MatsuShinshii

I understand. Unfortunately I can't help you with this as I have never owned a Shureido light Sai. Maybe you can call them to see if the dimensions are the same. It the dimensions and balance are the same I'd say go for it.

I have never been accused of looking sweet. My face is scarred so looking sweet is pretty hard. I've never had an issue with being targeted as I tend to look people in the eyes and have a habit of not looking away until they do. I learned this many years ago as a teenager. Most people looking for a victim don't target those that would dare to stare them down. They look instead for those that would look away. It makes them look meek and weak. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing menacing in my face or in my intentions. Those without their own menacing intentions usually smile or nod and I do the same. Those with other that friendly intentions typically end up looking away. Knock on wood, I have never been targeted as such to the extent that someone approached me or got within fighting distance. I think it's because of my rugged good looks.

Good points.

Good points.

Although I understand and sadly know where you are coming from due to those that do not understand how and when to use certain techniques I do not agree that, what most now days call self defense techniques, do not work. It depends on your knowledge of the techniques, how to apply them, when to apply them and against what technique to apply them. I have used what some would call dirty fighting techniques in real situations and I can promise you that they work. Back in my youthful rowdy Marine Corps days they have gotten me out of sticky situations in bar fights. And to your point there are things that work to get loose from a choke. What you're speaking about is really a point of what the attackers pain tolerance is and how mentally intent he is on executing the technique. In this case a simple bite or eye gouge may not work but this is only listing the most basic dirty fighting tactics. Not arguing with your point because I understand that their are less than qualified people teaching less than effective techniques but this does not encompass every teacher, art or technique. Just my 2 cents.

Love your views! Your a man after my own heart. I couldn't agree more.

Believe it or not I did not express my views. Since his child is not my student and neither is he I did not think it my place to interject my views on the subject. He didn't ask and I didn't tell.

This is part and parcel why I do not teach children. Maturity and knowing when and why you should use certain techniques is a major factor. I did not ask his child's age but maybe that was his concern as well although he did not express that.

Nail on the head my friend.

Yes but the transitions are different in the parenthood Kung Fu forms. The criticism is that Karate katas lack flow. They are punch/kick stop with stiff transitions, whereas Kung fu forms have a stronger "interconnectedness" and a greater overall flow (perhaps footwork as well?). I have had old VHS tapes of legit Kung Fu forms and they are definately more coherent I still submit however that the shortcomings of Karate and TKD are the same as in Kung fu, no defence against boxing combinations, no head movement etc. None of that is learned in your katas and it's not drilled in free sparring either. So if you clone a person and have each clone train Kung Fu and traditional Karate respectively and have him face a kickboxer, the odds are that the same achilles heal would manifest itself - no head movement, subpar defence to boxing. So when people talk about kung fu vs Karate there are not fundamental differences in effectiveness IMO. The strenghts might be a bit different, but the weaknesses are pretty identical. Would you agree? I think your missing the point. The Kata as it is, is not what develops all of your fighting skills. At face value it teaches one to move, shift and transition. It teaches proper body alignment and body mechanics to generate power and maintain balance. But you do not learn how to fight on the face value of the Kata. This is where the Kata is broken down into it's individual postures, moves and techniques. These are taken and with a partner the applications that the postures represent are practiced. Two person drills are the major means of learning the intricacies of the applications. This is where muscle memory, timing, distance, using your opponents force against them, learning proper off balancing techniques, brushing, trapping, throws, take downs, sweeps, joint manipulations, seizing, and all the elements of fighting are learned. The art is contained within the Kata's applications not as the Kata is executed. You're looking strictly at the Kata as a means to learn to fight. The applications contained WITHIN the Kata are what teaches you the nuances of how to over come your opponent. As far as flow goes. Again this is not the point. You are learning how to shift/transition from one stance to the next. Whether it "flows" to the observer or not doesn't matter. It is not to look fluid it's to teach the practitioner to move fluidly from one posture to the next. It's also intended to teach the practitioner how to move while executing techniques. However taking the Kata literally will not show you the art that the founders passed down to us. Remember the Kata was the primary means of passing the art down to their students and also the primary means by which their students learned to fight. Yes Kung Fu looks more fluid. However they are not Okinawan and do not teach/pass on the art the same way. It's semantics. You can not compair one to the other as they are taught in totally different ways. This is the main reason some say that if Okinawan arts where influenced by Chinese arts they can't see it. If you look at the postures within the Hsing of the arts that influenced our founders you can see direct examples that are identical. But by just observing the execution of a Kata to a Hsing the observer see's the flow and not the actual techniques contained. It's also very much in the fact that the Japanese take the Kata literally according to their translation of the meanings of the applications. Point in fact blocks, kicks, strikes. This is only a small part of the art. One of 8 separate elements. As far as head movement goes, this is not something you are supposed to learn from the practice of Kata. This is something you learn in two person drills out of necessity. However not too many arts utilize this form of learning. Instead they rely on the three "K's". Even with this you learn fairly quickly that if you do not move your head during Kumite you get hit. This I believe is a common sense thing that a student comes by naturally. To say that the traditional practitioner would have an Achilles heal when facing off against a kick boxer... well I don't buy this. I am a traditional practitioner and have kick boxed. In the ring you find that you have similar strengths and weaknesses. The difference is if the Kcikboxer has never learned the art passed the strikes, blocks and kicks they are at the disadvantage. A boxer would have the same disadvantages. My art is made up of many elements. Striking is only one of them. We have the advantage of not only having the striking element (striking, punches, kicks) but also Tuidi (seizing, joint manipulations, dislocations, breaks, chokes), Muto (throws, takedowns, sweeps, off balancing techniques), Chi'gwa (fighting from the ground, not to be mistaken with ground fighting), Chibudi (targeting of nerves, veins, arteries, ligaments, tendons, and vital organs), Tii or Ti'gwa (targeting of weak area's of the body and dirty fighting tactics), Buki'gwa (use of or disarming of weapons), etc. This is not even touching on the minute elements of the art that are learned this is just the broader scope. A kick boxer and boxer has a limited amount of knowledge to draw from outside of the ring where as the Karateka has an unlimited amount of knowledge to draw from and it's all contained within the Kata's applications. Sorry for the novel. I got on my usual role.

I was speaking with a employee today about some work related issues and he asked me if he could leave early on Friday stating that his kid had another self defense class. He stated that he was getting ready to pull him our of class because of what he considered "ungentlemanly like behavior". I asked what this meant and he answered by stating that his teacher was teaching the class to target area's of the body that he didn't find sportsman like. These area's include the eyes, groin, joints, ears, etc. He said he even showed students how to fish hook in the last self defense class. He even condoned biting. Obviously, if you know me, I disagree with his assessment. But kept my opinions to myself. Yes that's right I did not interject my opinionated opinion. My questions; are there or is there any parts of an opponents body that you would think was not honorable to strike,kick,punch? Is there a specific technique that you feel is not allowed under any circumstances? To me all is fair in love and war. If needed I'd bite someones ear right off, gouge an eyeball out of their head and monkey stomp the groin without ever wondering if it was "gentlemanly" or proper if it means that I get to live another day. Especially against a larger opponent or someone that attacks without warning. In this case I would assume that their intent is to maim, cripple or kill. What do you think?

Good point. That would be proper.

On a more serious note the mouth piece is an important piece of equipment for training. I have a custom mouth guard from my dentist. Much better than the boil and mold type and it stays in when you open your mouth. Keeps my teeth where they are supposed to be, in my mouth. Nothing worse than calling time out to pick your teeth off the floor.

Ah fooey, who needs teeth? That and it saves on tooth paste! Just think of all the cash you'll save.

New Years resolution - my wife said I should try to be not so opinionated and stead fast in my opinion. To open up and listen to wrong idea's and accept them as facts at least to that person. I lectured her for a half an hour on why she was wrong with detailed examples. I guess that didn't last long. Oh well, there's always next year! Thank God she thinks I'm pretty!!!

It's hard to hide ones experience. The way you move and the way you address opponents makes it very obvious. Like wearing a sign that says "I'm experienced or have had training".

Yes and no. I started my study of the arts in a style called Fu Jow Pai when I was a young lad so that experience was and was not a contrast to the styles of Karate that I took later. In some instances the differences were huge. The, what I call Japanized, Karate styles are very linear starting out and much more rigid. However some, what I call old school arts, are very similar in that they practice and teach the same concepts. This is due to the fact that they were influenced by the Chinese arts and that influence was still present. The Kata are not related to sparring in terms of the meaning today. However it is very much related to fighting if taught as it was originally passed down. The postures (not all but many) come from Quan Fa and represent combative/fighting applications. If one teaches the Kata with emphasis on the applications you will see that Quan Fa (Kung Fu/Gung Fu) and Todi (Karate) are not that different. Now there are obvious differences in the way the techniques and applications are executed. This is due to the fact that Okinawan's are not Chinese and where first influenced by the indigenous art of Tii and Tegumi and also by Muay Boran. Some use this to make the argument that there is a difference between the arts and that they are not related or where never influenced by the Chinese arts. I hear this a lot when it comes to Bai He Quan or White Crane. However if a person studies (pick and art) for 20 years and then studies another art will the first art that they studied not influence the way that they execute the second art? The argument in terms of modern Karate and Kata is valid. They are not taught in terms of actual fighting so there is no connection. However this is not indicative or factual of ALL Okinawan arts. Sparring as you put it, in terms of today's standards is not IMHO a true test of fighting skills. In fact I think the Kata of modern arts have more in common with fighting than sparring. It develops bad habits. It is utilized at long distance instead of where 99% of all fights happen at close range. It teaches one to pull strikes and therefore ingrains muscle memory not conducive to ending fights or causing any damage. Etc, etc, etc. Kumite (sparring) in today's terms is little more than a game of patty cakes. I have never taken TKD so I can not speak to contrasts between it and Kung Fu.

I too did not pick up on the fact that you were quoting Musashi until I read the next post "To throw into confusion" and realized what you were doing. Once I saw the other post titles it was pretty clear though.

(These are Miyamoto Musashi's words not mine) I figured that out after I read one of your other recent posts.

Congrats sir!

Someone got a book for Christmas.

I'm not quite sure how to address this post. First and foremost I doubt most members hold this ideal or would agree with it. If and when a person attacks it is in my mind to deal with the person quickly and efficiently with minimal damage to both myself and my attacker. The object is to neutralize the threat with the force the situation calls for. Not all situations call for maximum deadly force. Crush them???? I find no joy in doing what sometimes must be done. If, in your example of a weaker opponent, I were to crush them, what does that say about me or about all MA'ists? Why would you "crush" someone that barely poses a threat? This type of opponent would be controlled or made to submit but crushing them... EGO much? IMHO someone that would look to fight a weaker opponent is weak themselves. Would it be right for a Sandan to "crush" a Hachikyu? What exactly does that prove? Do we not achieve the goal by controlling someone that may not have enough sense to realize they are out matched rather than destroying them? Don't get me wrong, I would have no problem, and haven't, doing serious damage IF the situation warranted it. But this premise of crushing ones opponents no matter the situation to me shows a misunderstanding of what the arts are about. Unless your in combat in some foreign country there is no need to "crush" your opponents. Depending on the situation you will have several options to defeat your opponent, most without even coming to blows. I can only see the most extreme situations where crushing ones opponent would come into play.

I wish I could say the same but I like my steaks and hamburgers way too much. So having said that I guess I am a slave to my food. Oh well there are worse things.

Ashamed? Absolutely not. I'm proud to be a martial artist and have been for 41 years. Having said that I am not one to brag or broadcast it either.

I hear you on that. I always thought I would get wiser and need to do less. But alas all I am is older and find myself more winded trying to keep up with guys and gals half my age. The worse part is it was an old guy that told me that line. Not fair, just not fair. What was that gibberish anyway, a poem?