MatsuShinshii

So I would still continue to teach them everything I know. Why? Because either they quit anyway and go on to other things. Or I just might spark something in them to turn them into that enthusiastic student that gives 100%.

Well in order to understand the training then you have to understand that most would only take on worthy students. This simply put meant that most teachers would have their potential students prove themselves before they would actually start teaching them. The major focus was conditioning training to see if their will would break and if they had the proper attitude and character they were looking for in a student. However this was not the primary focus once accepted by the teacher. To the bold above - conditioning or Hojo Undo is a part of training. In some arts it is more important and in others it is a small part of training. You are making a pretty broad statement about all Okinawan arts that is not true. Our primary focus is on the Kata and the applications that it contains. Conditioning is a part of our training (a small part of class) and is done primarily outside of the Dojo by the individual. The focus is to learn how to defend oneself not to look like Arnold. The Dojo is not a Gym. I think your basis of argument is flawed as there many disciplines and no two are exactly the same. I have to correct your historical statement as well. Funakoshi as well as everyone else that was studying the art (Toudi or Ti'gwa) then was of class lineage, albeit in his case of lower Pechin class. Itosu dumbed down the art in order to teach it to the commoners and to school children. It's focus was physical fitness not combative training. Most of the combative elements (Chibudi, Tuiti, Tegumi, Ti and Quan Fa) were removed. The Kata was taught without explanation. The intent of the Kata was changed and the applications were for all intents and purposes replaced, removed or taught as something else. Example - blocks. This is also why modern arts question elements of the Kata like throws and are now creating applications because the founders applications were not passed down to them.

I know some will disagree with me for what I am about to say but... in old school Karate, pre-Japanization, there were not the plethora of kicks found today in most modern arts. The Japanese added kicks to the Kihon curriculum. Korean arts also had a lot to do with added kicks to the curriculum of some arts. After all who wants to perform a Tsumasaki instead of an ultra cool jump spinning crescent kick or the like. They just look so much cooler. If you think in terms of distance and risk, very few kicks are needed. For distance - if you have been in a real fight close range is the predominate range. It might start at a longer range but quickly turns into close range. Very few of the kicks portrayed in a schools Kihon actually are used in the Kata. They have been added. As far as risk - higher kicks add risk to the practitioner as they can be caught and their balance is sacrificed or can be taken advantage of during high kicks. Power generation and economy of motion plays a large factor as well. We do not use these kicks and practice only the kicks portrayed in our Kata.

Simple answer - to generate power.

No I have never seen this before. In watching the video, and maybe it's over pronounced because it's being filmed, the persons momentum is halted and then starts again before executing. This to me makes no sense. As you lose the momentum and have to regenerate it. To me this stop in momentum would hinder you from delivering maximum energy to the target. However this is an observation of a person that has trained in Okinawan Karate so I have no actually knowledge of the body mechanic's behind this technique and I could be way off base.

Of sorts. I broke away from an organization but not my Shinshii. As for students... this is a natural process. They find the next best thing, their job responsibilities increase and don't have time for both, they get married or have children, etc, etc. It's natural thing for peoples priorities to change. Unless you are a die hard the MA's does not outweigh job and family responsibilities. As far as breaking away and having hard feelings on either parties part, No.

We all started out as "regular folk" before we started training. I think it comes down to whether they are open to the idea or closed off to it.

Congrats! Its well deserved.

Congratulations Danielle. Thanks for your dedication to KF and to all of us. Hope you have a quick recovery and a great dinner.

You do what you can when you can. There is no magic formula. Work, family and training/teaching has to be a balance that makes sense to you. You can't let your work suffer because you have to make money to feed your family. You can't let your family time suffer because you can never get it back. You also need to train/teach. It's tough. Only you can decide what the balance is because we all have lives and responsibilities that are different. Best advice is to find a balance that works for you.

Ok I just got done watching a few examples of Shotokan's version and also of Shito-Ryu and Wado-Ryu. My personal assessment based on no knowledge other than watching the Kata and using experience based on my art... Shotokan - The first video I watched looked like it was developed for tournaments and I will agree it was flashy. The second video was of a Japanese instructor in his dojo and it was not flashy at all. I would say complicated and the difficulty level was high but not flashy by any means. In fact it resembled the Shito-Ryu version I have seen one of my friends perform in the past. Then I watched the Wado version and again not flashy. Then I watched the Shito version, just to refresh my old memory, and I have to say I much prefer this version to Shotokan's and Wado's version. It had no "flash" and some of the elements were executed very similar to how we would execute them. Not that it matters as again I am no expert on Unsu. But since you asked...

Hmm. Wouldn't you say unsu is a flashy karate kata relative to other traditional karate styles? https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=73&v=4kN61Gf-cgI Again my exposure to it was watching a few of my buddies classes when I was young. It wasn't for me and I'll leave it at that. It also depends on what art's Unsu you speak of and who is performing it. We do not practice this Kata but other arts that I have been around or exposed to do and I would not call it flashy. If anything I would rate it based on difficulty and the amount of applications that it contains. I wouldn't consider Kusanku flashy the way we perform it but I have seen some renditions of it that I guess you could say was flashy. Since I have not learned this Kata and have only seen it performed a few times I doubt I am qualified to talk about the Kata on any terms other than what I think about it after watching it. So no I do not think it's flashy. However I have not seen, or at least I don't think I have seen, a Shotokan version of the Kata. I guess I'll have to watch some youtube vids and see what you're talking about. To be clear - I am against changing Kata for the purpose of winning tournaments. This means making them flashy, adding jumps, spins, rolls or anything else that does not belong in the Kata. When you change the Kata you loose the intent (applications or Bunkai if you wish) and thus change the art all together. So if it has been altered to impress judges I wouldn't like it and I would feel that it has no use in the arts. Sorry but I guess I'm just not a flash and glitz kind of guy. I look at their value based on what they contain not for what they look like. Appearances only matter to those that do not understand that the art is within the Kata and this and only this is what matters, at least to me.

I am not sure I should answer this but what the heck. Sure they may have the flashiest and coolest Katas around but I don't think that is what is important. I personally do not see value in flashy or cool looking Kata. If they are performed as they were passed down and are taught that way then they are plenty cool to me. As for flashy, I have no use for this so it never crossed my mind. Flashy to me means altered so they will win tournaments. When this happens the original context and intent is lost. What the Kata contains is more important than whether it's flashy or not. Having said that many of the Kata I study are the Kata Shotokan studies. My only experience with Shotokan is through books and when I was a youth. I don't remember them being flashy. Maybe thinks have changed. If this is so I'm sad to hear it.

The fact that miyagi died with almost no one knowing his system tells you everything you need to know about this method of teaching. Imo old Karate was way too focused on building up the individual and not focussed enough on employing skills. I think this is probably in part to do with how malnourished poor folk were in those days. To the bold. I have not really studied much about Miyagi as my main focus is on Shuri-Te but I am hoping that you have knowledge that he was poor instead of making a reference to farmers and peasants creating Ti, Toudi (Karate) because this is not the case. The warrior class created the art and they were anything but poor. Most, based on their class, were very well to do.

After discussing this a bit more with my friend he brought to light something I have not considered before. He said that there are 3 types of students in his experience. 1. those that truly wish to learn and give 100% all of the time. 2. Those that are just there to get a BB. 3. Those that are just there for something to do and only put forth a limited amount of effort or whatever they can get away with. He said that his comment was more posed towards the later two groups of students. In thinking about this, I asked him why doesn't he just kick the belt chasers and the minimum effort students out and concentrate on the ones that are there for the right reasons? He said that the ones that were there for the right reasons only make up 10% of his classes and if he did that he could no longer make the rent. I have not experienced this issue in that I interview perspective students before accepting them. Of course I have no rent to make nor do I depend on teaching for a pay check so this is a really easy concept for me. However I do understand his question a lot clearer now that I have his reasons for asking it. So now I must change my question to - If you had an overwhelming number of students that you knew would only be in your school until they received their BB's and those that put forth minimum effort with no real passion for what they were doing would you hold any knowledge back? If I depended on students to pay the rent and as a pay check, I'm not sure how I would deal with this as I have never been in his position. However after considering it I think I would still teach the same way in hopes that the belt chasers and minimum effort students would fall in love with the art and change their focus.

I think I better-understand your original post, now. Some martial artists claim that they should never teach everything to the student (some old-world idea about a student betraying the instructor nonsense.) To me, I feel that knowledge should be passed on, and should never die with one who held it before. In my experience, and I study an old school art, this has never been the case. I believe my Shinshii taught me all that he knew. I agree that all knowledge should be passed on to ones students.

Well said sir. Thanks for the explanation.

I understand what I see and also what I don't see. I personally think that all too often we accept what we are told without verification simply because our senior or teacher tells us it's so. I on the other hand have always been a lover of the truth and an avid historian and researcher. The eyes can be fooled but facts trump everything. I actually love finding the truth and I am just as excited when I am proven wrong as when I'm proven right because ultimately I win either way as I gain knowledge I didn't have. As such I do not take opinions as facts nor do I accept what one sees as their personal truths as mine until I can verify with facts. The history of the martial arts is somewhat subjective due to the lack of documented written evidence. However we can form personal opinion based on what we see and choose to believe. This neither makes us wrong or right. However as this is an individual journey someone else's experience and opinion does not mean it's right for us. I merely asked for your evidence as I am constantly seeking proof to what may never be proven with actual written documentation. We are all students and in that we need to be independent thinkers as the arts is riddled with personal opinion and not many facts.

I understand where you are coming from now. Disappointing as I wished to learn something new but I understand your views. Thanks for that clarification.

I can't disagree with your statements as they are your beliefs and I respect that. However, with all due respect, I am not sure how this answers my questions or gives levity or clarity to your earlier statements.

A thought just occurred to me that maybe this is a business decision. Maybe the student that pays the most gets taught the most. Too cynical? Again the concept escapes me.

I wasn't necessarily speaking in terms of natural progression in the art. Obviously we teach based on a natural progression (whatever that may be for your art) and we hold back knowledge contained in higher arts until they reach this level and can understand and are ready to absorb/learn this knowledge. This is also based on skill level and physical ability that takes time to develop. So I understand that we all hold back to some degree based on the progression of the art. I also understand that we are constantly learning and that a student has to come to some conclusions for themselves. I was speaking in a more broad sense. If you hold a body of knowledge containing, we'll say, 1000 techniques/applications that make up your art, in the natural progression of your art would you teach the student all 1000 techniques/applications or would you hold, lets say, 10 or 20 back? If so why? I am also speaking in terms of personal discovery. Students have to be analytical thinkers and discover how things fit on their own so they can develop. All things can not be handed to them. However I feel that at this point in a students journey we become more of a guide than a teacher. In a sense we help the student navigate with little hints or nudges in the right direction so that they can find their path. This also I would ask if any of you would hold back from helping when the path no longer seems clear and guide them or would you let them falter until they discovered this for themselves if they ever do? This whole concept of holding back doesn't make sense to me in that I believe that our students are the next carriers of the flame. My job is to transfer that flame to them so they can carry it forward and continue the never ending passing of the flame. Essentially teaching the art and passing on all knowledge so that the next generation can continue the art and pass it on to the next. Preservation of the art more or less. So in my mind I will never understand holding anything back. If a student is worthy, in my eyes, of teaching then they are worthy of all knowledge that I can pass to them and worthy of me helping them to develop the skills and to guide them when it is time for them to discover their way.

I just re-read my post Alan and it seems like I am tearing your opinion apart. I apologize for the way it reads but I assure you that I am genuinely interested in how you are making this connection. My background is predominately Okinawan arts with a sprinkle of Chinese and Japanese arts. So I do not purport to be an expert. Having said that I am interested in this because for years I have heard that our throws and submission/controlling applications resemble Jujitsu even though my Shinshii always told us that these came from Tegumi (Okinawan wrestling) and Chinese wrestling. I have spent a good 20 years researching these discrepancies and honestly have never heard of Chin Na encompassing all of the arts we consider separate or that Jujitsu is Chin Na. If you can get past the way the post comes off I would appreciate the explanation and clarification. And again I mean no malice but claims are made constantly over the internet with nothing but opinion to back them up. Any proof would be appreciated as well.

I think I understand what you are saying even though it is coming off as everything sprang from Chin Na. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are saying that anything (any art) that resembles Chin Na you are referring to as Chin Na even though it is not the same art, correct? You are compiling a lot of specifics and attributing them to Chin Na. I don't think I can agree with you on this. What George Dillman purports to teach "chi" is not Chin Na it's phony. As far as what we call Chibudi and what he calls Kyusho and what the Chinese call Dim Mak, this can be found in just about any Chinese martial art and IMHO is not locked in to Chin Na alone. Also when I was learning Chin Na we did not practice throwing techniques or ground fighting as is predominant in Jujitsu. However this is predominate in Jiao Di, Jiao Li and Shuai Jiao. How are you making the total connection that Jujitsu is Chin Na? Chin Na or what my Sifu called Qin Na is a grappling art utilizing submission and controlling applications with very few throw applications. Maybe we had different teachers and maybe there are several forms of Chin Na but I did not see the correlation between Chin Na and Judo/Jujitsu other than in these applications. We did no ground fighting whatsoever and as I said very few throws/takedowns. When my Shinshii discusses the influences on Toudi (Karate) he differentiates Chibudi as Dim Mak, Tuite as Chin Na and Muto (Tegumi) as okinawan wrestling and Jiao Li. I know that Shuai Jiao and Kuai Jiao often go hand and hand with Chin Na and the two arts compliment each other but have never heard or read that these two arts are one and the same so I am having trouble making the stretch that Jujitsu is Chin Na. Please elaborate.

Ok I have to ask where do you find, except in modern times, disarming tactics for guns in Chin Na? I admit that Muto (Tegumi) is based on old school Chin Na but I have also studied Chin Na and have never seen these tactics. I believe based on my research that many of our applications come from the Chinese arts so I would love to say that everything springs from Quan Fa, Qin Na and Jiao Di (Li). But that's just not the case. Having said that I have to ask, how is it that every professional in a field that requires restraining techniques uses Chin Na? There are many, many grappling and submission arts to choose from. How does anyone say that Chin Na is the art EVERYONE uses? And again I don't care if your a super grandmaster of Chin Na when it comes to an attempt to disarm an gunman it's a last resort scenario. No amount of training in any art stops bullets. You would have to be close and hope they don't react and squeeze the trigger. Bottom line... If your name isn't superman or have full body armor your chances of success are slim at best. No art trumps a gun especially when the holder of that gun knows what they are doing.