MatsuShinshii

Hero complex. Looking for a chance to use the acquired skills and found a reason. Not sure what the point is as no art trumps a loaded gun. Bullet wins every time. You could just as easily replace Jujutsu with any art and have the same outcome. I'm not defending grappling arts. The only arts I can claim as grappling arts are Judo and Muto (Tegumi). I have never studied Jujutsu and don't have a dog in the fight. Having said that, anyone in this situation could be killed trying to disarm a gun. If the gunman knows what they are doing you are at a serious disadvantage as an unarmed, albeit skilled, person. Again no art can stop a bullet. This only happens in the matrix.

I totally agree with your statement. Any technique applied to someone that does not understand how to defend against it will be dominant. I also agree that it is preferable to break an opponents will rather than inflict harm if at all possible. Good solid points Tempest.

In talking with a friend in a different art the topic of, when to teach all that you know and turn over the full knowledge of the art to your students, came up. I found this both interesting and perplexing because I have never considered holding anything back from a student. I teach all that I know in hopes that the next generation will choose to teach and continue to pass this knowledge down to the next generation so that the art will continue to be as it was passed down to me. I guess this revolves around the Japanese customs of holding back until a successor is chosen. For me nothing is held back. There is a sequence of knowledge transmission in that the knowledge is passed on as the student advances within the art. Example - I do not teach Yondan Kata, Applications, techniques, etc. to Hachikyu. The knowledge is given as they advance and as they can handle it. However nothing is ever held back. Ever! If the student is worthy enough to teach in the first place then they are worthy of all knowledge. If they are not then I fail to see why I would waste my time teaching them in the first place or keep them as a student. My question is do you teach all that you know, holding nothing back as they advance? If you do withhold knowledge can you give a reason for this and what the conditions are?

Tempest, I love watching these clowns get straightened out by reality. Thanks for posting. I'm going to be laughing for at least another hour. Great stuff!

Impressive.

Agreed but because I have trouble gearing down it cost me a year with little training/teaching and another year to get to 90% vs. 100%. I'm still not 100%. This is why I said to listen to your body. I heard it loud and clear but chose to ignore it thinking I was still a young man and could heal as fast. I should have listened. It would have saved me at minimum 6 mths and I might have been back to 100%. Don't do what I did. Listen and stop when your body says enough.

Welcome to KF.

Uuuummmm ok.

Wow that's really sad to think so many would hold a piece of material in higher regard than their own integrity. Really sad.

I like the concept. The problem with this is whether they answer truthfully. I personally think that you can judge a students intentions based on how they conduct themselves in class. Those looking for the glitz and accolades are usually the students that are in it for the belt. If winning trophies is more important than learning, again a pretty good indication. You get my point. I wonder what would happen if you asked them - if I give you this black belt but you could never return to class would you still want it? It would be interesting to see how many would take you up on the belt.

Moderation is something that only you can define. Moderation to me will differ from what you would call moderation. This is because you know your body best. You will know when your body is at that point where you are teetering on over exertion. No one but you can answer this because you have your own pain tolerances, conditioning and understand when your body is telling you enough is enough. The trick is to listen to it and not push past that point. I was told the same thing when my knee was blown out and rebuilt. Unlike what I am telling you I didn't listen to my body and as a result it took me twice as long to recover and get back to some semblance of where I was before my accident. Having said that, it's not that I didn't know when to stop, I just thought I knew better than my doctor and did not want to accept the time frame he had given me for recovery. So instead of 6 months it took me a year. That's what being hard headed and not listening to your doctor will get you. Bottom line is your body will tell you when something is too much, you just have to listen to it.

I don't know of anyone that will embroider without purchase however have you thought about taking it to your local sports shop? I know when I coached my daughters team I had their uniforms screen printed and I noticed they also offered embroidery. I think most that cater to sports teams and school teams do. Worth a shot. Good luck.

Teaching is the primary goal to all instructors. I could not agree with you more Bob. However I must still say there is nothing wrong with showing respect if warranted. This certainly does not effect an instructors ability to teach, in fact I would say it helps his/her ability to teach. But I do whole heatedly agree that the sole focus of an instructor is to teach and thus transmit the art to ones student. You will get no argument from me on that point. I 100% agree!

Well, the thing is Matsu, a LOT of these moves are based on various types of wrestling combined with weapons work. Now, here is an interesting bit of MA history you can feel free to check for yourself if you wish: Every culture and people on the planet that is old enough to be relevant to this discussion has developed a martial art of one form or another. They tend to develop along one of 2 MAIN lines, although there are some hybrids and exceptions. First, and actually most common, are those arts derived from the training of military personnel engaged in the practice and profession of arms. Interestingly, although they tend to be, in original form, "Complete" arts, the emphasis tends toward grappling for the unarmed arts and weapons work tends to be prominent. Particularly the sword for all the arts for which we documentation over the last, say 700 years or so, including Japanese, Chinese, and all of the European arts. Second, and though less common, also quite prominent are the arts that develop from civilian self defense and dueling systems. Interestingly enough this is where most kicking and punching arts tend to come from, for example, both Western boxing and Thai boxing are heavily based on unarmed civilian dueling cultures in place during their early development. You can find similar cultures in place in parts of China as well. Now, Japan had a strange cultural oddity in that it never really developed such a culture. Almost ALL of the native martial arts of Japan are derived from it's military heritage. Including sumo, which was originally based on armored wrestling training and then became entertainment for emperors. Now, you can check that a lot of what I said holds true for Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, all of Europe and a lot of pre-US North America. I am not as familiar with Okinawan martial history, but I do know that a lot of the development of Japanese karate was about turning Okinawa's native fighting art in to... you guessed it, a civilian dueling art to compete with Western and Thai boxing. Perhaps this will give you some more places to look for clues in your historical research. I appreciate the info Tempest. One thing I have to clarify (actually two but they are related) is that the Okinawan's indigenous art of Ti or Ti'gwa was influenced by Muay Boran which was the combative predecessor of Muay Thai. I agree that Muay Thai is more civilianized as it is the sport form of Muay Boran. My understanding of Muay Boran and Okinawan arts is that they as well as most combative forms were practiced/derived along with the use of weapons. Most arts were. I actually have a theory that goes hand in hand with your statements above. Most grappling arts were used/developed (mostly but not all) by warriors that wore armor. Striking arts were used/developed by warriors that did not wear armor. The reason I have this theory is that if you look at Jujitsu it was developed by the Samurai who wore armor. If you look at Muay Boran or Ti or Toudi (Karate) they were developed by warriors that did not wear heavy armor. You would not punch a man wearing armor as you would injure yourself. However by throwing your opponent to the ground he becomes vulnerable. However I do have to point out that even striking arts utilize grappling. Ti when hand in hand with Tegumi , Quan Fa (Gung Fu) went hand in hand with Jiao Di and Qin Na. I'm sure the list goes on and on. However the difference is that they did not wear armor and striking techniques are much more effective. Again just a personal theory but more or less goes hand and hand with your's.

David, I would have to agree with you but I can't say I have first hand experience. A friend of mine bought one, probably thinking if it's expensive it must be high end quality, and had similar issues. Price does not always mean quality.

I just touched on this in another post but I will say that stances have their purpose.

Ok a few more... 6. There is no set direction. Niahanchi has many examples of this and so does Chinto's beginning. Chinto (some perform it this way) start with a 45 degree turn. This is not logical as no one starts a fight facing 45 degree's away from their opponent. There are so many examples of this that it would not be for a post but rather a book. However I think this serves to make the point. 7. There is no set height or angle. Most modern dojo's harp on exact height and angle of a technique within the Kata. This is great if you always fight an opponent that always attacks the same way (directly in front of you) and is the exact height as you are. This is ludicrous and ridiculous. This and most of these examples is why so many have trouble understanding or envisioning the meaning of a posture (step) within the Kata. Hitting an opponent in the brachial plexus is a lot different than hitting them in the shoulder. If the opponent is taller you have no choice but to adjust which is why exact heights in Kata IMHO is ludicrous. What you do in practice IS what you will do in a real fight. Muscle Memory! 8. Just because the Kata is taught a specific way does not mean that this was what was passed down from the founder. A perfect example is blocks. I won't get into the reasons why the intent or practice of certain techniques were changed as I was not there and do not have first hand knowledge of the reasons but one only has to look at the arts that influenced the founders art to realize that changes where made and I would say in a detrimental way. Keep this in mind when trying to analyze a posture (step) within the Kata as to its' real meaning. 9. The postures within the Kata, although in that Kata does not mean that they necessarily belong with other postures within that Kata or that they don't. One has to remember that the Kata was created to contain INDIVIDUAL applications. That means that an application from one Kata might be more effective executed with an application from a different Kata. Don't get locked in to literal translation or you miss the beauty of what the founders left us with. The applications are limitless. An example of this is the (what most call a U-punch or Mountain punch) contained within Matsumura Rohai and the (what most call a lantern stance) contained within Jitte. The "U-punch" is you reaching in and grabbing the opponent by the back of the head (hair, neck, or any other weak area) and the other hand passes past the groin to the lower back/belt. The opponent is then picked up (what some would call a fireman's carry) and then transitioned so that the arm holding the lower back/belt is above the head and that other arm (holding the head/hair/etc. is thrown down so that the opponent is effectively dumped/thrown down on the top of his head. This is not to say that this is the only applications contributed to these postures because it's not. I am just trying to give an example of how one posture from this Kata can be effective with another posture from a totally different Kata. There are too many examples to list here of practical applications. Iain Abernathy does a fine job of showing you what the postures could and in some cases do represent. You can watch a few of his Youtube vids and see examples. Actually I came upon our own Wastelander's video's when viewing one of my students video's and he has very good example of both practical and what I believe are founders applications. I have given you some of our practical and founders applications as additional examples in this and in my other posts to give a bit of clarity and not to copy others practical applications. I hope this has been at least somewhat insightful. Hopefully this will energize you and others to do your own research. The most important thing about practical applications is that it opens the mind to new possibilities, forces analytical thinking and gives the student more tools to draw from. IMHO it is what makes the art what it is along with the Kata's themselves. If I had the time and the energy I could go on for months about this topic because I feel that it's that important to the study of the art. If you have further questions I'll do my best to answer them. Keep in mind, when it comes to the founders applications, ours may not match yours. It is best to ask your Sensei or his Sensei so that you learn your arts techniques and applications. If they do not know, as I said, a little research into the arts that influenced yours is a good start and an eye opener. Good luck!

This was just a bit of information for those looking at applications online or creating practical applications themselves. If you are learning what I call the founders applications then these are present throughout and you already know this. The first video is what I would call literal applications. Punch/block/kick. This is the literal interpretation of the Kata. There is nothing wrong with this in the sense that it teaches you to shift from one stance to the next and builds muscle memory. However they take the Kata literally in that there response to attacks is dictated by the Kata itself. The Kata tells you to move here, execute a block and counter. This does fit into the percussive impact element of the applications so this can be considered viable as long as one is targeting the vital and weak targets of the opponent. If it does not have the potential to end the conflict it's not viable. An example would be Jodan Uke (upper block). You see this in almost every Mudansha Kata. If you think this is logical then practice it as a block. IMHO and based on my experience and training this is not a block. The typical sequence is upper block, transition to a forward leaning stance with a reverse punch. If this is taken literally the question still stands how are you blocking and then stepping forward into an opponent that is already in motion moving towards you. This is one of the problems with literal applications as I would call them. A body in motion is hard to stop and has the advantage. If the opponent is in forward motion with the first punch (lets say to your face since it's an upper block) then the second punch is almost effortless as he is already in motion. Conversely you are blocking straight up so your power is focused up and your momentum is generated up instead of forward. This means that your second response takes a split second to execute because you are changing your momentum's direction. The opponent has the advantage. If you take it one step further, how are you to step in to an opponent moving towards you? Further more, at least in the Okinawan arts you do not meet full force with force but redirect it or step out of the path. This example found within many Kata does not make logical sense. This is because it's not a block. This (upper block) is a strike or as a throw. I will give two examples so you can understand; 1. Your step forward and raise your (upper block) up into the opponents chin or rake up their esophagus to the chin using the forearm or the fist (I prefer the forearm because you have a greater chance of connecting with your target because of the surface area of the weapon). The opponent is rocked backwards and then you can move forwards with your reverse punch because his body no longer takes up that space as in the literal example. 2. I know most no longer teach this strike but we still do. The opponent strikes and you move to the outside of the strike and brush and grab his arm/sleeve. This is then retracted (Hikite or pulling arm) to the chamber and the (upper block) arm is brought around to the back of the opponents head (at the base of the skull) and the thumb knuckle is used as the striking weapon. The chambered hand releases the opponents arm and while stepping forward it executes a strike to the opponent (temple, jaw, bridge or the nose, neck if they have lifted their head, etc.). Believe it or not both methods are practiced or at least used to be practiced while performing the Kata. The Japanese did away with the second example all together for some reason and is rarely seen in the majority of modern Karate schools. The second video was a better representation of practical applications IMHO but then again I have never studied that style of Karate so it may actually be a representation of their founders applications. Is does include throws and strikes but it appeared to me as more of a drill. But again I have no actual knowledge of the art so I am only basing this on opinion and not actual fact. I can comment to a small degree on the first because I studied Matsubayashi Ryu for time as a teenager. I can say I was never taught applications and have never seen that exercise (what I would call literal applications) before. This is not to degrade or pass judgement on either arts or their training methods. Most arts do not publicize their applications so it would be very unfair of me or anyone else to judge those methods. For instance the first video may have been taken out of context and labelled incorrectly by a student and posted as applications (Bunkai). For all I know it may have been a drill to teach the student how to transition while blocking and countering. I can only speak as to my person experience in that we break down the classifications of applications into the original founders applications and what is know as practical applications. I use the term literal applications to describe the teaching of what I would call face value techniques. I would also include non-viable applications into this mix. By this I mean applications that are not efficient (way to many moves to execute the final blow, takes too much time to end the fight), and applications that do not have the potential to end the fight. Some might call these phony but I would disagree with this assessment. I would call them uninformed. They are not fake they just are not effective. There might be another category to describe applications that don't even resemble the posture (step) in the Kata. These are where I believe instructors in their need to provide meaning have taken techniques and applications from other arts and have inserted them as a representation of that posture (step) in a given Kata. It doesn't mean that they are not effective or do not have the potential to end the fight it just means that it did not come from that Kata/ art. All to often the Kata is taken literally but no one starts a fight looking away from their opponent. I just gave away another "secret". Not really but applications are viewed as hidden, secret or advanced. IMHO they are none of these and should be taught as the Kata is taught. Meaning from Hachikyu (or what ever your first grade is) on. Without this knowledge the student makes comments like "why should I learn this, it doesn't help me to fight". It's nothing more than a dance without the applications to give it meaning. Well maybe I shouldn't say that as it does teach one to move and transition from one stance to another. Oh and that is another good point... stances are the most misunderstood part of training. I have heard students in other arts say "why should I learn these, I wouldn't use this in a fight". The stance teaches the student the optimum body position to produce optimum power. If the student is taught how to generate power through their body from the floor to the weapon in the proper stance maximum power can be generated. Fights are ugly and you will find yourself in all sorts of positions but this goes back to muscle memory and teaching the body proper alignment. Even if your not in a perfect natural stance (you might be a tad twisted, etc.) by practicing the stances and transitioning from stance to stance within the Kata the practitioner has a better balance and can still generate enough power to effect a damaging blow. All arts have their stances including boxing, wrestling, etc. The reason they are taught is to teach the body and develop muscle memory so that the body naturally transitions without thought. Some might disagree but this is my opinion. Another note, No fight happens that way a Kata is structured. Based on my research and what I have always been taught the Kata is merely a manual, if you will, that contains the applications. How the founder, or maybe I should say the arts that influenced the founder, developed or interpreted the applications actually is what makes each art unique or at least used to. Oh and if there is any secret about applications this would be it... it makes the art what it is or what it was meant to be before it was japanized. The Kata is basically like a collection of all of the techniques and applications for that art. It is hard to see or imagine some times but if you think about each posture as a picture (just one) that represents a total application (could be two or more that represent the application as well) that was meant to remind the practitioner, without writing down or showing each step, what it represents. This is primarily why most do not know what the Kata and it's steps represent because the meaning has been lost or discarded or was not passed down. Thus you get words like secret, hidden or too dangerous to teach to humans. Bogus! These applications can however be rediscovered through study of the arts that influenced your art. In the case of Okinawan Karate and even Japanese Karate (as long as they are still using the original Kata) you can do a little research or even ask your Sensei what these arts were and then look at the Hsing and it's applications to get an idea. In my case I actually discovered that there where small discrepancies between what I was told was the original application and what I found. This mattered little as they were both proof tested and viable so really in the end I added to my tool box of applications. SWEET! I have no problem going into detail for a given Kata (providing that we actually study the Kata in question) but each art practices the same Kata slightly differently and what might be our founders applications might not be yours. Each student should be taught their arts applications but if not there are ways (legitimate ways) to find out the intent on their own or you can create your own practical applications. However a strong word of caution - what you see on the internet and on Youtube is subjective (I'm being nice) and there are MANY that do not fit within what characterizes a real application. Just remember to ask yourself if it's effective and has the potential to end the fight. If it doesn't then don't waste another minute with it. Proof test every application against a resistive non-compliant opponent.

Alan, Interesting video. Thanks for the post. As far as Jujitsu goes, I can not speculate. However, Qin Na (Chin Na) has influenced Tuite and there is some proof to support that. The problem we have proving anything in this day and age is sifting through what people think vs. documented proof. This unfortunately means written, pictures, photo's, etc. The information age was not around then and most scrolls or written proof are not available to back up claims. I think it's really to the individual to sift through the millions of videos, posts, sites, and books and form their own opinion. But that will be all that it is, an opinion. Most founders of arts did not keep a record that stated that they learned this from an Egyptian, Greek or Chinese teacher. So speculation and opinion are the best you will ever find to support these claims.

Tempest, I have to agree with you. I was researching Muto (Tegumi) and where our throws, takedowns, sweeps and off balancing techniques come from because I wanted a better answer than Okinawan Sumo or that it came from Jujitsu. I found an art called Jiao Di that was used as a combat form of throwing. It shows the same techniques as ours and I thought I had all of the answers and then one of my friends gave me a book that showed the exact same throws but they were not just Chinese but from many other countries. Point is there is no historical record of where any of this came from. We can only speculate as to where it came from and how. I wish I could disagree with you because I have spent years researching to find definitive proof of exact origins for my art and would love to say that I have succeeded in all respects. Some are easily proven and have documented proof others are mere speculation and assumptions and will probably always remain that way until someone produces written proof. I think snow balls will fall in the middle of a 100 degree day before that will happen. It's just not out there.

Not to sound ignorant but what is a Kane and wilder book? Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder, who practice and teach Goju-Ryu, and both have a good deal of experience doing security work of various types, wrote a book called "The Way of Kata," which goes over some fundamental concepts for bunkai. Thanks. I'll look it up.

Not to sound ignorant but what is a Kane and wilder book?

I agree with you in that all too often schools will err on the side of caution and keep things slow so that no one gets hurt. Fighting is unpredictable and I can see why you do not agree with the way some train. Having said that I can only comment based on my training and experience and will allow others to comment for Karate as a whole. In the beginning phases we show the students how to defend against a set attack. Basically offender punches and the defender moves/deflects and counters. This is done at a slow speed so that the student can learn the technique/application and start to build muscle memory. However this is not a stagnant thing. This training should transition into training against a resistive opponent. Meaning that they no longer throw the strike slow or at the same height or angle. This then progresses into more of a free form of practice where as the opponent might throw any number of combinations until the student stops the attack by effecting a viable strike/throw/submission/etc. that ends the fight. This is done at full speed. The concept is building upon their knowledge. They start learning a few techniques and applications and these are built upon. The training should go from compliant to resistive so that the student can assess it's effectiveness and suitability to them. This can only be done through pressure testing against a non-compliant opponent. Each application and technique is done in this fashion and is built upon until the student has an endless amount of techniques and applications to draw upon. The problem I have with sparring (Kumite) in most modern schools is everything the student is taught goes right out the window the minute they step on the floor. I also find issue with modern practice of kumite in that it is applied as a long distance method of fighting. This is not practical as 99.99% of fights are close quarters. You should practice as you will fight in a real conflict. If you do not, muscle memory will revert the student back to the way they fight in class and this never ends well. The training should be real in that how you practice will be how you will fight in a real confrontation.

I wouldn’t call this deep bunkai... I’d call this deep bunkai. Especially in about the middle. Perhaps I should use “deep” instead of “Okinawan”... I will not comment as to whether these examples are of actual applications but let you decide on what I considers viable applications (Bunkai) for yourself. There are two main criteria that we use to describe viable applications. 1. Must have the potential to end the fight and 2. Must be efficient. Essentially if the application does not have the potential to end the fight then it is not viable. If the application is not efficient, meaning that it takes minimum effort and time to end the conflict, then it is not viable. In studying the Kata's applications you will find at least 4 categories that they will fit into. 1. Percussive Impact - this is the most popular category because its easy to see and or follow. This includes strikes, kicks, blocks (not really as these are strikes and or throws). However without the next category this category will not meet the two main criteria. 2. Chibudi (Kyusho or Dim Mak) - This is the targeting of weak area's of the body such as the eyes, neck, groin, the joints, etc. Targeting of the vitals and cavities such as nerve centers and branches, veins and arteries, ligaments and tendons. 3. Muto (Tegumi and Jiao Di) - Throws, sweeps, takedowns and off balancing techniques. 4. Tuite (Qin Na) - Submissions, locks, traps, chocks and grappling techniques. There is one (two if you ask others) more but this makes the point. Characteristics of Applications (Bunkai) 1. every movement within the Kata has meaning. Basically no movement/posture is just a transition or put in to get you from one move to the next. And thus no movement is to be ignored as useless unless proven to be by the individual. (not all things work for all people) 2. Each posture is a snap shot of the total application. Simply put the Chinese and Okinawan's used the Kata as a training manual and each and every posture represented an application or multiple applications. Think of the postures as one picture that was taken as the total application was being demonstrated. Its a representation of the application. A reminder to the practitioners that have been taught them. 3. The Kata was put together in such a way as to allow the practitioner to move from one posture to the next in order to teach body mechanics and body shifting (what the Japanese call Tai Sabaki). It was created to house the postures that make up the curriculum of the art and is not necessarily a representation of the true applications. Explanation - just because it looks like a block doesn't mean it's a block. A strike doesn't always mean it's a strike and a kick doesn't always mean that it's a kick. The Kata was created to teach the applications and to keep a record of them. Not the other way around. The applications are the key component to learning how to fight thru the Kata. 4. Closed fists can represent a strike but they also can represent a grab. They can also represent a pull as in Hikite. This is a basic explanation and thus does not encompass all meanings but gives a basic understanding. 5. Open hands can represent a strike, brush, sweep or trap but can also represent a push. This is a basic explanation and thus does not encompass all meanings but gives a basic understanding. There are many more but I will not bore you with them as I feel this gives at least a foundation for understanding.

Rules are great as long as all sides abide by them. This is seldom the case. Many rules have been past to make war less horrific but it always boils down to one persons personal ethics, morals and humanity. So in effect the rules for all only matter if the rules for one coincide with them. Not only do both sides have to agree to abide by them but it comes down to one soldier at one instant in time and one act and the decision made at that time. Throughout history the rules have been circumvented in individual acts. Rules are there to keep honest moral people from becoming dishonest immoral people. They do little when it comes to those without that same moral compass.