MatsuShinshii

So forms are practical then. You have found a good practical use for them. Here's a thing about martial arts and their practicality. Very often, some folks have an extremely narrow criteria for deciding if something is practical. Often it is as specific as, has it been proven to work in the ring with whatever competition rules apply. But 'practical' extends far beyond that. Is it practical against multiple drunken idiots that can't actually fight their way out of a wet paper bag, but are aggressive enough and number enough to pose a threat. Or is it practical against someone that doesn't really want a fight and doesn't deserve to get hurt, but has 'flipped out' and just needs to be safely restrained until they calm down. Or outside of fighting altogether, is it practical for keeping you fit and supple and mentally focused. There are many different definitions of 'practical'. First to the bold - Forms, Kata, Hsing, etc. are practical in the sense that the postures that make up the Kata are a representation of the applications. These applications were created through lessons learned in actual combat/battle. The applications are practical in terms of actual self defence and thus the Kata (forms) are practical if taught with the applications as the intended focus. As to the rest of your post I would say you have good points in terms of other area's of practicality. I tend to assess practical in terms of effectiveness in a real situation rather than in terms of competition. However after some thought your spot on. Practical extends to a specific goal. If it's effective in keeping you in shape and that is your goal then it is absolutely practical. Solid Post.

Happy B-day Wastelander!

Being able to push past your breaking point is in the mind 100%. In the Marine Corps I found out that what I thought was the breaking point wasn't even close. Your mind will stop long before your body will. It is very much mental.

The difference between stances in class and "stances" in a real fight is that in class the stances are intentional, whereas in a real fight they are reactionary to some degree. To clarify - you never find yourself 100% of the time in a traditional stance. What happens if your twisted, which happens a lot while grappling or in a clinch. What happens if your opponent steps to an odd angle and you have to match him, are you instantly in a traditional stance? We utilize natural stances but do not get hung up on always being in a perfect stance because in real life you rarely are. You should practice striking while in movement (not always in a text book perfect stance because odds are you won't be). Real fights are violent and often there is more pressure and close fighting than in training. As such deep text book stances go out the window first because they are not practical for the application. To get hung up on this stance or that is faulty in terms of a real fight because you rarely have the time to get into a perfect stance as the stance (foot placement) is dictated by the action and circumstance.

I try to get my guys to undermine my techniques all the time. I encourage them to doubt and question everything and anything I do. I only ask that they be vocal and voice their opinion to ME rather than someone else when I’m not there. Frankly, I love having people like you in my class. I find they stick with me the most and obviously really understand the method to my madness. If you like getting answers to the questions you ask, you’d love being in my class. That said, my personal opinion is that one should always be skeptical. I’m teaching you a science, not a religious dogma. I’ve found those that get most upset when people have questions are the ones that don’t have the answers.... Too true. As Sensei8 points out... Solid Post!

Do you think my static stiffness affects my performance? i have no pain in my limbs and can kick fluently as long as it's fast. Take it from an old guy. You may be able to force the height now without damage but as you age you will find that damage is looking for you. Forcing your leg to stretch passed it's normal limits will eventually catch up with you. Developing actual flexibility so you can legitimately perform these kicks will save you a lot of discomfort later in life. Take the time and stretch everyday and you will eventually get to the point where you can do these without relying on momentum. Your body will thank you for it later in life. Just my 2 cents.

We do exactly that. Once you reach the grade of Sandan and have been granted the right to teach you are encouraged to delve deeper into the art. Not to say we are not encouraged before this point but we expect the student to form their own opinions based on individual research, whether it enforces our views or not. We believe it makes for a better, more knowledgeable teacher. To give an example - While I was still a Yondan I was seeking out instructors from the arts that we had been told influenced our art. I happened to strike up a friendship with one instructor that taught Five Ancestor. We exchanged videos of our Kata/Hsing and of their applications as he was several thousand miles away. What I learned is that what we thought was a founders application was altered at some point in our lineage and that the application that he taught was actually 100 times more effective. Essentially we were performing the same posture but in a different/less effective way. Essentially it had been altered at one point for one or another reason. I have, through my own research debunked and proved many idea's that we have about our art throughout the years. Our instructors and students have done the same. Not based on what was passed down as history but in actually studying other arts that were to have influenced ours. And nothing mind shattering like "it's all been a lie" but small details that lead you to what we feel is the truth. Another example - One of our Kodansha studied in Taiwan for two years and came back to teach us Jioa Di(Li) and Qin Na techniques. The techniques he showed us mirrored what we taught and thought was Muto. Again not all techniques but enough to make us take pause and re-look at what we believe. So I agree with your statement and think everyone studying the arts should take it upon themselves to prove or disprove what they have been told and delve deeper into the art to gain a deeper understanding. Actually I feel that this is healthy for both the practitioner and the art. As we all know instructors take a certain amount of control over what they teach and what they feel is right. In doing so things change and techniques and applications are altered. Sometimes the changes make it more effective and sometimes they are not. Either way it's up to the individual to prove or disprove rather than to take everything as the truth. I doubt if any art is "pure", as in no one changed anything in the lineage line that the founder passed down. There is always something to learn that you did not know. The best way of doing so is to discover it for yourself.

The first description.

I appreciate your words of wisdom but I think the context is slightly off topic. As far as learning from students goes I am in agreement as I have learned much. In terms of my earlier comments I was specifically speaking of other instructors.

I appreciate your point of view and quest for knowledge whether in agreement or contrary to your beliefs. I will give examples of why I feel that this art or one like it influenced Ti (Di). As far as examples go... In our art we still teach the old techniques which my Shinshii refers to as Tii (Ti'gwa). The way we employ our fists, forearms, elbows, shoulders, head, knee's, shins and feet are in contrast to modern day Karate. This is not to say that the CMA's arts did not influence Ti and as a result, utilized to improve the original techniques. However after studying the arts that were to have influenced our art via Yara, Takahara and Matsumura (at least in my lineage line) I see very few examples that I can point to directly as direct examples. Side Bar - when I speak of Tii, I am merely speaking of the striking element and grappling element. I am not speaking of what some would call the Tuidi element of the art. We implement our forearms as a protective barrier and form our fists with the thumb on the side vs under the fingers. I am told this came from a different country and was not a product of Chinese or Japanese MA's. In looking at old books (drawn pictures) of different arts I have only been able to find an example of this formation of the fist in old Muay Boran texts. Again the "pictures" are drawings so they are subject to debate. However it also shows the arms presented as a protective shield not unlike what we are taught. We do not utilize high kicks as modern Karate does. I know that Muay Thai utilizes some high kicks, but I also know that after reading or observing a few texts that Muay Boran targeted the legs and joints specifically as we do. The execution of the kicks are the same in many instances, although not all. Do I have concrete proof that Muay Boran influenced Tii? No sir I do not. It is my understanding that Annan (to name one person that has been captured as historically documented, was thought to be from Vietnam. In reading historical accounts countries like Vietnam, Laos, Burma and others were heavily influenced by the Saim empire (Thailand). It stands to reason, although later in time, that this person and others may have taught their skills to the Okinawan's and most certainly did as the influence was strong enough to create a Kata to store the techniques that were taught. It is the small things like movements that don't fit into the obvious places but examples are found in looking at older examples of the art. As stated before in my previous posts I also look to the fact that our weapons are examples of those that come from Siam and Indo-China. Knowing that pre-Japanization of the Ryukyu Islands, weapons and empty hand arts were practiced as one rather than being individual arts, it stands to reason that if they were influenced by their weapons (feel free to look up examples of early Saim/Indo-china weapons - start with Mai Sun Sawk as one example off the top of my head, but there are obvious others) they would also pick up their empty hand arts as well. Can I or anyone definitively state that Muay Boran was the art that influenced Tii? No, I don't think that is possible without documented proof in the form of a book or scroll or some other form of proof from that time frame. Unfortunately no such proof exists as far as I know. Yes Kerr, McCarthy and others have suggested this because of examples found that point to this influence but unfortunately there is little hard proof. It boils down to your own experiences and things that you notice that you can not connect to the obvious places. Its the examples that you use to form opinions which obviously this is. For all I or anyone else knows the influence could have come from India, or one of the other countries in indo-china or it could be indigenous to Okinawa itself. I like your example of DNA markers. Like you I look at what I feel are obvious signs from one culture or another and make an assessment based on the evidence. Am I right? Who knows? It's my opinion. I'll give more examples next week as I am rushed for time, but I think I gave enough for a little food for thought for now. Happy researching.

I agree with your point. Train the way you fight and fight the way you train.

If your speaking in terms of natural stances - then yes they work in a real fight. You can transition quickly while maintaining your balance. In terms of more modern (deep and wide) stances - I would say no. Transitions are effected and are slower and although you have possibly a better base the opponent has the advantage as you are deeper and the base can be broken as you tend to be planted.

Great points. And I must thank you for not stating the obvious that I am a bad student. I didn't used to be but as I age I know I am. To thine own self be true right? To be clear I do question what is taught but to myself. I don't question while the instructor is teaching. I have a rule that all questions are kept until after class. I reserve 15 minutes to answer all questions and explain in depth if required. Suggesting something is as you said disrespect. This I would neither put up with from a student or myself. When I first started teaching I told my students that they should question everything they are taught and verify it's effectiveness for themselves. This was mistaken for an opportunity to interrupt class, constantly. Since all students come to learn and their time is valuable, students have to wait until after class. That way no ones time is wasted. Having said this I maintain this policy when in the role of student myself unless it's a one on one situation during an exchange of idea's with another instructor. Even then I try to be as respectful as possible and ask in such a way that it does not come off as questioning their methods. In a group I feel this is disrespectful of the other students time and that of the instructor.

Great point and a sad truth. Most do quit as if that was the pinnacle of their training and as if there is nothing further to learn.

Love the debate so far. Good stuff. However, it just occurred to me that I do not know anything of your back ground. You stated that I made a subtle inference that you have not read enough or had enough experience so to speak. What is your experience? Since I'm asking you, I'll provide you with mine as an introduction. I started training at the age of 8 in a Chinese martial art called Fu Jow Pai, a few years later I started my journey in the Okinawan Martial arts and began studying Matsumura Shorin Ryu, Prior to me joining the Marine Corps I also studied Judo. After joining the Corps I started under my current Shinshii in Matsumura Suidi and Ryukyu Kobudo. I have also studied Ryukyu Kenpo, Goju Ryu, Iaido and Kenjutsu, Matsubayashi-Ryu, and dabbled in several Chinese martial arts as research. I have been exposed to many arts but have never lost my passion for my main art. I am currently a Nanadan and hold a Kyoshi teaching license in Matsumura Suidi.

I am well aware of the techniques of Muay Thai. You actually said it in a previous post. Techniques change over the years and what was may not be the same now. I have never said that the Okinawan's mimicked or copied another countries way of fighting. Examples of this are clearly seen in Suidi. They look and are performed either the same, slightly differently or in most cases very differently. This can be easily explained. They made the techniques and not the art their own. They did not steel or teach the art but took principles and techniques and incorporated them to fit their way of fighting. You were very sure that the CMA's influenced the art, as well as I am, however in most cases the techniques, other than in appearance, do not look the same because they are not executed the same. Doesn't mean that they are not the same technique, it merely means that it was incorporated into the Okinawan's way of fighting. For lack of a better explanation or term, it was Okinawanized. They made it work for them and thus they were changed. So I guess I will pose the question; if you had an art like Ti and Tegumi and you learned a new technique from another art but the way it was executed did not make sense or did not work with the way you fought and you changed it, is it not the same technique? Yes it executed differently and because of that it looks differently, but the base principle remains. Do you then say that it was never influenced by that art? I can see the foundation and thus logically conclude that it is plausible, just like the influence of CMA's is plausible. But there are those that even deny that even with so much evidence pointing to its influence. The Japanese for example tried to wipe out all things associated with CMA's. They did not succeed because not all of the Okinawan teachers accepted this new thing called Karate nor the Dai Nippon Budukukai but there was definitely deniability on their part. My point is you can believe as you wish. I will believe as I wish. I have my reasons and you have your's. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong. I believe that the Siamese arts played a role in defining the art based on what I have been told, what I have read and what I can conclude. Showing me colored footage, which means it was taken in the past 30 years, of the Thai arts is great, but by your own admission arts change and adapt over the years. Do you know what Muay Boran looked like in the 15 or 1600's? How do you know that what we see now is what was represented then. All things adapt. This also applies to Suidi, Tumaadi and Nafaadi (Toudi) or if you wish, "Karate". We know Karate is an adaptation. It focuses only on the striking element of the original art of Toudi. So with that said let me ask you, have you seen Toudi (To-De) performed? Do you know the differences between Karate of Toudi? [Not questioning your experience or knowledge so do not infer] If you don't have first hand knowledge of Ti (Di, Te, De) or later Suidi, Tumaadi, Nafaadi as it was performed before the creation of Karate then it's hard to prove one way or another that anything influenced the art other than the Japanese in creating Karate. True?

Im sorry Mr. McCarthy but your blog post did not succeed in illustrating your premise. there seems to be a question about the disconnect between the performance of karate and that of Chinese Quan fa. the sentiment has been made that karate is direct and hard where as Chinese arts are large and flowing. well as Mr. McCarthy was so kind to point out , martial arts change over time. we have a tendency to compare Japanese karate styles to the modern Wushu styles and think they do not look the same. it would be important to keep in mind that kung fu of the 1900 era in Fuchou was not large and flowing. as far Okinawan styles go the style that most resembles Muay Thai is Uechi-Ryu. they share low leg kicks and lots of elbows and knee strikes. its a very hard style no flowery movemnts and relativly simple in complexity. but as i pointed out this is one of the most compete and direct Chinese style there is on Okinawa. Chinese arts before the boxer rebellion (1900) in the Fujian area were different then they are now. after this point in time the Chinese government has increasingly interfered with martial arts. making all but government sponsored arts basically illegal. it is because of this that most of the smaller fight effective/ oriented systems ,, the ones where Uechi ryu and Goju ryu originated from have disappeared. however many of these older styles still exist in Taiwan and Singapore. if we are going to say karate looks more like Muay Thai, lets make sure we are comparing apples to apples. Again I'll allow you to make your own assumptions but my view point does not come from Mr. McCarthy although I have read his books and find similarities. My view point comes from speaking with my Shinshii's Shinshii and others during my stays on Okinawa. It also comes from things that I can plainly see for myself and draw the similarities from that are impossible to dismiss. Again, I have no written proof other than others theories. However I can make an assessment from what I have been told, what I have read and what I have seen. Unlike the masses I do not take things at face value based on this expert or that. I do not follow others like that of Mr. McCarthy, although I respect him for his research and years of dedication. What I have posted are my view points that are based on my years of study and research and that of speaking with those that are closer to the history than any western so called expert. The truth is, none of us truly know. We weren't there iwhen Higa, Choken, Yara, Takahara, or Matsumura and others were alive and as far as I have been able to find, they did not do detailed interviews or leave written documentation outlining the art and what influenced it. At best we are making logical guesses based on the historical accounts of generations that came after these and other men. Even these can be looked at with a skeptical eye as the accounts are based on one persons word and their understanding of the history. Who's to say its right? Bottom line... you, I and everyone else that have or is training and studying their art has to come to their own conclusions based on what they are able to uncover and based on what they are told and read. I look at the weapons of the Okinawan arts and know they did not come from farm implements. I understand that the Okinawan people took from other cultures to improve their own fighting style. I look at examples of weapons in other countries and then research the age and come to a logical conclusion as one example. If I compile what I know and what I can see for myself, dismiss the ravings of western experts, I, like you or anyone else, can come to a logical conclusion based on what is presented and what we can find. I have many reasons to believe what I believe. But in the end it's one mans opinion based on my experiences and my own research. If you came up with a differing opinion based on your experiences and research that is contrary to mine that's great! At least your doing research and questing after a deeper understanding of your art. We agree to disagree and that's OK.

I know that I am a nightmare student because I have been training and teaching so long that I am much more critical of others teachings. This is not to say that I am argumentative nor rude. I am polite and allow the instructor to teach without question. However I do question everything in my mind and thus I'm far less pliable than say someone that has never trained before. The funny thing is I am very inquisitive and love learning. I'm always looking for a new view point or a new fresh perspective to look at the same things which contradicts how I accept the information. I am truly a contradiction and an enigma. I think that once you make the transition from student to teacher and you have 10 or more years of teaching under your belt you become less accepting of just anything and a little more critical and thus this does not exactly make you the best student. Yes I'm sure I'll get the "empty your cup" comments or "you of all people should be open to others points of view" but I have noticed that the older I get and the longer I teach the less accepting I am of others teachings until I can verify it's effectiveness. In a word I'm much more critical than I used to be. That is not however to say I know best. In no way am I saying this nor want it to be construed that way. Just that it now takes proving where as a new student it took no proof to fully accept what was being taught. I blindly accepted it as so. So to a new teacher I am a nightmare because I analyze and will constantly proof everything they say and worse, only accept that which is proven effective. Thus I would not practice that which I feel is worthless whereas the new student must accept and practice everything. So that makes me a nightmare student.

Too true. The belt represents you not the other way around.

Food for thought... there are those that dispute that the Chinese arts influenced the Okinawan arts due to it's dissimilar movements and way techniques and applications are executed. CMA are very fluid with open techniques while OMA are and are not these things. Some will tell you that is enough to prove their point. In fact there have been discussions right here on KF concerning this very thing. Bai He quan and how it does or doesn't resemble Okinawan White Crane techniques. Muay Thai is a sport where as Muay Boran is a fighting (combat) discipline. Much like old school Jujutsu vs. Judo. Yes they share techniques but not the same concepts or technical applications of those techniques. The elbow, forearm, some fist, shin and knee strikes, low kicks, close fighting did not come from CMA so where then did they derive from? If Mok Gar was established before this time frame you would have an argument for close fighting techniques. IMHO this comes from the Saim (Thailand) influence. I have no definitive proof nor does anyone that Siam influenced Okinawa. Conversely you have no definitive proof that it did not. However there is enough evidence that points towards this influence that it is my and others belief that it did. To each their own. I understand your argument but understand that the Okinawan's took what they wanted and made it fit with their own art of Ti and Muto. They made it Okinawan. This means it will not look the same in terms of performance. CMA are very open in most cases and have longer range elements whereas OMA do not follow this methodology and in many cases the techniques and applications that influenced the Okinawan's no longer look or are performed the way the arts that they came from are. The same is true of Muay Boran. You say there are no Kata in Muay Boran. Your 100% right. The thing you're missing is Annan did not teach Chinto. Chinto was created from Annan's teachings. Two separate things all together. This then neither disproves nor proves Siam's influence. As far as closed fists go in the CMA's, I did not same that CMA's do not use closed fist techniques. I am saying that all (70% or more) of the closed fist techniques did not come from CMA's. If you read some of the documentation you will find that the open techniques where prevalent in terms of what was taught and passed down from the founders. In their own words mind you. Again, for me and after doing extensive research I have personally come to this conclusion. If you don't, that's fine. Again to each their own. I would however tell you that if you took the time to read and look more deeply into the art you would find the very similarities that you said were not there. JMHO.

Spot on Advice.

Well since most things Okinawan or from any other country was removed via the Japanese, most documentation (at least written) was long removed and or destroyed in an effort to claim the art as strictly Japanese. However - if you research the art and where specific techniques come from you will have a very hard time connecting them all to China (Quan Fa) or Okinawa (Ti or Di). If you look at the weapons arts (Buki-gwa), you will find the majority comes from Siam (Thailand). One example would be the Tuifa (tonfa) and Thailands Mae Sawks (Hope I spelled that right). These weapons were not used prior to trade with the Siam empire. Popular belief is they came from a mill handle. Sure they did. Another hint would be the fact that a man named Annan was ship wrecked and taught his art form of fighting. Some seem to think that this was not a mans name but instead a countries name (Vietnam) which traded with Siam. If you look at Quan Fa you find many of the open hand techniques that are present within the art. Ti has some of the closed hand techniques but are not reflective of all of the original techniques. So where did they come from? If you research Muay Boran and look at the techniques you will find that many are identical to the arts. Yes I may seem short and evasive in my explanations but it's better you do your own research and come to your own conclusions rather than some guy on the web you don't know from Adam telling you that this is so. IMHO the documentation is there, you just have to find it. As far as actual written documentation that you can point to and say that's fact... again like most things in the Okinawan culture that revolve around the art of Ti or what is now called Karate, its either been destroyed, was never written down or very hard to find. Interestingly enough some documentation has only been presented in the past 70+ years from families that had kept them secret or had just been passed down from generation to generation.

You are right. "Karate" was not meant to be reserved for the upper class. However the art that turned into Karate was strictly reserved for the upper class. Gichin Funakoshi did not coin the term Karate. For the life of me I can't recall those that did by name at the moment but it was certainly not Funakoshi. I would beg to differ. The art that Karate sprang from (Toudi, To-di, Suidi, Di or Ti) was in effect stripped of it's elements and what we now call Karate does not in the slightest represent it's predecessor. Funakoshi neither invented the Pinan's nor did he rearrange or split them up into 5. Matsumura taught a Hsing called Channan. It is rumored that he split this Hsing into two Kata. It is also rumored that he broke down this Hsing into two parts which Itosu later renamed Pinan Shodan and Nidan. We know that he taught the two Kata because his direct students learned and passed these on. Itosu is credited with creating Pinan Sandan thru Godan. Again I must disagree with you. Hard to find an older style? Shotokan is not old in terms of Okinawan (or Okinawan influenced), martial arts. In fact far from it. Matsumura Suidi, Kobayashi-ryu,Goju-ryu, Ryuei Ryu, Kojo-ryu and Uechi-ryu just to name a few are all older and still taught to this day and are not that difficult to find. If you are speaking in terms of "Karate" from Mainland Japan then yes your statement is probably true.

Forgot to mention cubital tunnel syndrome.

I can understand the issues you are having with 1% kicking in terms of TKD. You expect, because it's TKD. IMHO you either like the way your instructor teaches or you don't. If what they teach is not what you felt you signed up for then it's probably time to look else where. Having said that if the only issue you have is the kicking element, you could always watch a video, read a book or find someone to teach you the kicks. It's hard to find good instructors. Learning different kicks is an easy issue to overcome. Good luck.