LastKing

Thanks, yes, I've seen quite a few Kanazawa kata on youtube. In face, his were the ones which got me wondering why our kata seems so different. I think what I'm going to do is introduce ones with names our kids are not familiar with in the Pinan/heinan series, rather than change to the official versions of the ones we already do. We only do five, so there's room. Thanks for all the input.

Thanks for that. Let me clarify, say you're doing bunkai or technique which kind of requires orthodox stance for both parties to learn the technique, do you place the southpaw in southpaw so they can learn to adapt, or face them in orthodox so they can get the technique, and so the orthodox of the two can get the technique also (if that makes sense)?

We live in a rural location where most of the martial arts schools are kickboxing and sports karate. There are a couple of pure karate clubs - one a mix of shotokan and wado ryu and another which I can't remember the style of, but it's not shotokan. THinking about it, however, I do know someone who got his blackbelt in shotokan. He trained at our dojo for a while. I have his number somewhere. I'll give him a ring. Thanks for the prompt.

I've taken over a karate club which has a couple if left handed members. When doing technique with another person, do you get them to face off southpaw to orthodox or orthodox to orthodox?

I'm thinking shotokan. I live in rural location, so kids tend to move away - university, work etc.. I don't want to disrespect our past sensai by saying all the kata are these strange works of fiction. I'm assuming they are what he was taught, and he has chosen to keep them because they look interesting and play to the strengths of our syllabus. But wonder about teaching a couple of original kata as an extra, so the kids have something to carry over.

Just a quick one while I've got time. Thanks guys for the information. "Freestyle" as I understand it means it's a style which is routed in traditional karate, but just enough to keep it within an organisation. Ours is the AMAUK. They don't have a set syllabus as they cater for martial arts as a whole rather than just karate. I was told by our previous sensai that, our kata syllabus is rooted in Shotokan and all feature zen stance. We also practice most kihon in zen stance. Our previous sensei was always highly critical of Shotokan, but said if we didn;t keep some, we would lose our affiliation to the AMAUK. Sorry for the short post, but incredibly busy at the moment and only able to get on line sporadically. Cheers

Hi all I've been asked to take over our karate club, which is a great opportunity. Only our karate club has a strange assortment of kata which seem to bear little resemblance to any of the official kata present on youtube (I suspect they are a mish mash of kata, put together years ago by someone with "individual" tastes and passed down as official). Frustratingly, our kata all bear official names - taikio (I know, it should be Taikyouku, but the instructor freely admittend to altering that one), Pinan Nidan, Pinan Sandan, Pinan Yodan, Kenkasho and one called Kintaro which from what I can find is a bastardised version of seienchin). Our club is rural and is mainly kids. My concern is that they'll leave for university, or simply join another club, and their kata won't be recognised in any other club. Though we're a "freestyle" club, our style in kata is Shotokan (though if I'm right in my research, the names of our kata are not. The Pinan's should be heian, as Pinan is Ank's Okinawan karate and Heian is Funkakoshi's Shotokan?). So, which are the commonest kata? Cheers

I've been asking myself that question a lot, recently. When younger, I would have assumed they were a system of self defence, but of late, I have to say, I'm not sure. We all have our chosen styles, and some are more "practical" than others. I practice karate, and I have to say, I suspect ours in low down on the scale of practicality when faced with a beered up idiot who's used to swinging and stomping like a mad man. I know of some karateka who are only really interested in kata, , some who love sparring. Others seem to thrive on the discipline and tradition. So do you do it, any of the above, all of the above and more, something completely different. Personally, I don't fully know why I do it, but I keep on doing it, and love it (well, most of it), but considering it is classed as a martial art, for me now, that seems almost its least practical application. Do you still see your art as practical, or is it something else? Not looking for a flame war, just an overview of what you get out of it. Edit: just neatened it up to make it seem less negative, which on a second reading, it did. It wasn't intended to be.

I think the thing is, as martial artists we tend to exist in a civilised world populated by civilised people who follow set patterns of engagement. Unless you're a bouncer or a policeman we have an internal gate which is pretty much shut until we assume a fighting stance, and even then, when it's open, our rules involve distance and timing and a certain reciprical respect. In the real world street fighters for want of a better world have a set of rules which do not follow any of ours. If the real world were to be carried into the dojo, the fight would start while we were tying on our belts, or up at the urinal taking a leak, or half in, half out of our car ten minutes before the session started. And even if it were face to face in the centre of the dojo, they'd put there face in yours and baffle you with some question you don't expect ("Are you that guy who was in here last Tuesday, the one with the brother with the red hair?", and while you were in that mind gulf where you're trying to figure out what he just said, he lands you with a punch you don't see coming because he's so close and his hands are out of your field of view. To paraphrase a guy called Mick Coup (check him on Youtube), there's never enough time and never enough space. But you're right, we do learn sensitivity, and we are more primed than people who don't train MA to take a punch and react. Martial arts do count for something. They put us in a better position, but I think it's wrong to assume that because we know a lot of complicated technique (Shotokan esp), we are competent at defending ourselves. After all, how many professionals who have to deal with violence or the threat of violence use any of the complicated martial arts techniques we train? Which again, is not to say your point isn't right. It is better to have some training, and it will carry you through up to a point, but to assume a prescribed style alone (Shotokan esp) is any real use is a ride to a hiding.

I think it is and it isn't. If you're in a car park with an assailent who gives you time and space to manoeuvre and compose yourself, and is angry but probably doesn't know much about fighting, then yes, it can be effective. You could probably block and hit to the solar plexus and walk away. But If you're in a crowded bar and someone whose used to street fighting takes exception to you and drops one on you before you even know you're in a fight, then no. Most street fights don't run b y any rules, and unfortunately, karate, and most MAs run by too many. The prime one is that we always start a fight a comfortable distance away with our hands up and our stance correct, and at the nod of an instructor. In the real world, it happens in places which are crowded with people or things, and the guy who decks does it from close distance with a right hook you never see coming. And that spinning back kick you pride yourself on, the one you've spent years mastering, if you even get to use it will most likely break your girlfriend's nose because she moves the wrong way at the time you threw it, or end up in you breaking your own ankle on a post or the side of the bar. Granted, the more you spar, the less likely you'll be to freeze, but we wire our brains only to be combative in our practised situation, and that tends to be a gym with generally nice people. As for Shotokan specifically, I'd say it's one of the least practical styles of martial art. Personally, I'd say boxing is the closest you'd get to a self defence MA, simply because, in theory, you're in peak physical condition and you're expert in a handful of punches and some pretty effective defence. Just my own opinion.

I find karate a bit of a poisoned chalice. I've been at it five years now, and save for boxing which I did when younger, it is my sole martial art. I find it a poisoned chalice because I am never as good as I want to be and it is never as good as I want it to be. I'm 1st Kyu, but due to club difficulties will have to almost certainly change clubs to reach black. Ordinarily, colour of belt doesn't bother me, but I'd like to run a club one day, and I'm pragmatic enough to know that colour of belt is important to potential members. I don't really like Shotokan, find point sparring pointless (pardon the pun), and don't think anything we learn would be overly practical in a street fight (well, that's not really the case, as we learn self defence as a strand which is separated out from karate. Kata is a great frustration to me as I never feel myself particularly effective. What I do karate for, I don't know, somedays, and yet I keep coming back because there is something about it I love. Maybe it's the poise I see in others, the discipline, the knowledge. I love seeing the likes of Rick Hotton on Youtube, who seems effortless in his technique, and genuinely humble about his ability. Maybe it's the striving to be a tenth, a hundredth of him which keeps me in there. But anyway, all I know is that hopefully my journey hasn't ended. but if I had to start again, would I start again with karate? I don't know. I sparred once with a black belt in wing chun, and man, was he effective. I had to revert to boxing to score off him. Sometimes I think I'd just go back to boxing. Who knows.

In reality, a lot of attackers aren't physically fit. They smoke, drink, eat all the wrong things, do little exercise. The have one punch, usually a highly telegraphed right hook. They win though because they are used to fighting real fights, get the drop on you, and get it over with in a very, very short amount of time, usually before you even realise you're in a fight.

Play the long game - Go slow, trust your defence, Weather the storm. them gas out, clean up when they're gassed out. I'm 54, and at my age, it's the only way to play it, esp against younger guys.

From all my ponderings, viewing and my trials and errors, I can only agree with you. As I understand it, one thing that happened when the Japanese took karate from the Okinawans, is that they turned it from a system of self defence against "ruffians in the street" into a system of defence which reflected the mindset of Japan in the 1930s, that is, formulated, uniform, somewhat philosophical and militaristic. A good analogy I think of zen stance and movement in zen stance is of marching in an army. You have the ordinary march, very good for keeping a unit together and getting from a to b, and the stylised march, the goosestep, which is not at all practical, but very effective as a metaphor for military strength. That may seem a leap, but compared to Okinawan karate, Shotokan karate is rigid, unyielding, and from what I can see, not really very practical. A lot like military drills compared to hand to hand combat. That Shotokan became the norm in the mid 20th Century is, from what I understand, simply good marketing as opposed to sound practice for self defence. Of course, what that means practically is that for grading purposes in most clubs I may or may not join, I have to conform to a stance that is robbed of any real efficiency, awkward, difficult to move in and arguable destructive to my body. I've heard that it is good for building leg strength, but what point good leg strength if my hips are worn out (Man, I feel it in my hips). The only justification I ever heard for zen stance (and I suspect it's somewhat spurious), is that Japanese streets were narrow, and a strong, low, solid stance which said, "I am not moving, you will have to come through me, might, just might put an attacker of little skill off any initial attack. Anyway, I ramble at length when I should be getting on with work. I don't suppose you have a link to the article, I'd be interested in reading it. Same with the video, if it's for public viewing.

Yet more youtubing. Here's something I found interesting: Now, in relation to Zen stance: taking the above into account and Rick Hotton in another video who suggests not locking the back knee so as to give the hip room to move forward with a punch, it seems to me that in a fully extended zen stance (as we practice), the hip can only move down and forward 45 deg when throwing a reverse punch (try it). That in itself is not a bad thing, as from my boxing days I know that you should drop into punches rather than rise. But, with the back leg locked in zen, when pushing the rear hip forward, the forward hip tends to rotate backwards (as in above video), thus robbing the move of its potential power. I know that the stances in Shotokan karate are stylised "snapshots" of various parts of a technique, so should not probably make such a thing of it, and personally I'd be happy to ditch the practice of form over function which modern "traditional" Shotokan karate seems to have ossified into and revert to a more fluid, intuitive, practical style as demonstrated here: But as said, in my club unfortunately, and near all the karate clubs of which I've had personal experience, things are done for the look of it rather than the effectiveness of it. As it stands, I can do a fine, static zen, and move in a way which follows the rules, but doesn't look or feel particularly graceful, but man it's hard work, and mainly in a "why am I even bothering with this," sense.

The trouble is (which seems how I start a sentence too often these days), in our club, locking that back knee is seen as correct form and anything less is judged down. I'd be more than happy to go with Rick Hotton's way of doing things. I really like his way of feeling it, and get a lot out of his interpretation of karate. One thing I found really helped was his thing of contraction and explosion, so the thing is not just about moving forwards and backwards, limbs in and out, up and down, bit rather smaller and bigger, coming together then moving apart. I het a sense of how dynamic the movement should be. And honestly, it's improved so much in the whole of my karate, but man, that Zen stance, that's the one nut I just can't seem to crack. One other thing though, after endless YouTubing, is that I think I actually move too quickly. I've always been told that men's kata should be aggressive, and with that I've put a lot of umph into it, but I see some classic videos of Japanese karateka, and I notice it's only really the blocks and punches which have the aggression, the movement is actually relatively slow. That might help as I find the stance seems to suffer when the movement itself is too aggressive. The next time I'm in the dojo and can see in the mirrors, I'm going to try and slow the movements and see if that improves things. Once again, many thanks l, chaps.

Thanks for that. I've seen as many of the Rick Horton videos on YouTube as I can find. I really like his way of seeing thing and doing things. I understand the idea of stances being transitions, or, as I understand it, the stance is not something to be executed as a set form, but rather is like a snapshot of a particular point in a technique (if that makes sense), and maybe that's the problem, especially with zen stance, which seems the most distorted and contorted of them all, when held and moved in rather than being moved through, especially when blocks and punches are included. Interestingly, I saw a video with Rick Horton where he was advocating not locking the back knee, or rather, only locking it when punching, the lock having the ability to move the hips and the punch forward that last few inches.

I've never been a fan of Zen stance, mainly because to get it right seems to require such physical contortions. But I can get there when static. When moving, however, especially in kata, I find it almost impossible to make it look any good. I know all the finer points, how it should be done, trouble is, it just doesn't seem to work. If I go for any type of speed, my form goes out of the window, the main problem being, my rear leg shortens, my hips tilt forward and my back knee softens. Anyone got any tips on how to get it to look good. Also, one other quick one. should I be snapping my hips when in zen and doing blocks, punches etc. In a shorter stance, I can get a good snap which make any offence/defence fast and effective, but zen seems to rob me of the snap. I do have impinged hips, which probably doesn't help, but ironically, they are impinged to the sides, not forwards and backwards. Cheers in advance.

As I've said, I'm happy with that principle. It's just that in my club, we've been assured otherwise.

Yes, I completely agree. I wouldn't expect to take my belt with me to a different discipline. In fact, starting at white is almost an exciting thing. It's like a blank canvas. As for differing styles within the same discipline, again, I'd expect to start again. There would be some crossover, but not enough to make a one fits all grade.

I understand there is no set criteria, it's just that I'm interested in people's opinion on what they consider makes (Or perhaps should make) a black belt. It's like if you are someone you don't know, and are told they are a black belt, what do you assume. Before I ever trained in MA, I would always assume the person could fight to a certain standard in a certain school of self defense. Now I know that is not the case. I've seen black belts in my karate club who could not throw a punch correctly but can perform beautiful kata. In the real world, that would not equate to effective self defence, just the ability to remember a sequence of moves with (hopefully) excellent form. To an extent, I still hold that view, being that karate' s key definition is martial.

I know a black belt is just a term, but for good or bad, it's seen as the point at which a practitioner has, for want of a better term, made it in their chosen martial art. So, without getting into the rights and wrongs of that, what's your criteria for reaching black? If it had to be one thing, what would it be - faultless kata, the ability to defend yourself, knowledge of the syllabus, history of your art, sheer determination and commitment? I know it's tempting to say all these things, but if told that stranger A is a black belt in, say, karate, for me my gut reaction would be he/she must be a good fighter then, not oh, they must be really good at kata. But I know someone who thinks it should reflect sheer dedication, not ability. Just interested.

As a fitness regime it's hard to beat. Throw in some actual technique and its like boxing 'cept without the yikes, what happened to you.

Currently 1st kyu in karate, boxed when younger, on/off teacher by profession (but never PE), always training to keep on top of my game - been asked to run a boxfit class at a studio near me. Daytime class, aimed at women mostly, but maybe older kids in tow (summer holidays). Am aiming them a bit higher than average boxfit class, that is, correct form and conditioning, not just lots of cardio and flailing at pads. Thing is, I'm looking for calithenic exercises which are engaging and varied. I plan on form/punching/movement sections interspersed with bodyweight exercises or medicine ball/light handweight exercises which are not just your usual sit up/press ups/burpees. Also ones which can be tweaked for those with greater and lesser strength and ability. Just wondering if anyone has any which are going to mix it up and make it less likely to get stale. Thanks in advance.

Not stretching specific, but kind of fits in with what you say about your military friends. Watch out though, it's somewhat profanity heavy,