MatsuShinshii

Honestly I did not see much of this in the 70's and early 80's. There was one that I can recall in the late 80's, funny story - one of our Ikkyu students took an "introductory class" and told the guy he was a fraud in front of the class. The guy took a swing and he floored the so called Godan and he refused to get back up and cried a little to boot. You would think that his students would hit the exit door like a heard of wildebeests crossing a river full of crock's but to my surprise and many others he didn't end up loosing anyone and was turning out "black belts" after two years of so called study. They couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag but they had their black belts. The 90's is where I feel the McDojo concept really took off and we started seeing this as a common theme. Yes it was probably around in the 60's, 70's and 80's but it wasn't as prevalent. IMHO this is due to one factor. In those years it WAS about fighting and learning to defend yourself. This kumbayah nonsense of philosophy, staying in shape and let's all hold hands with our aggressor, you know what, would have never flied in those early years. As I have said before, if you were wearing a BB everyone knew you could fight because you did not earn it any other way. Now days these frauds are a dime a dozen and anyone with a printer that has a minimal knowledge of computers can print out all the phony certificates they want and buy all the phony belts they want and claim to be a MA god and most will except this without question. The days of expecting your Sensei to mix it up on the floor are long gone thanks to these wimps that hide behind their students. "I can't fight you because my technique is too deadly and I would hurt or hospitalize you". Sorry I just threw up a little just typing that. So instead they have their so called senior students teach classes. Even worse, IMO, they have students that have earned their legitimate BB in another art teach their students. To be honest there have been frauds since the dawn of time. I think the difference is the new politically correct lay of the land where these idiots can hide behind the peaceful guise of modern day arts rather than putting there skill on the line and proving that they are what they are. Walking out of a Dojo with bumps, bruises and even a black eye or broken nose was just part of training then. Now kids would have an emotional melt down if they trained the way we did. Why? because society has deemed this type of training as barbaric. Maybe it was but students walked out of class KNOWING they could handle themselves. Can this be said of students today? Because of this recent trend of no contact fraudulent teachers can go for years, even decades without ever being discovered. When exactly did McDojo's surface here in the states? Who can tell. All I know is if we brought back the days of challenging head instructors and testing someones so called skills (I'm showing my age), barbaric or not, would put a speedy end to these creeps. I for one am all for it. And no this is not fiction. I was a kid and witnessed several of my instructors take challenges. Funny thing... no cops, no lawyers, just one person won and the other walked away with their tail between their legs. Our instructors routinely would take on each student to gauge their progression and sometimes many of the students. If you were a Yudansha you got to find out just how good your Sensei was on a regular basis. You knew your Sensei could fight. Now... not so much. Now it's papers hanging on the wall and a very colorful belt around their waste. Take my word for it, so to speak. "Look at the pretty certificates that say I am what I'm claiming to be, It's in writing so it must be true right?". Well that's it for me. Between getting aggravated at the mere thought of this topic and throwing up a little while trying to make their excuses for them, I have to end this or I fear my monitors life is in jeopardy because I feel like punching it. What can I say I'm cheap and monitors are expensive.

Ok I have to interject a little common sense humor... sure I can if you turn around for me. Sorry I couldn't help myself.

Whilst this may be the case with Okinawan karate, there is evidence that in Japanese Koryu Bujutsu - the practice of solo kata (for the reasons highlighted by JazzKicker) - had an intrinsic value - applications aside. Traditions like Yoshin-ryu and Tenshin shinyo ryu have a series of esoteric solo exercises designed to embed principles and attributes of stability and internal strength (before they are realised against an opponent / training partner). The practice of said solo exercises were key to making the paired exercises within the system work, but they weren't excerpts from the paired sets - they were completely different from an appearance point of view. K. I appreciate this explanation and history of the Japanese arts. I must admit that I was not thinking in these terms. Thank you for the clarification.

No disrespect JazzKicker but your understanding comes from modern day examples of the art and is not based on historical truth. The means of trasmittal was the Kata. The Okinawan's did not write down the techniques and applications but created a means by which to transmit them which we call the Kata. Prior to Modern day Karate Do, Toudi (To-Di) was passed down by means of teaching the Kata. This was done so not to teach students a neat form that they could win tournaments with but rather to teach soldiers to fight. This whole concept that Kata is worthless goes along with the theory that poor farmers created Toudi (Karate) or Buki-gwa (Kobudo), when it was actually the warrior class (think Samurai). Just like Kenjutsu or Jujutsu, Toudi and Buki-gwa were created to teach warriors to defend the country and to be used in Battle. Again no disrespect but history refutes the notion that Kata is nothing more than a Dance. It really depends on how it has been transmitted down from the founder and how it is taught. So in saying that, I will agree in terms of how Kata is taught in most schools today... you can't learn how to fight by studying the Kata. But... if taught the way it was taught, you can learn to fight by studying the Kata. None taken! I wouldn't say the origin of kata with soldiers vs. farmers validates it one way or the other. If you go back before the late 19th century the history isn't really there, anyway, except for documents like the Bubishi. But if you've studied Ryu-Kyu Kempo and Tuite, you probably know that movements in the forms can be interpreted as pressure point strikes, joint locks, etc. and not simply blocking and punching. That adds a lot of depth and meaning if you can "unlock the secrets", but learning how to do those techniques is even harder, and without a partner you're simply "going through the motions". Agreed. And there is no such thing as a block in Toudi as there is in Karate Do. I have heard this argument from others including those within my own art. However Ti or Ti-gwa was influenced by Muay Boran which is the predecessor of Muay Thai. Muay Boran like Toudi or Ti-gwa incorporated weapons as it was for combat. If you research the Tonfa or Tuifa in Saimese or Thai weaponry you will find a weapon that predates the Tonfa. For the life of me I can not remember the name, but it is a tonfa with a strap. It is used differently than the Okinawan version. My Shinshii had a photo in his personal collection that clearly shows this Thai version and I was told but have never confirmed it, but I believe this photo or one like it is in a Okinawan museum. My personal opinion in the matter of the Tuifa is that it does not come from a mill handle as we are led to believe but from this weapon (again I apologize but my old brain is having a senior moment). Sai and the version of the sai is found throughout Asia and even in India in different forms. I have heard the theory of it being used to plant rice along with other theories. None make any sense. If you research ancient weaponry you find this form of weapon in China, India, and most Asian countries. Japan has the Jutte. If it came from a farm implement please show me an early example of it and what it's use was because in my years of researching my art and the origins I have yet to find more than theories. I believe necessity is the mother of all inventions. Simply put if you are fighting a foe that wields swords and other bladed weapons superior to yours you invent something which will protect you from it, even capture it and un-arm those with it. If the farmers and peasant class of the day had no education and little in the way of tools, especially steel/iron (they were poor) but the warrior class did, who do you think would have or could have created such a weapon? Personally I have my money on the warrior class. The Nunchaku... well I can't argue with this other than to say that the three sectional staff was around far longer than the Nunchaku and we know from history that the Okinawans adopted many Chinese weapons. I guess I am a skeptic when it comes to this subject because of the way the argument is presented. First you heard every western instructor saying that Toudi (Karate) came from peasants and farmers. Well that is not true and it has been proven without a doubt. Then the next theory is that all Kobudo weaponry was created by these same peasants. Well here is a little tid bit of truth and a theory debunked. Sakugawa was of the Pechin class (Warriors) under the employment of the king. The theory you find or hear about the Rokushaku Bo (Kun) is that is was the stick that peasants and farmers used to carry their buckets of water. Well a stick might have been used for this but the art of using the staff did not come from peasants. There is documented proof that Sakugawa and others in that time were masters of the staff. Matsumura himself was a master of the staff. How then could it have been created by uneducated farmers and peasants if the military of the time had a long history of it's use? I will buy the Kuwa, Kama or Eku as farmer/fisherman weapons. Kuwa is all the way a farming implement as well as the Eku is all the way a fisherman's implement. Kama is a tool to cut rice but where then did Nichogama come from? Farmers had no need to carry two sickles. it would not only be cumbersome but impractical to carry what one tool could do. Better yet were does three Sai come from? If it was a farming implement they would only be carrying one so were does the pair come into play and further more why would anyone except a soldier need a third to throw? Wouldn't the farmer just carry two and throw one? However let me interject a theory and maybe a little insight into this mystery. Just like the Japanese Samurai, before it was banned, the Okinawan classes were adept in the arts of farming, carpentry, fishing, etc. Is it more plausible that these weapons were then picked up by the peasant/farmer/fisherman class when seeing the land owners utilize them? And lets take it a step further and let me ask you where the Timbe and Rochin came from on the farm. Better yet when weapons were banned, supposedly the reason that the farmers created these weapons where did they get short spears for Rochin, iron for their Sai. Look the Sai is not orginally from Okinawa. Again if you look it up you will find examples of the weapon throughout the Saimese empire, Indonesia and Asia. It's not an Okinawan creation but a weapon that was incorporated. Just like the mxing pot that turned into what we now call Karate, Buki-gwa (kobudo) weapons were incorporated or influenced by other countries. The Okinawan's took fighting traditions from other countries and incorporated them together with their indigenous arts. Basically taking all techniques that worked best for them and melded them together to creat what we call Karate. Kobudo is no different and neither is it's weapons. In fact you can find examples, as I have already said, of different weapons from other countries that predate their use on Okinawa. I could fill many posts with examples and questions but suffice it to say that I do not buy the peasant/farmer theory when there are too many historical examples and logical deductions to accept what most likely came from a westerner's lack of understanding and history. Most likely the same person that pushed the theory that the empty hand fighting art came from farmers or one of his students or acquaintances who hear his theory. You say that there is little historical evidence but there is no evidence, except modern examples, of this theory that the peasant class created a systematic form of learning to utilize weaponry. Here is one last thing to ponder... ever wonder why Kobudo Kata resembles Karate Kata? Think about it. For me I will believe what years of questioning and researching has led me to believe. Toudi/Ti and Buki-gwa came from the warrior class not the peasant class.

I have spent so much time thinking about, and debating, this very thing. We have to begin understanding that secrecy in regarding bunkai is useless. To the bold above - I could not agree more. The way the art was transmitted was to teach the Kata and the applications as it was taught. Not only when the student reaches a set level (typically Yudansha). To truly understand the Art it must be taught with a total understanding. The only way this is accomplished is to teach the applications (Bunkai) as you teach the Kata. If you understand the history of the art you will understand that the Kata is a vessel (like a book) that contains the true intent and meaning of the art. The applications are the meaning. Kata by itself without the understanding of the applications is merely a means to teach body mechanics, how to transition and weight distribution. It also eludes to direction or body positioning in terms of understanding the Bunkai. In and of itself, it is a useful tool but without understanding, what most call "hidden techniques", it does not teach the true intent which is the combative applications.

To the bold above - This might surprise some here but I agree 100%. But this is an interpretation of how many practice the applications. The applications are not meant to be a stagnant concept. They are taught to the student as the founders applications which are the base applications. Once these are learned then additional (practical) applications are taught. Once the student understands the foundational principles of the applications they are tasked to apply them but not within the confines of same attack/same counter. A student must be able to adapt, be able to change and adapt applications to meet the attack. This concept is no different from the way most arts are taught. A core foundation of techniques/applications are first taught to the student and then they, through pressure tests and trials learn how to adapt what they have learned and also to apply the right applications or groups of applications to meet and over come the threat. There is nothing static (as in attack = direct response) to the art. At first it is but again this is the learning phase. Once the student knows and understands the techniques and applications they then apply them to any given situation with a resistive partner. This engages the brain in understanding means of attack, angles, speed, direction, and depth so that they learn what counters the attack.

Excellent explanation. Solid points.

Without understanding of the applications you are right, Kata is nothing short of a dance. I have to disagree with you here. Kihon is a modern creation and was not used as it is today. Kihon was not integrated as it is today. There is a strong argument for Kumite as paired drills were implemented during training but Kihon was not apart of the picture when Toudi was created so how did the warriors of old learn to fight? Again if you research you will find that the three "K's" are a modern (Japanese) invention. Learning how to fight is facilitated by the use of Kata, Conditioning and Paired Drills alone if taught the way it was when it was created.

No disrespect JazzKicker but your understanding comes from modern day examples of the art and is not based on historical truth. The means of trasmittal was the Kata. The Okinawan's did not write down the techniques and applications but created a means by which to transmit them which we call the Kata. Prior to Modern day Karate Do, Toudi (To-Di) was passed down by means of teaching the Kata. This was done so not to teach students a neat form that they could win tournaments with but rather to teach soldiers to fight. This whole concept that Kata is worthless goes along with the theory that poor farmers created Toudi (Karate) or Buki-gwa (Kobudo), when it was actually the warrior class (think Samurai). Just like Kenjutsu or Jujutsu, Toudi and Buki-gwa were created to teach warriors to defend the country and to be used in Battle. Again no disrespect but history refutes the notion that Kata is nothing more than a Dance. It really depends on how it has been transmitted down from the founder and how it is taught. So in saying that, I will agree in terms of how Kata is taught in most schools today... you can't learn how to fight by studying the Kata. But... if taught the way it was taught, you can learn to fight by studying the Kata.

Depends on whether your instructor teaches the applications of the Kata or just the Kata as it is typically taught in modern Karate. Short answer - YES, you can learn to fight by learning the Kata. Case in point this is exactly how the art was transmitted before it became known as Karate or Karate Do. Kihon was not practiced as it is today so you did not see students on line shouting numbers as they executed the same technique over and over. They learned the Kata, they were taught the applications and were paired off to practice the applications (what is now called Bunkai). Once the student understood the applications they would be tasked with trial testing these against other forms of attack. The student learned to fight as they learned the Kata. Where as today the student may not learn the Bunkai for their first Kata until they reach the Yudnasha level, and in more cases than not the student never learns the meaning of the Kata. It's for tournament use only.

JR 137, Yep too many think that the belt somehow elevates us to a level just because we wear it. However there was a time when if you wore the belt you actually earned the belt and the belt represented more than it does today. You can see this in CI's who weigh 300 lbs and can not sit in Seiza much less Anza, can barely lift their leg past the height of their knee (not saying you really have to but it illustrates the lack of flexibility) and can not go 20 minutes teaching their own class with out sitting down to catch their breath. Or worse in those that are given the belt without having the skills, knowledge and ability to maintain the integrity of what the belt represents (or used to represent). A belt by itself is just a piece of cloth worth nothing more that what you or your organization paid for it. What it symbolizes is different than just having it. Which is why being a BB is different than just having a BB. One should strive to improve and maintain the integrity of what the belt symbolizes. This is what modern Karateka fail to understand when they say it's just another belt or just another grade. To this I would say. "Yes Mr. obvious, it is just another belt in terms of it's cloth and is worn the same way that every belt before it is worn", however it's not the belt but what it means that differentiates it from those that preceded it. You and what you know, your skill and knowledge is what makes the belt what it is. If your standards are low, then yes, the belt means less. The belt is supposed to represent the culmination of the years, hours, blood, seat and tears that it took to get it. It represents the improvement of skills and knowledge that translates into one that can handle themselves. Your skills and knowledge should exceed those below your grade. By this I mean if you are beaten by those below your grade you do not deserve to wear the grade. It's really quite simple. Those that degrade the meaning of the grade do so to cover inadequacies and deficiencies. And thus they claim it's "JUST" another belt. However the belt in and of itself does not represent or define the wearer. The person wearing it defines the belt and as such the belt is only worth what knowledge and skill the wearer has. If the wearer of the belt can't defend themselves against lesser grades then the belts meaning is degraded. The belt in and of itself is nothing more than colored material. Whether in the dojo or on the street, it's your knowledge, abilities and skill that defines what the belt represents. You are judged by what you say and what you do by most. In that if you state you are a Yudansha and can't defend yourself against a child (you're a wimp wearing a BB), then the belt now represents to those that see you get your collective tail beaten what you represented it as, worthless and yes, Just another belt. How does that happen? How does one "earn" the grade of Yudansha when you can't fight? Doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Those that get caught up in the belt for the sake of the belt miss the entire picture. What good is it if you get the belt but can't fight your way out of a wet paper bag? I can give a student a black belt but it means absolutely nothing without the knowledge, abilities and skill that it is supposed to represent. Those that seek to degrade the standards so that they can pacify the fast food mentality of their students and justify it by saying that is just a stepping stone or just another belt probably got their BB the same way with minimized standards. It's just a belt but what it stands for, or at least use to stand for, is so much more. I feel that one should strive to elevate rather than degrade the standards that represent a person who wears the belt. By doing so you produce better Karateka that can actually handle themselves in a fight. Imagine that, BB's that can actually fight. I'm sorry but I have no patience for the new generations of instructors that give belts away for attendance or for meeting the minimal requirements and make excuses for why their students can not defend themselves. This is part in parcel why others say Karate is not a good self defense art and that you should turn to MMA. Its also why no one puts much credence into a black belt, no matter the grade. But then what do you expect from those that give a black belt away if you can do 20 push ups, 200 sit ups and perform Kata that your students have no idea of why they are doing them or what they represent? Kinda makes sense. So yes, now days, a belt is just a belt and it you must measure the wearer rather than the grade. Proof is on the floor, not around your waste. However this was not always the case. It is sad that what use to hold a prominent place is now just another grade, belt and step along the way to achieving Kudan at the age of 30. Yes that is huge sarcasm. Or is it? Just take a few minutes to surf the web and you'll find a hundred unqualified, phony, unworthy frauds claiming to be Soke or Hanshi of 20 different arts between the ages of 20 to 40 years old, some with the credentials to back their claims which is even more disturbing. I wonder why their students (that came from other arts) teach their classes? It's a mystery for sure. Ok that was some more sarcasm. Couldn't help myself. But it makes the point. Requirements and expectations have been minimized to the extent that older guys like me hold no respect for the belt until we confirm that the wearer is actually worthy of it. That they are black belts and not just wearing black belts. Sad!

I'm 6'2" and 210 lbs. I have heard that question and others. I don't tell others that I practice MA's unless the subject is brought up by the other person. Usually they end up talking about it or they tell me that they are a practitioner and then you are able to carry on a conversation about a mutual interest rather than being sarcastically challenged. It's the same with the military. The first question everyone asks is "did you kill anyone". In all scenarios it's best to smile and walk away from the situation. Nothing you say is the right answer so it's better to not answer at all and let them think as they will.

When your Sensei promotes you. When your Sensei tells you your ready. This is partly up to your Sensei and partly up to you. I have turned down promotions when I did not feel ready and there is nothing wrong with this but must be done in a humble manner so as not to make it seem that you are questioning the instructors decision. Kind of a touchy subject and should be approached only if there is a good reason you feel you are not ready. Most modern dojo/schools have a time in grade component to their grading. However, NO, there is no set time. Everyone learns at their own pace and everyone has different abilities. To say that everyone should test at a given time is IMHO not practical. Some will be ready sooner than others and others will take more time than average. Minimum/ Maximum grading time is based on an average. That does not cover everyone. Your Sensei is the deciding factor of when and if you test. Focus on skill. Belts can be bought. They are only as good as the person wearing them. Being a BB is different than having a BB. Again you can buy a belt or can even be given a belt. However it means nothing if you get destroyed by a Hachikyu. The belt is only as good as the person wearing it. You focus should be on obtaining the knowledge and skill. The belt does not represent you. You could be a black belt and be wearing a white belt. If the belt defines who you are then do you loose the knowledge and skill you already had obtained to earn the black belt? On a different note, if you are given a black belt and get beat by a schools green belt are you truly a black belt? You define the belt not the other way around. Concentrate on skill and knowledge and the belts will come. If you hold value in the belt, what happens if you change styles and are forced to start over? Belts mean nothing. As Sensei8 likes to say, "proof is on the floor". It's not around your waist.

Solid post. Excellent advice.

Sounds like your talking about the Millennials. Every young person I have interviewed for a potential job has this attitude. They feel that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's called parents not being honest and over elevating their children even when they fail. They do not have common sense. They feel that they deserve the same as those that have done something for most of their lives and have expertise in. It matters not that they haven't the foggiest notion of the position they apply for. They just know their mommy and daddy told them they were better than everyone else and they expect you to feel the same. It's called not properly preparing their kids for the real life. It's called dishonesty but they call it good parenting. Wow things have changed. Again sounds like Millennials. Those that spend their entire lives worried about what others on the internet think of them and measuring their self worth on how many "likes" they have. Essentially putting their whole lives, including personal, on line for the world to see because they have swallowed the kool-aid and think the only way they achieve something is for everyone creeping on line to see them do it and to give them positive comments. This is not in my book a measure of self worth but then again I'm a little older and don't need someone to pat me on the back and tell me what I'm worth. In their minds this is a success. But why wouldn't it be? They have received trophies for loosing. Is this not the same thing? Being on TV and loosing is still winning and is for all intents and purposes a form of success just like posting on line and having millions view you. They got on TV so they won. Pretty simple really. But I'm not sure why my generation or any other leading up to these younger peoples generation would be surprised by this. We see it every day. Instant gratification, awards without accomplishment, praise for mediocrity. What is it that anyone should expect? You didn't make the mistake and think that they should live up to a higher standard when all standards have been removed and deleted, did you? Every kid gets passed on so they do not strive to pass. Every kid gets a trophy so they do not strive to win. Every kid gets told they are the best so they just do not strive to be better. You were expecting more????????? Ha! The jokes on you.

Sorry Alan. I still do not understand how a marker can be helpful in simulating a gun unless you are taping a grip to it. That and I'm not sure why you are training for 0 distance confrontations with a gun. I've never met someone that can close the distance faster than I can put a round in their dome. Not to say that preparedness is not a good idea, I just don't ever see it happening. The MA's teaches one to read the intentions of others and if carrying, I would think that most, I would, would be able to identify the threat, pull their fire arm and squeeze off a round before the attacked could close the distance to necessitate the need to learn 0 distance shooting. If they are that close because you have emptied your mag and missed every shot you would have better luck throwing the pistol at them and running away. That and you should not be able to carry a fire arm in the first place if you can't hit the broad side of a barn that close anyway. The danger of hitting innocents is to great. I just do not see the need for this type of training. I was with you on the knife. You have totally lost me with the gun.

Well said JR 137. Solid points.

Congrats!

Don't forget the hips for generation of power.

Our patch is round and red with a Tomoe in the center or the Okinawan flag symbol and a diagonal fist on either side with our style/art written in Kanji. We also wear a Tomoe on the left shoulder for Dan grading in Buki'gwa (Kobudo). Our Gi tops are black with white bottoms once you reach Dan grade.Our Obi has the style, our name, and grade in Kanji.

To the bold above - it's called Tomoe

??????????? How can a marker be likened to a pistol? And for what intended purpose in training. I can see a practice, maybe rubber, pistol to practice striking an opponent once you are out of rounds but how does a marker fit into this equation? I gotta say I'm not following.

I disagree. I have had a rifle or pistol in my hand since I was very young and the premise that they are one in the same while practicing with them is not in my mind even close. The premise of this discussion is practicing with a resisting opponent with a knife. That means that the opponent is trying to score hits and so are you, attack and defend. If you were to liken this type of one on one practice to a fire arm you wouldn't call it practice because practice has the connotation that you are able to do the exercise again. This type of practice with a fire arm is final and can not be repeated. This would not even be called practice, it would be called battle. The person that looses dies. When teaching a layman to shoot the barrel is aimed down range at it's intended target, not flailing around with the intention of striking another individual unless you are practicing CQC and this would be without rounds (ammo) in the weapon. The only reason that you would be engaging a combatant to bludgeon or bayonet him is because they either surprised you and got within your danger zone to were you would not have time to turn the barrel of them or if you were out of ammo. The point is that the part that is dangerous is aimed away from people. Practice is not aiming and shooting your training partner. This all depends on your experience and how you were trained. I have trained with a live blade. However I agree this is not needed. You mention Japanese sword swingers below. There are three types of practice blades utilized which are Iaito, Bokken and Shinai. All need protective equipment to utilize during sparring. However they make (I personally have not used this) foam swords now so that you can engage fully when attacking and defending without the risk of injury. But again I am not saying that the Marker idea is the end all but merely a safe substitute to blunt blades. I have used blunt blades as well as wooden and bamboo to practice with an opponent. I have also used Shinken. In utilizing knives I have used blunts and wooden weapons. I'm not unaccustomed to the use of these training implements and I do agree that it adds the extra element of realism or aliveness as you say. However safety is always an issue especially with a novice. In fact I fear a novice with no experience more so than a master of their perspective art because the novice has no idea what they are doing, they can be over zealous, unpredictable and have literally no control. For this I would definitely utilize the markers as a safe alternative and again if you understand the targeting, methodology, power and resulting damage I still would utilize this for experienced practitioners as a way to measure their progress against other experienced practitioners. To the bold above... exactly! To the underlined... totally agree. To the rest... Understood and I get were you are coming from however I must make this statement that a martial artist can take any object and make it a lethal weapon if you know how to use it and where to use it. The element of danger is not removed completely but limited. What is the difference between a pencil and a knife? I can do just as much damage stabbing you with a pencil in vital targets as I can with a knife. In fact I would submit more because I can break the pencil off in side of you. A marker, although not the right length so an argument could be made for that, is still a weapon of sorts and this purpose is to inflict damage, although not the kind a real blade would. A blunt practice weapon by it's very definition is the same thing. Look, I agree with you because I have trained this way. However I can see the value to the utilization of this implement to train. Yes you could argue that it's not as realistic but that depends on the intent. If a seasoned practitioner is utilizing the marker, do you think lessons could not be learned by analyzing the marks made during a full out session? Do you think that at full speed, targeting, precision and type of strike would not be training tools in analyzing the marks after a session? I think this would be very helpful. A blunt and live blade have their place in training but you can't see what you had done after the conflict with a blunt, especially when wearing protective gear. There are no marks. A live blade... well a live blade would definitely tell the tail but this would be akin to practicing with a fire arm as a stated before, final. I see the potential benefits is this methodology and I think it can teach a well trained practitioner what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong. Now if you are only using this to see how many times you connect, then yes I agree its pretty foolish. Just my 2 or 3 cents on the subject.

I'm glad you brought this up. This is an understanding of the applications of the Kata (Bunkai). Yes it is a pulling mechanism thus the name and it can be utilized to effect a throw and it can also be utilized to control the opponent or pull him into you as you strike, thus taking away his counter by taking him off balance. However these are just a few techniques that are utilized by the pulling hand. If you think of things in reverse as in one of the practical Bunkai applications, the punching hand is the pulling hand and the pulling hand is an elbow strike to the liver or xiphoid or floating rib, etc. This is just one more example. However there are many more applications once you start to analyze the Kata and understand not only the founders applications and practical applications but after you delve further into researching the original arts that influenced the art (namely the Quan Fa that influenced Toudi or To-Te if you prefer) you will find even more applications that for what ever reason the founder chose to leave out or was just not not passed down. This is the beginning stages. Once you start to see what they represent you start to see other applications for the same movement(s) and the puzzle comes together. Once they are proven effective you will add another tool to your tool box.

Actually, I am with Alan here. Although Aikido IS learned the same way Judo is at first, the reason it gets such a bad rap is that in most schools they never progress to the idea of an intelligently resisting opponent. Opting instead for ever increasing complexity of movement, like a dance class. Looks pretty, is not fighting. I will take your word for it as I have never actually taken the art. I did watch and participate in a demonstration of Ki by an Aikido teacher when I was a teenager. I was impressed with this at the time. However I was more into striking arts and never entertained it again. Having said that I really have nothing to put forth on the subject if you are saying that it is not practiced like Judo. So... I'll take your word for it until someone else chimes in with a different experience.