MatsuShinshii

There are many techniques in judo that attack the legs directly, but they have been removed from the competitions, because they are too dangerous or wrestlers are just so good at them that they dominate judo championships (as I heard from Sensei). Therefore, we are not taught those techniques anymore. That’s a shame. I could maybe see removing them from competition but I don’t get removing efficiently viable techniques all together from the curriculum.

Congrats. I'm glad to hear you found something you like and can stick with. That's awesome.

Judo is a totally different world. it has been more than one year now since I started judo. The skin on my knuckles began to harden and I think I am getting used to the techniques. In the beginning, I really had problems because I was so much used to keeping my body straight and feet grounded on the tatami. You need to be soft and elastic-and open minded- to be able to perform good technique in judo. I think every martial artist should try out judo some time. Actually, judo and wrestling have quite different techniques, as my Sensei told me. For example, we never grab legs, and the main difference is the judogi. To the bold above. What about Morote Gari or Kuchiki Taoshi?

I do not think it's necessary to teach someone to punch someone else in the face. This is a rudimentary response that children exhibit. Would it not be better the teach someone how to de-escalate the situation before it comes to punching people in the face? Would it not be better to teach someone, if all else fails, to end the fight? I've been punched in the face... Ooh I don't know, a bunch. It never stopped me. In fact it angered me and that led to me wanting to show them how it feels. Would it not be better to teach them how to end the fight rather than to arbitrarily punch someone in the face? Where in the face? At what angle? How hard? If that doesn't work, where else should I punch? And on and on and on. As Spodo Komodo said, I think we ought to teach people how to punch fish in the face. If nothing else you'd have a lot of people laughing rather than fighting. Just a thought. There's my 2 cents for whatever it's worth. Probably not 2 cents.

Too funny!

Lathe, extensions, lathe chisels and a steady hand. You're on your way.

Well said Tallgeese. Happy Birthday KF. Here's to many more years to come.

Happy Birthday Patrick!

?????? Not sure I understand the question.

Congrats, well deserved.

Repetition for the sake of repetition is useless and achieves nothing but bad habits. I'll explain... Its common to practice something until you get it right but all to often people get complacent and comfortable and let correct technique slide. When that happens the repetition is counter productive because the repetition is ingraining the incorrect way to execute a technique. I have seen this all too often and I'm sure you have too. A Shodan or Nidan that looks like a beginner due to technique. At some point the technique was correct because it was practiced that way but... in steps complacency, and you're looking at a Yudansa that executes techniques like a Mudansha. Repetition is good as long as you're executing the techniques correctly. It would be better to just practice in class under the supervision of your instructor than execute a 1000 wrong techniques.

Depends on what personality trait. My Shinshii had a laid back teaching style but when he spoke he expected you to give him respect and listen. If you didn’t he could, on occasion, loose his patience and could be a bit loud and aggressive. Having said that it was never without cause and I’d doubt anyone would say it wasn’t justified. If you are speaking in terms of bullying his students, he definitely would not fit that mold. If you are speaking in terms of “no mercy”, he had compassion and empathy for people until it was a serious situation in which he would tell us to protect our lives and end it by any means necessary. Having said that he was not the sort to seek out or start a fight ever.

Based on what I've seen in the news, it's better NOT to defend yourself, because, like you said, nobody will believe you, or they will bring up the tired "she was wailing at your face with closed fists and hit you 5X, but you didn't have to hit back! You could have restrained her with your superior man strenght without any risk!" argument. The best thing to do is to take a video and extract yourself from the situation (walk away, run away, evade her strikes with head movement and body movement, but NEVER MAKING CONTACT, even blocking her strikes will get you in trouble, unless you're simply covering your face like boxers do). Taking video is fundamental, since you will be able to backup your point and sue her if she actually wounded you. First - I was brought up to not hit women under any circumstance. However I feel like being a devils advocate tonight, so... Why, besides what we have been taught all our lives, is it somehow different? The common reasoning is "women are weaker so their at a disadvantage". In most cases this might ring true but not in all. I know a few women that would give most average guys more than a run for their money and to be honest would probably destroy the average guy. There have been documented cases of guys getting abuse and even killed by women so the "women are weaker" doesn't always hold up and is not always a valid argument. I understand the legal answer that your at fault in eyes of the attorneys and possibly the court as RW points out. But let me interject this... what if she has a knife or a melee weapon like say a hammer or an ax. Does that make a difference? Granted the circumstance would dictate the action taken but for arguments sake lets say that she is bent on hurting or even killing you. Run away? I know women that can out run most average men with ease. What then? What if she has a gun? You're not out running a bullet unless your the flash. So when is it OK to defend yourself? Obviously you would attempt to avoid any of these situations but if confronted with them what would you do? Would you maintain the "never hit a women"? Or would you fight back if forced to?

Very true. As you state, the answer could be one or the other or both or neither. Time, age, rank, title... none of these factors guarantees the ability, character or maturity to teach. Sad but there it is.

I agree. I attribute this to personal preference. A Kata could have contained a specific movement or posture which represented an application or any number of applications but that student did not agree or it did not work or suite them so they changed it to something that did and thus the Kata as a whole and the way it is performed changed with it. I imagine that based on the fact that students would search out other instructors and said instructor each had their favorite bag of tricks that they preferred. It is plausible that those instructors removed portions of the Kata that they did not agree with and replaced them with ones that they did. Their students probably did the same. They took what they liked or what fit them best and removed what didn't fit them. It is also possible that a teacher would structure a Kata to fit their student. I have read that not every Kata was taught to every student. That based on the students attributes, Kata was chosen that would fit them best. It could be plausible that the applications and thus the postures contained within the Kata could have been changed to best suit or compliment each student. At least this is the best explanation I can come up with. I doubt any of us will truly ever know why these changes were made or why. The biggest "changes" I have found in my art are not actual changes to the way the Kata is performed, at least not based on what I have witnessed in my years in the art. I can watch Hohan's videos and see the same execution. However the changes I see, blatant in fact, are more in the interpretation of the applications. These literally change from instructor to instructor and I've even noticed changes from the same teacher. When I was young said posture represented this or these applications and as I've aged they have changed to completely different interpretations. Whether that is due to a teachers research and corrections or whether it is due to personal preference I could not tell you. I know that I have added but never replaced in the attempts to teach what was passed to me. But I must admit that, although I teach them all, not all fit me nor work for me so I can accept that changes are made based on a teachers understanding of what they feel is most effective (based on them) and that they would alter to fit what they feel is most effective.

Not to continue another post on Kata in a new post but by a funny circumstance of chance one of my students that had taken two different styles of Shorin Ryu asked why the same Kata is performed so differently and how do you know which is the original. Since this is a bit different in content I thought it warranted a different post. After years of training and researching my art and its Kata and subsequently other arts Kata trying to find my own truths I could not answer the students question. I could have told him the oldest known version of a particular Kata was the original. That would make sense right? Welllll... would it? Not so sure of that. What I have personally discovered, and I'm sure others have a different point of view on this, is that Kata as we know it was in a state of construction as the founders or those before them created them. What might have been passed down to earlier students may have been altered and taught to later students. There are definitely examples of this. I would chose to believe that this was due to the founder removing a technique and replacing it with what they felt was more efficient. However not all cases would support this conclusion as later versions have what I would call not so effective movements. So that leads to another hypothesis that they changed the movements to make the Kata flow better. But then I remember that the original Kata were vessels that contained the secrets of the art and of proven combative techniques and they cared little if at all if the Kata flowed and looked good. The point is... how does one determine what is original? How do you know that the founders teacher had not altered what they had learned or created prior to teaching it to said founder of said art who passed it down differently to his students and furthermore may have passed it down differently to different students. Now for those that consider themselves traditionalists and draw a straight line back to the founder this question is quite simple because not unlike religion they accept what is taught based on faith. They would say their Kata is original. So I could say I'm in that line of thought and fit that description but then I know what I know and have trouble answering this question with any degree of certainty. I would love to answer my student and more importantly with the truth rather than conjecture but I find that very hard to do. So what constitutes original? How do we know that the way one art performs the Kata, even though they might have a straight, un-altered path to the founder, is actually the original version. To be clear, my dilemma is not if the Kata should be changed and that everyone should perform it one way or the other because "this" is the real version. My dilemma is how do I answer my student with any degree of certainty that what I am telling him is the truth? Oh and that means I would have to believe it myself and that would need to be based on fact rather than opinion. I think I might have answered my own question but hopefully you might have a different point of view that will lend clarity to the situation.

I love and agree with the drivers license analogy. Its not only about age or years but also about maturity.

Welcome to KF luv2flyjrn. Glad to have you here.

True its main purpose is to develop power and teach proper body mechanics, however it can not be denied that the bodies natural weapons do over time become conditioned with it's use. I understand what you are saying and do agree with you but it does also serve this function albeit not its main function. It does offer that positive side benefit. Like swimming has the side benefit of not drowning while learning how to swim. Very true. Although not intended for the purpose it does yield the results. Obviously there are also other methods, even better methods, to achieve the goal of conditioning. However after 41 yrs in my art and around 40 years of Makiwara training I can tell you that if done correctly it is an effective conditioning tool as well as a way to learn proper power generation, positioning and body mechanics. I strike mine at least four times a week for a minimum of three hours (using all weapons) and have realized the results. Personally I feel, if done correctly, it is the safest way to condition the weapons of the body that other means would over time cause damage (ie: arthritis and joint damage) mainly due to its somewhat giving properties and the fact that it teaches/forces you to strike correctly. After 40 years I have no ill effects and can strike whatever I want without fear of destroying or damaging the weapon. Just my 2 cents. Oh, it definitely does condition the body, over time. The reason I specify that the intent of the makiwara is not conditioning is because many people--probably the MAJORITY of people, if we're being honest--believe that the makiwara's primary purpose is toughening the striking surfaces of the body, and because they use it as such, they make their makiwara too stiff, or with the wrong type of padding (if any), and end up damaging their bodies. I agree with you 100%. When I was young I would complain that there was not enough resistance and made one out of a 4x4 that I tapered down to a 2x4 at the top. I found out quickly that it did fit the bill for conditioning but did not give the feed back that I needed. I ended up getting rid of it and going back to the real deal.

He gets the point across very well and gives common sense facts to support his argument. Very well said and I think he proves his point very well.

True its main purpose is to develop power and teach proper body mechanics, however it can not be denied that the bodies natural weapons do over time become conditioned with it's use. I understand what you are saying and do agree with you but it does also serve this function albeit not its main function. It does offer that positive side benefit. Like swimming has the side benefit of not drowning while learning how to swim. Very true. Although not intended for the purpose it does yield the results. Obviously there are also other methods, even better methods, to achieve the goal of conditioning. However after 41 yrs in my art and around 40 years of Makiwara training I can tell you that if done correctly it is an effective conditioning tool as well as a way to learn proper power generation, positioning and body mechanics. I strike mine at least four times a week for a minimum of three hours (using all weapons) and have realized the results. Personally I feel, if done correctly, it is the safest way to condition the weapons of the body that other means would over time cause damage (ie: arthritis and joint damage) mainly due to its somewhat giving properties and the fact that it teaches/forces you to strike correctly. After 40 years I have no ill effects and can strike whatever I want without fear of destroying or damaging the weapon. Just my 2 cents.

I get your point. The basis of the post was age, however since you brought up a new perspective I will interject my opinion. Time and age have nothing whatsoever to do with the ability to teach. I have personally known a man that has 15 years on me and higher rank and couldn't teach if his life depended on it. He is one of the most awesome technical fighters I personally know but does not possess the ability to teach what he knows outside of just teaching the syllabus. The ability to express things in a way that students can understand is a skill not everyone has. The ability to bring out those aha moments in your student is also a unique skill. Teaching the syllabus is something that just about anyone can do. having the ability to develop real fighters, true MA'ists that UNDERSTAND the art, that is not something everyone can do. Having said that I do feel that age and conversely time do play a role, in some respects a very important role but they still do not determine the ability to teach. Time plays a very important role in obtaining the knowledge necessary to understand the art and to be able to pass on that knowledge. A 40 yr old Sandan with 6 yrs (lets say he/she belongs to a McDojo belt factory for making my point) does not in my opinion have the necessary years to truly understand the art and therefore does not have the ability to effectively pass on said knowledge that he/she does not possess. Age also plays a role. Like it or not perception and ego plays a huge role with some people. I would like to say I am open to learning anything from anyone but to be honest I would not study under a 15 yr old instructor. Yes they might have started when they were still in diapers but maturity plays a huge role in how you look at the art and further more how you understand the art. I personally do not feel that a person of this age IS a teacher nor can the effectively teach outside of the basic syllabus. Having the time and age and even the grade/rank does not insure that that student can effectively pass on what they have learned. Being able to translate the art in a way that students can learn is not a skill that every one possess. I am of the mid set that just knowing how to do something and having the skill to perform it is not enough to be a teacher. True understanding, obviously at the level you are at in your journey, and being able to translate that to your students is a skill outside of just knowing and being able to do. Please understand that what I mean by "anyone teaching the syllabus" means teaching the basics of the art. There are many that do just this. Lacking any true understanding or depth of the art is like learning from a book. Which is precisely what I am referring to. In my opinion there is no difference between a "teacher" that teaches the syllabus only and learning from a book. They are both stale and lacking any true depth to understanding the art. It is the small details and "secrets" (not meaning that anything is secret but more those things that must be learned through years of doing, those little nuances that are discovered after hundreds and thousands of times that are what some call the aha moment of deeper understanding of what something truly means and how it is most effectively utilized) that one picks up and learns. One who possess the deeper understanding and more importantly can teach or lead a student to learn is what I consider a teacher. Basically someone that can look past what is blatantly obvious, a punch is performed like this and this is how you do it, and understands the deeper meaning and can pass that on in a way that the student comes to that same moment of understanding. Age and time play a part but are not the true determining factors in what makes a teacher. I know this does not fit the conventional way of thinking and this might even upset those that think that after X yrs they magically become instructors but this is my opinion. I have studied under both and can tell you without reserve that there is a huge difference in the progress a student can make between the two. Better teacher = better students. Teacher with minimal understanding = students of the like and so on. I in no way claim this prestigious level of proficiency. I struggle to be the teacher my Shinshii was and probably will never achieve his level. I make these statements to differentiate between the accepted definition and what I consider the true definition of what a teacher is. Just my 2 cents. For whatever that is worth. Probably not as much as I think.

To the bold above... I agree with you if this is how you train. However the applications "Bunkai" are not meant to be practiced in the air but against an opponent. One that progressively become more non compliant to the point of full resistance. As far as the Kata teaching you how to fight goes... well it depends on how you train and how you use the Kata. I will point out that the founders and those before them DID learn from the Kata, just not how it is practiced today. In terms of modern practice, you're absolutely right it will not teach you to fight.

Oh yeah...like Senior Citizen Discounts...like money in the bank; I've not paid full price in awhile. I'm not quite there yet Bob, but yeah just like that. LOL.

Ikken Hissatsu - One fist, certain death. I have seen and heard this phase used through out my time in the arts and have seen this used quite a lot in posts and threads even today. In a nut shell this phase denotes that the Karateka uses only one strike to kill ones enemy. Although this is conceivable as it has through out history been proven to be true in certain cases, it is not practical. First off this is not a phrase that comes from the founders but rather was adopted from the mindset of Japan's most popular art, Kenjutsu. Makes sense when talking about a razor sharp sword. This is not to say that the founders did not have this mindset, albeit not this exact phrase. I have heard many a Sensei use this phrase as if this is the pinnacle of training and once you reach this level every strike is a killing blow. Nonsense! When exactly does this magical transformation happen? How many years do you have to train and what methods make every blow a killing blow? The concept does translate but not in the same terms or definition as in Kenjutsu where every slash, stab or cut could kill the enemy. It just isn't practical or even plausible to think that every strike will kill. I am not arguing that you can, if at full power and at just the right spot and at just the right angle, kill someone with a single strike. It has been proven throughout history. We have seen it in boxing matches, etc. However in the real world an opponent will not stand in front of you, keep their guard down and allow you to strike them in a precise area at a precise angle and even then it's not guaranteed. In the real world opponents are constantly moving and, although possible, it is not likely that you can get a clean strike that will effect the desired results of this phrase. So why does this phrase persist? Did the founders have this mindset or is it just a Japanese adaptation? The founders did have a similar mindset in that their goal was to end the fight as quickly and efficiently as possible, as is the teachings of the Kata and its applications. If you think in terms of Okinawa when the founders were alive, it was dangerous to walk the streets at night as you might be attacked by multiple people. The concept of dispatching an opponent quickly was definitely a desirable concept. Did this mean that every strike killed the opponent? No. The concept was to make the opponent unable to continue their attack so that you could deal with the next attacker. In combat the same is true. You would not want to fight an opponent for an extended amount of time because his friends might join in to defeat you. The idea was to dispatch the enemy as quickly as possible so that you could engage the next. If you were to prolong the engagement this would leave you vulnerable to attack from other opponents. I think "certain death" in this phrase in the context of Karate as apposed to Kenjutsu is taken too literally and creates an impractical expectation of skills. Again this does not mean that a single blow can't lead to death. It simply means that to claim that, at some point in their training, a practitioner can with each strike affect death is not practical nor logical when understanding the true nature of a real fight and the fact that it does not mimic the controlled, clean, sterile atmosphere of the Dojo where all techniques land because of compliance. What are your thoughts?