should be on the test. Naturally the next question is, what is good character and how do you test for good character in the context of a bb exam? So my questions to you: What traits constitute good character to you? What test would you give to demonstrate each trait (or for those who actively include this aspect what test's do you give already). I value: Honesty Unselfishness Test for honesty: during point sparring, deliberately give points to the examinee that were scored by the opponent and see if he corrects you. Test for unselfishness: give one set of raggedy uncomfortable smelly armour/gloves/headgear and one new set. With many opportunities to change gear, see if he volunteers to take the smelly kit or if he hogs the new stuff.

The only problem with this is that the kata are Chinese, not Japaneseand the OOkinawans studied them under Chinese teachers. With the possible exception of taichi I don't think I've ever heard similar technique explanations in CMA. That said, I totally agree that solo performance of kata is about concrete training, be it speed, flow, technique or balance. Another consideration when you look at the context of the movement is winding up for a powerful body shift to the side, thus adding power to the associated hand techniques but holding your stance so you don't over-commit your weight and leave yourself open.

But if it takes commitment to develop correct technique, to learn kata and ingrain movement then commitment or a lack of should show in the test. Either that or the idea of needing x months/years of training to reach the skill levels asked for is a fallacy? Also I'm not sure if you're comment about degree program's is true. Certainly I know you can apply to test for professional qualification's without taking the course. I'm pretty sure the same is true of university, the only difference being that you need to complete course requirements other than an exam. Perhaps requiring someone like this to complete all the rank exams and requirements is a more fair way to test them You state that there are some things only time can test, but what are they that won't also show in a properly designed and executed rank exam?

Exactly, all this is the requestor's problem and it should all come out in the exam, assuming the exam is properly constructed to test such things. As for reverse engineered kata applications: I can see where you are coming from. I'm no fan of grappling heavy application, but I respect the effort to make the ephemeral and mythic (kata is the soul of karate) into real concrete martial arts.

Thanks Sensei8

Hello all This is an interesting discussion and though not decided, I lean slightly more towards the side that says if he can do it he should have the grade. One of my the things I have always disliked about Karate is a tendency towards wooly, nebulous and subjective ideas. In the past I found these in the form of vague technical points that replaced an understanding of kata application or advanced combat skills. Here it sounds like the vague and subjective concept of "good character", is being given higher value than the things karateka actually practice and can concretely measure: technique, fighting skill, syllabus knowledge, fitness etc. For all the points I quote above, should not the lack or triumph in spite of all these things be evident immediately upon giving this person a fair and honest Dan examination? It really feels like there is a lack of faith among respondents in regards to the testing. After all, motivating yourself to train to a high standard consistently over a number of years without anyone to correct you, motivate you when you're tired etc, is not easy by anyone's reckoning. And when just about every new association has a tale of wrong doing by old affiliates, can karate instructors really be allowed to cast themselves as arbiters of character? We all remember the kind of character Harry Cook was. What we learn about folks in the dojo is never the whole story. And when we start adding loyalty in the mix, for something students are paying for, that actually is a bit worrying to me because we're trying to have it both ways: honourable mentor and business proprietor. Like the pastor demanding a tithe. Needing to know a student calls the whole concept of the rank exam into question for me. Either you know him and what he can do and thus has earned, or you need to test him to find out. Both doesn't make sense to me. Now all that said (I did say I am undecided), the fact the guy was wearing an embroidered black belt does not look good. It's something I would definitely ask about. Also unlike most of the posters were I to test him it would be over a number of days and it would be well above what I'd expect of regular students as there is much more to prove for an unknown. Also in spite of my above concerns I can totally see why you would not want to associate your club with someone of bad character whose actions could impact on your reputation. In this regard I suppose it is more a question of personal ethics and who you associate with rather than what kind of person deserves rank (something we cannot ever really tell). So on the fence I sit, devils advocate with a sore posterior (fences are not good seats). Please don't take offence - aside from leaving me nowhere to sit I'm actually on your side.