JR 137

First off Kenpo/Kempo is a generic term like Karate. It mean fist law. It is not a new term nor was it invented in Hawaii although some styles with this name were. Whether Villari (And I'll hold my personal opinion) is legit or not isn't the issue. Whether SKK is considered legit by some is not the issue. The issue is do you feel it's effective? If they are teaching you sound and effective techniques that you can translate to real life then who care's where it came from, who invented it or whether it's Shaolin, Kempo or Karate? If it works for you then continue to train. If it doesn't then find an art that does. I have no idea what this art is or if it's effective. I do recall seeing this man when I was younger in one of the martial arts magazines (I think black belt). Having said that he is not the first to combine more than one art into a singular art. Do I believe it's legit? I have no idea. What I would be researching is a few things if I were concerned with the legitimacy of the art I was studying. 1. What grade did Mr. Villari hold in each of these arts and how long did he study them? 2. You said that Kata and requirements continue to change... I would look into whether there is a curriculum for the art. Maybe your teacher is the issue and not the art. Wouldn't be the first time someone studied for a time and decided to open their own school and started teaching without knowing the art past a certain grade (usually a low one). 3. Is it effective? Do you trust or have you used what is taught to defend yourself in a real fight (not in the Dojo). Did it work or did you get the you know what beat out of you? If what they teach is not effective then you probably need to move on unless of course your not taking the art to learn how to defend yourself. Maybe you enjoy the camaraderie and exercise. 4. Do you trust your teacher and what he teaches? Based on your post I would say you are questioning both. And on a side note: no, Kata usually do not change with the wind nor are they done or taught differently to each new class of students. They are the one true constant. If you have learned a Kata and they are now teaching it totally differently from what you learned I think I would be questioning the teacher. But that's me. Just my 2 cents. I don’t know what ranks Villari holds in any of the individual arts he studied, but he holds a 15th dan in his own art. https://www.villariwestboro.com/dan-ranking-system.html

This puts things in perspective a lot, thanks very much. My art right now is as effective and realistic as my karate was when I was doing karate. Truth be told I have some issues on how effective I think traditional martial arts are in general (e.g. who punches in zenkutsku dachi? Who chambers their other fist while punching? Isn't punching in and waiting to get counter attacked a terrible reflex to have when it comes to fighting?) , but I have a huge appreciation for their personal development and health benefits, with an added bonus of self defense/fighting on the side How effective the stances, chambered fist, and anything else like that are really depends on how it’s taught, or better yet, if it’s explained properly. This can be a really long conversation with a lot of people expressing differing opinions, so I’ll be pretty brief... Stance is your foundation. The stronger it is, the stronger your techniques are. But IMO people focus way too much on the end of the stance, or better yet the pose. During kata, a teacher counts and the students complete the step. What’s focused on and gets corrected? The end pose; stuff like “deeper stance” “the block ends here” and so on. IMO where it ends up is irrelevant; it’s how you got there. Take a 180 degree turn from and into zenkutsu dachi while performing a low block. If you’re familiar with Pinan 1 or Taikyoku 1, you know exactly what I mean here. If you interpret the low block as a joint lock, and the strong step backwards and twist/pivot into zenkutsu dachi as spinning/throwing/unbalancing your attacker, it all makes sense to use that stance. If you’re interpreting that move in that kata as turning around and blocking a kick from a guy behind you, that move is just dumb. If you look at kiba dachi/horse stance, it’s all about dropping your weight, especially when you’ve got someone all joint locked up. What I’m getting at is the emphasis of stances should be while they’re in motion and not at the end pose. If the teacher is focusing on the end pose, the stances are not worth much more than aesthetics.

Kenpo/Kempo is as generic a term as kung fu, jujuitsu, karate, etc. If I’m not mistaken, Kenpo translates as “law of the fist” or “fist law.” Thinking about the definition of the term, and it can easily be interchanged with karate, which means empty hand, or kung fu, which means time spent at skillful work/hard training. Regardless of the semantics, which names of organizations and styles usually really boil down to, focus on it the training itself is genuinely effective for your needs and expectations. If it’s what you’re looking for, are the changes every now and then significant enough to detract from its effectiveness? Have the changes brought what’s being taught from something you believed in to something that’s fundamentally different? As sensei8 says, the proof is on the floor. If what’s going on on the floor fits your needs and expectations, stay. If what’s going on on the floor has come to the point where it doesn’t align with what you’re after, then you’ve got some decisions to make. People argue the terms traditional and real all the time. You can make the argument that training exactly as Funakoshi taught Shotokan, Miyagi taught Goju Ryu, etc. isn’t traditional (argument goes it’s not old enough, among other things). Others consider newer founders’ training, such as Mas Oyama’s Kyokushin traditional. What’s traditional and/or “real” is irrelevant if it works and/or fits what you’re after. Every kata was made up by someone at one point or another. If you’re Chojun Miyagi’s student and you see him teach Sanchin differently to different classmates, do you question how real his training is? According to his senior most students, Miyagi tailored kata to the individual rather than teaching it as a set in stone standardized way of doing it, hence we see variations in that kata and others within various Goju Ryu organizations and styles that trace their lineage through Miyagi’s Goju Ryu, like Kyokushin. I’m not saying your teach is on Chojun Miyagi’s level. I’m just saying that things can be changed effectively. What’s truly important is if those changes are acceptable to you.

Who’s to say someone can’t do both, kata as “a weird pantomime” AND “practiced correctly with intent?” Would it be heresey to do a push-up between each count during one phase of class, and do kata as however one defines training it correctly during another phase of class? Doing it in non-traditional/other ways alongside alongside doing it any other way isn’t desecrating it by any means. They weren’t handed down by God or any other deity with explicit instructions to only use them for one single purpose.

Awesome news, tubby!

Kata is the true art in karate IMO. Looking at other types of art such as paintings and music, a great piece of art will have many interpretations; it’s not shallow and overly simplistic. Kata is the same way. You could take 10 highly accomplished karateka and ask their opinions on what the kata means and how it should be performed, and you’ll get no less than 10 different answers. More like 50 different answers Kata isn’t some sacred thing that can only be used in one way, and doing anything else with it will desecrate it. It can be used as a warmup, cardio session, a choreographed dance of sorts, an agility exercise, a tool to teach the basics, a catalog of self defense techniques, and so on. Doing kata in any one of those ways doesn’t disqualify you from doing it in other ways too. I’ve heard people say “we don’t do kata for competition points; we do it for it’s true purpose of self defense.” That’s great and all, but why couldn’t you do both? Is their some sort of rule saying you can’t make it look pretty for one purpose AND use it for self defense? I’m not talking about changing the movements, I’m talking about sharpening up the movements. I don’t see how any purpose of doing a kata invalidates any other reason for doing it. Using it as a warmup is a great idea. We’ve done this many times in a roundabout way - doing our routine stretching at the start of class, then going right into kata before we really get going. That’s not the extent of our kata training focus, but it’s one way we use it. Personally, I think it would be better if that order was reversed - do a few kata, then stretch. Or do one, stretch, do another, stretch some more, etc.

The many other reasons aside, why does that matter? Someone doesn’t have to be great at it to teach it effectively. Mike Tyson could’ve absolutely destroyed Cus D’Amato and Kevin Rooney. But those guys could watch Tyson, evaluate his strengths and weaknesses, and get him to perform far better. Not to mention coming up with an effective strategy for each opponent. Same can be said for any coach of any sport. The coach doesn’t have to be a great player; he/she has to be a great coach. My former teacher was one of the best martial artist I’ve ever been around. He was fast, strong, smart, and his technique was as flawless as anyone I’ve been around. But what good would that do if he couldn’t teach me? It wouldn’t do much more than entertain me. He was a very good teacher too, but that’s besides the point. My current teacher has some physical impairments. He needs yet another hip replacement, but is putting it off for as long as he can. Needless to say he can’t kick very well and he’s not very mobile. I’ve only sparred with him once, and there was no question in my mind why he’s a 7th dan. He was very crafty. My former sensei was significantly better physically than my current teacher. But my current teacher is a far better teacher - he’s seen my flaws and given me far better feedback and corrections. He’s made me a far better karateka. My former teacher was no slouch by any means. The teacher has to be a good teacher. Their own physical skills are irrelevant so long as they can get you to perform your best.

I’ve watched it several times, and (quick duck and cover!) I just don’t get the pedestal it’s been put on. There’s no denying Bruce Lee’s skill, but beyond watching Lee’s display of skill, it doesn’t do anything for me. More heresy... I’m not an MA movie fan. The story lines are typically bad, the acting worse, and I quite often find the fighting too unrealistic. With all of that being said, I don’t see any problem with remaking this movie nor ANY movie. If the do it and it’s awful, the original is still there and unaffected. If it’s mediocre, again, the original is still around. And if it’s great, is we’ve got another great movie on our hands. The only potential losers in it are the people who made the movie. If they’re serious about redoing it, I say don’t bother trying to find the next Bruce Lee. If the star is someone who hears no resemblance physically, ethnically, etc., then the movie can stand on its own. If they’re trying to find a stand-in, he and the movie are pretty much guaranteed to fall on their faces. There are movies that the star is so ingrained in that role that no one could ever replace him - Schwarzenegger as The Terminator, Stallone as Rocky or Rambo, Pacino as Tony Montana, DeNiro as Jimmy Conway, etc. They can do all the sequels they want, but if someone else came in, forget about it. Anyone else remember the remake of The Shining? Yeah, no one could ever play Jack Torrance like Nicholson. Remember the Psycho remake? They failed because because they were attempted copies of truly iconic movies and roles. Instead of a remake, they should do more of a movie inspired by Enter The Dragon or a kind of modern sequel, continuation, whatever. Just my opinions.

Congratulations

I just unintentionally came across this article on “Osu” from one of World Oyama Karate’s dojos (I believe Shigeru Oyama owned it) and immediately thought back to this thread. It sums up Osu quite well. http://www.oyamakarate-wp.com/osu.html

My only Japanese is dojo Japanese, so take it as you will... Regarding jodan uke vs age uke, my understanding is jodan is head or high (in the sense of head), whereas age is rising. We use jodan uke, jodan tsuki, etc. We have age tsuki in our syllabus, which is translated as rising punch. If you know the Pinan/Heian series of kata, it’s in Pinan 5; at the top of the embusen after the kake dachi and uraken strike. Being Goju Ryu, you probably don’t know Pinan 5, so here’s a video The 13th count. He did a slow kind of raising of the arm; I learned it as a fast punch held out. Long story short, IMO jodan uke AND age uke are correct. It all depends on if you want to call it high block or rising block. I think it’s basically the same for other stuff. I’ve heard the circular block at the end of Sanchin kata called shuto mawashi uke (knife hand circular block), einke mawashi uke (wrist circular block), and shuto einke uke. Which is right? Better question is which is actually wrong. Then again, if you subscribe to the belief that the blocks aren’t really blocks at all, then calling any of them uke is technically wrong But that’s another thread. Everything’s gotta be called something.

I think mastered is too strong a term; I prefer proficient in the basics. When you’re proficient, you have a solid understanding of them, and you can apply them in textbook scenarios and against a good bit of resistance. You’re not a killing machine, but you can hold your own under reasonable circumstances. Mastered the basics takes that a step further - you’ve got a far better understanding of the basics, and you can apply them in unconventional ways. You’re not just doing what you’re taught; you own them. You can use them under more than reasonable circumstances - people a significant bit stronger, faster, etc. than you. I look at mastered the basics as highly skilled in them vs proficient being quite functional. Perhaps hard to describe, so I’ll say a sandan/3rd dan has mastered the basics, whereas a shodan/1st dan is proficient in them. Then there’s perfected the basics vs mastered them. If I were to ask very high ranking yudansha/black belts, say 7-10th dan, if they’ve perfected the basics, I’m sure they’d smile and genuinely say no they haven’t. Perhaps we’re on the same page and this is all semantics.

Even not taking different organizations and styles into account, “black belt” is a pretty big range or ranks and expectations. Are we talking 1st dan? 5th dan? 10th dan? If we’re talking about 1st dan, which is pretty much entry-level black belt, IMO a 1st dan is someone who’s proficient in the basics of the art. Notice I said proficient in the basics and not “mastered the basics” like I’ve heard people elsewhere say often. Proficient in the basics to me means they’ve got a solid understanding of the principles of them and can apply and demonstrate them sufficiently. They haven’t mastered them, and they certainly haven’t perfected them. They can use them to a pretty good standard against resistance from competent partners/opponents. They’re not a killing machine by any means, but they can hold their own and won’t be outclassed and outmatched by the majority of people ranked below them. A 1st dan should also be able to teach the kyu curriculum to kyu students. That doesn’t mean run a class; rather, it means they should be able to individually help anyone (barring special needs, modifications, etc.) who has questions about kyu material. For instance they should be able to pick out mistakes, and answer “what am I supposed to do in this kata?” It won’t be perfect and they might make some mistakes in teaching it, but they’ll be subtle mistakes and/or not teaching the most efficient way. I guess a better way of saying it would be they’d be a competent one-on-one teacher/tutor type than running a full class. Just my opinion, coming from a karate background. Most arts are pretty similar. Judo and BJJ are notably different from my understanding. I’m pretty sure a BJJ black belt has learned pretty much the entire syllabus and has demonstrated they’ve got a high level of proficiency in it against their peers. I think Judo is somewhere in between, but there’s definitely the proficiency against the peers in competition or competition-like scenarios.

The fight or flight response mimics warmup. Once adrenaline starts flowing, the heart races, arteries and capillaries open up, the airway opens up and breathing increases. With the fight or flight response, you don’t need a warmup. Whoever created us and is responsible for that programming was pretty smart Clothing is another matter though.

Happy Birthday, Danielle. I hope your day is full of all the good stuff you like to do!

The more I think about this topic, the more I can’t help but share the following... I was in a bare knuckle karate style during my first stint in karate; between 19-25 years old. I loved it. After a 14 or so year hiatus, I was looking to get back into karate. One of the schools on my radar was a Kyokushin dojo. Being almost 39, I had to ask myself if that was really what I wanted and how long I’d be able to keep up the bare knuckle/knockdown training that’s Kyokushin’s hallmark. I could do that for a while, but honestly, how long? I don’t recover like I used to in my 20s. I took a deep look inside and said 5 or 6 years. I chose to not do it for 2 main reasons. 1. I’ve been there and done that before. IMO nothing teaches you what really works and what doesn’t quite like bare knuckle. There’s no false sense of confidence and not much is left to the imagination. It teaches you to keep going despite the pain. I’ve had that lesson enough times throughout wrestling and karate. I don’t need to be reminded day in and day out. 2. Karate is supposed to be a lifelong study. Constantly nursing nagging injuries that’ll only take longer and longer to recover from isn’t the point. I know quite a few people who trained like that for too long and can’t train anything anymore. Way too many guys needing knee replacements, hip replacements, etc. at ages that are practically unheard of. There are some people who train like that for a very long time without needing to leave. From what I’ve seen, the exceptions and not the norm. My dojo has a lot of people who came from Kyokushin and similar offshoots when they were younger, including my CI. When we feel like going hard, we go hard. When we feel like we need to back off, we do so. It all depends on who were sparring with and how we’re feeling that day.

Congratulations! Grandson or granddaughter?

This right here. It’s usually not a matter of finding a new art. It’s about changing the focus of the techniques and the training. At 42, I certainly can’t kick like I used to, and I wasn’t the best kicker in my 20s anyway. As MatsuShinshii says, it’s about changing the strategy. Speed and strength can make up for some flaws, but when that speed and strength declines, those flaws aren’t as easily covered up. Then you’ve got to really focus on intelligence and technique. Most people I spar with are physically slower and weaker than me. But on the floor they’re faster and hit harder. How? They know exactly when, where, and how to hit me. They let the fight come to them. They don’t expend all this energy trying to make something happen; rather, they see what’s coming and very quickly react. They know their physical limitations and stay within them. They make you fight their fight rather than trying to fight your fight. An instructor should know how to teach people at different stages of their life, physical abilities, etc. If everyone is expected to have the same strategy and physical attributes, and the teacher can’t differentiate instruction to tailor it to the individual, then the teacher isn’t a very good teacher. It’s easy to teach one way and only see how it should be done from your perspective. What makes a teacher good is seeing practically anyone and being able to tailor the skills to them while maintaining the art’s essence.

As to the original post... Bruce Lee said keep what you need and discard the rest, and he was absolutely correct. But there’s a hitch - you need a ton of experience before you truly know what to keep and what to discard. A few years of training isn’t nearly enough to fully understand what genuinely works and what doesn’t. There’s no substitute for experience. This reminds me of my grade 4-8 science students. They all want to “think outside the box.” The problem is they haven’t really learned to think inside the box. Without a solid understanding of what they’re learning, they can’t move on to critical thinking and application. They’re not going to understand why a rollercoaster goes all the way around the track without a motor if they don’t understand what momentum means and exactly how momentum works. Momentum = mass x velocity. If they don’t understand mass and/or velocity, they won’t get it. If they discard any part of it because it’s insignificant, doesn’t work, etc., what are they really going to know? Going to the black belt criteria thread, a shodan is a person who’s proficient in the basics. He/she can demonstrate them and apply them in a functional manner. Once this has been achieved, they can start looking at what works and what doesn’t, and making the art their own. They can start that critical thinking and analysis, and start “thinking outside the box.” Not at a genuinely high level, but enough to say so. I’ve heard shodans are the white belts of black belts quite a few times, and having been there in the past, I agree. Without a truly solid understanding of the basics, you can’t possibly understand what works and what doesn’t. It takes time. It takes experience. There’s a great saying in photography that definitely holds true in MA - learn the rules of photography. Master them. After you’ve got them mastered, learn how and when to break them. Picasso wouldn’t have been able to revolutionize art if he didn’t truly understand the basics. Einstein wouldn’t have revolutionized science and math if he didn’t understand the basics. Bruce Lee wouldn’t know what to keep and what to discard if he didn’t understand the basics.

Solid post!! May I ask you a question, instructor to instructor... Have you ever had a student(s) ever express their distain over the length of your syllabi?? If so, how did you explain it, its length?? I’ll answer as a former student - bachelor’s degree and 2 master’s degrees... EVERY syllabus I’ve ever looked at was very overwhelming. Every single one I got, I thought “how am I possibly going to get all of this work done?” Every syllabus, every time. You’d think I’d have gotten used to it with all the college courses I’ve taken. Nope. Never. But I always got it done. And it was never half as bad as I thought it would be. Except two classes. They were actually worse than I thought they’d be. Nutrition and Essentials of Literature. So much busy work for seemingly no purpose other than getting a lot of grades into a book in an attempt to justify their new job to whoever reviews this stuff. Rookies.

Pinan sandan? Funny enough, every time I hear people discussing kata they don’t like, I see Pinan sandan mentioned more than any others. I never realized it until I kept seeing it, but it’s my least favorite too. I’ll amend that, it’s my second least favorite. My least favorite is easily Gekisai Sho. I don’t have any dislike for Pinan sandan, it’s just that I don’t like it as much as the rest. Gekisai Sho is a different ball of wax though. It’s a shodan (sometimes nidan) kata in Kyokushin. It never felt like a black belt kata to me. And the fact that everyone in Kyokushin and the offshoots that do Gekisai Sho think it’s Miyagi’s kata. Nothing can be further from the truth, no matter who says so (unless it was one of Miyagi’s students saying so). It’s Mas Oyama’s kata.

I don’t have anything to cite nor saying this as fact, but I believe there would have to be SOME local ti, toudi, etc. indigenous Okinawan art influence on Goju Ryu and/or Uechi Ryu.

One of my former sensei’s colleagues* is in the Masaji video. *Would you call a karateka you work out with and exchange information with regularly a colleague?

Just a point or order, so to speak... Funakoshi did not study Goju Ryu. Goju Ryu and Shotokan as we know them were being at pretty much the same time. Chōjun Miyagi and Gichen Funakoshi were contemporaries and didn’t have any teachers in common that I’m aware of. Funakoshi developed Shotokan from Shorei Ryu and Shorin Ryu. Miyagi developed Goju Ryu from Naha-Te and furthered it from what he learned in China. I'm definitely not an expert on Shotokan but I seem to remember that I read his teachers were Itosu and Azato. Both were students of Matsumura and thus would fall into the Shorin Ryu classification. PS - Shorei Ryu is the classification that Goju Ryu is in along with other Nafaadi (Naha-Te) arts. I have no idea if Funakoshi studied Goju-Ryu but if I had to guess at a class of Ti (Te) outside of Suidi (Shuri-Te) I would guess Tumaadi (Tomari-Te) over Nafaadi (Naha-Te). I just don't see the connection to Nafaadi. One of the many reasons why I like this place so much. I didn’t know Shorei Ryu had anything to do with Goju Ryu. I learn new stuff every time I come here. Now to do some Google-Fu on Shorei Ryu, as I now realize I know practically nothing about it.

Curiosity question, if I may... If a student in your organization transferred to your school, let’s say he moved and his previous dojo is too far away, would you make him start at white belt again? If you knew his previous sensei and trusted his judgement? What if your shinshii granted that rank, ie a nidan grantee by your shinshii transferred to your school? If you’re all under the same organization, have the same curriculum, and know and communicate with each other, I don’t see how their rank shouldn’t transfer to another dojo within the organization. I’ll hopefully be testing for shodan next year under Tadashi Nakamura. If I passed then relocated to Hollywood and joined their dojo, I don’t know how I’d feel if they had me wear a white belt while they evaluated me. Granted, I’d have nothing to hide and my abilities would speak for themselves, but I’d also feel like if I was promoted by the Kaicho, then that shouldn’t be subject to their approval. I completely understand and agree with a confirmation phone call, email, etc., it if the head guy promoted me to that rank, who are they to question it (after official confirmation of course)? If I ran a dojo and someone from within the organization transferred to my school, I’d confirm with their teacher and honor the rank. If they weren’t up to standards, I’d address it then. Maybe I’m misinterpreting something?