MatsuShinshii

Sensei8, I believe you have stumped me as I have never heard the term Dento Bunkai. It may be a difference of terminology (Japanese to Hogan) but would you be so kind as to explain to me the definition of this type of Bunkai? I understand it is a stage, I just do not understand what it represents. Although we do not use this terminology I know the terminology for Kihon Bunkai, Kakushi Bunkai, and Henka Bunkai, but have never even heard the term Dento. Hate to show my ignorance but this one has stumped me and could not find anything on Google search to help enlighten me. The closest thing I got to a description is that Den means traditional.

He is very famous, and I appreciate his integrity. Let me ask you two things here: is it possible that we are over-conditioned by our nationalist age and instead of seeing Chinese and Okinawan martial arts as belonging to one family we are to concerned with the nationality of those martial arts? and, you say that Karate is the father of MMA. I am not against it. But if the founder of karate were looking for a martial Way? Is it possible that they were not thinking only about effective ways to finish an opponent but also on a martial art that would help them achieve the Way? Merry Christmas MatsuShinshii Pleasure conversing with you! Very interesting observation. As I can see similarities, I would personally not agree with one family. In my way of thinking they are two distinct MA's. My reasoning would be that the Okinawan arts are very crisp, sharp, and in terms of Chinese arts, very rigid comparatively. Although I see where you are going, I don't know if I can agree as there are very much distinct and both have their nuances that highlight their nationality. Well as I see it, Karate was one of the first arts that incorporated or as people like to say today, "cross train" in multiple arts. This is why I think it's safe for me to say that it's the first MMA. Just my personal opinion. I do not reject the "Way/Do" in Karate. However I come from a traditional back ground and have researched my art for well over 25 years and have come to the conclusion that it was not intended to be a "Do" art but rather a "Jutsu" (to use familiar Japanese terminology) art. I have no issue with the spiritual context and incorporate it myself into training. I do however have an issue with most modern Dojo changing the very nature of what the art was created for to make it a 80 - 100% "Do" art. I personally feel that we have strayed away from what the true intent of the art was. This has happened for many reasons and many have taken part in this change. Itosu, Funakoshi, the Butokokai (I hope I spelled that right) and westerners mystified with all things Japanese have all taken part in subtle to down right complete changes in not only the way it is taught but also within the very curriculum of the art. Now days we find a void in the understanding of the art because of these changes. The so called "Hidden" techniques, which are not hidden at all and were taught to worthy students, were rejected by many due to the combative/deadly nature and replaced with what we might consider gentler methods and techniques. This leads to the absence of understanding of ones art and it's techniques. This has lead to the need for others to teach Bunkai as most do not know their arts applications. Mr. Abernathy is a prime example of someone that see's the void and is attempting to fill it. Although I do not subscribe to all of his methods and applications, he is just one place that many go to try to understand the true intent. My personal opinion only, but I think this is sad that there is a need to learn applications and meanings outside of ones own art. I guess what I am getting at is this... I do not have an issue per-say with incorporating "Do" into the art if it is done as an add rather than a replacement. However if it is done as a replacement for those techniques and methodologies that represent the true intent of the art, then yes I would reject it wholeheartedly. I have grown up in the art understanding that Karate was created as a combative art not a peaceful art as Japanese proponents would have us believe. It's ok to say it's for self defense but it's down right taboo for someone to call it what it is. So I guess I'm not very politically correct. It was passed down in a day and age when one may have to kill in order to live. The fact that I do not live in this time does not escape me but this is what it was created for and thus applications are descriptive of these methods if not removed or forgotten. If only 3/4 of the art is taught then it's not the complete art and the totality of the art is lost. This is what I believe. I know I'm old and grew up in a different time than some and due to this I may be set in my ways and have strong opinions but I can see your point of view and appreciate where you are coming from. I hope that you can see where I am coming from as well. My way is just one of millions of ways. It works for me but may not work for others or may even seem foreign. Having said this, I will also say that I can see the wisdom in others opinions here on KF and have learned a lot. I can not say it necessarily has changed my point of view entirely but it has made me think. This is what I love about KF and the reason I decided to join. Differences can be discussed and this gives us a chance to learn from those outside of our own arts or Dojo's. I enjoy the chance to discuss topics such as this with Karate-Ka like yourself. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well sir. It's always a pleasure to converse with a fellow Karate-ka.

Congrats Sensei8! I think it's well deserved.

Thank you gentlemen. Every much un-expected. And I appreciate the kind words.

I'm not sure what your point is. Tameshiwari has absolutely nothing to do with grappling or being tough as I mentioned before in my previous post. So I have no idea what coloration you are trying to make between those that utilize this practice and grappler's choking someone out. I have had my fair share of fights with wrestlers and have come out ahead in more than not of those situations. I can not comment on Ju Jutsu or any other grappling art except Judo which I took years ago and hold the humble rank of Yonkyu in, because I have never been put, or should I say I have never put myself in this situation. I'm not sure how that would turn out and I will not make a false statement I can not back up. I guess I don't really understand your point. I guess you are quoting someone with the "relentlessly without thought or remorse of the outcome; or just walk away" but this actually goes against what you were pointing out earlier about putting smaller against bigger opponents, and among other comments you had made. Can you clarify your views so that I can understand where you are coming from? I am sure this is coming off as abrasive or confrontational, but I do not mean it that way. I actually want to understand what you mean by this and ultimately what your point is.

Honesty, I just want to train with other people. I'm no master in karate, but I'm competent and was trained by a well-regarded man in my area. My fear is that I'll be treated as some white belt noob and thrown in with kid classes or something. I certainly don't want to waste $$$ and time learning things I already know. I also don't want to seem like I'm showing anybody up by wearing a white belt and displaying my knowledge of all the kata and all that. I guess my desire is to be able to walk into a dojo and improve my skills. (My stepfather is too old and crippled to continue training with me, and I'm 27. I need guys closer to my age to train with.) The kickboxing guys I spar with had no problem acknowledging my previous training, but I get the feeling that practitioners of a rank-focused martial art like karate would make me jump through useless hoops. So that's my goal: to improve upon the karate I already have and to become the best I can be. If you came to train with me you would start out as a white belt irregardless of your skills. I started a new art and was a Sandan in my main art and started as a white belt. You will not be put into a children's class and you do not have to worry about showing anyone up. If the instructor is worth his salt he will evaluate you. If he knows your at the level of Sankyu he will have you spar with them and not with new white belts. Wearing a white belt is not a bad thing. I may be wrong or off base but it seems that you are apposed to wearing or being labelled as a white belt. It matters not what your current rank or skill level is as you are new to that art/school. If I started a new art today I would expect to be started as a white belt. Your step father should have taught you about the beginners mind. It really doesn't matter how advanced you are, you always return to the basics. My Shinshii was a Hachidan and 84 yrs old when he retired and still had the Yudansha classes practice their basics as well as he did. The belt does not make you who you are. It is just a beginning. In no way should you start teaching or award yourself a grade that you have not earned. This is both dishonest and disgraceful. It doesn't matter how good you think you are or what grade you think you are, if you really want to know join a Dojo and ask to be tested. You'll get an honest answer and be placed where you need to be. Or better yet you'll be given the chance to earn your ranks. It may not be were you thought you would be placed but at least it will be honest. Rank can not be taken or given, it is earned.

This to me would be quite simple. I teach my students that if they are attacked they defend themselves to the extent that they can get away from the situation. If they are the attacker I stop teaching them. We are essentially teaching our students ways to hurt, main, disable and kill. This comes with a greater responsibility for the teacher as we are the ones that must judge a students maturity and ability to make decisions with the skills that we teach. This is just one of the many reasons I refuse to take on students younger than 16 years old. I can judge a students character pretty quickly at this age and recognize if they are a hot head, show off or mean spirited individual. At this age and older a persons character is already evident and not likely to be hidden easily. The first time they are on the mat their character is revealed. If I feel that they are more apt to be the aggressor than the defender then I simply show them the door. This of course is a personal opinion but I feel that if you have already made your feelings on the subject known, i'd show him the door. We have all been teenagers and I was no angel either, but today's society is different from when some of us grew up. A fight was nothing more than two individuals going at it after school and everyone went home albeit maybe with a broken nose, busted lip or black eye. Today someone may not make it home. The other issue to think about is people were not apt to get lawyers involved back in the day and certainly not go after a instructor. However times have changed in this sue happy world and again, you as the instructor have the lions share of risk and responsibility. The mere idea that we hold no responsibility for what our students do and how they act must be a newer mentality. I was always taught that our students are a reflection of us and our teachings. It sounds like he doesn't have much self control or he is more worried about his image and what his friends will think about him. Why else would he go after this guy unprovoked? If he were my student I'd show him the door. And I have shown students the door and will continue to. You have to remember that your time and what you are teaching is valuable. Why waste it on a student that disregards your teachings and shows you and your teachings so little respect? You are not his parent but you are a role model. If you allow this behavior to go unchecked, what do you think you teach the rest of your students? Your student's respect for you goes out the door every time you back pedal on what you require of them as a condition for you teaching them your art.

The Naihanchi (Naifanchi) that I study is from Matsumura and not Itosu (although Itosu studied under Matsumura it sounds like emphasis is different), so maybe that is where the disconnect is between myself and Kosutare's views. Wastelander and wilbourman, a balance is exactly what is needed. Kata without application is as you said, a dance. Application without Kata is mere individual self defense. Both I feel are needed to have a whole art. The applications teach us how to deal with a given situation but the Kata's tie them all together and teach us how to move from one to the next seamlessly. Both teach us to open our minds to possibilities outside of what we are taught and see the applications as responses not just to one scenario but how they can fit into many. The Kata also gives us a direct link to the art itself and gives us a true understanding of it. Through the Bunkai we can see the influences and what makes the Kata. Both are necessary. I personally feel that different views and discussions of those views in this arena are a good thing. Even if I don't agree with a view point I end up taking a little away from it. In every discussion there is a truth that can teach us and broaden our minds. Lively debate IMHO is good for the arts. It opens us up to other ways of thinking and teaches us things that we may not have known or thought about in that way before. I am relatively new to KF but have thoroughly enjoyed reading, learning, discussing and maybe even passing on a little knowledge to others. This is what the arts need, exposure to other arts and view points outside of our own arts. I think it's great.

Absolutely no reason to apologize. I did not take offense. Debate, opinions and discussions are what this is all about. I appreciate that we all can come here and discuss views and topics even if they differ. I understand that in posts, just like emails, tones and intentions can be taken wrong. In business I am very careful to watch how I write. Here I just start writing and do not give it much thought as this is a more relaxing atmosphere compared to the business world. If I gave you the impression I was upset by your post I apologize, but this was not my intention. I look at this as a way to broaden knowledge, maybe pass on a little knowledge and read other view points. Whether I agree with those views or not matters little as I appreciate the fact that I learn something. I think this is a case of me saying what came to mind without proof reading to see how it would be taken. No harm, no foul.

David, I was speaking of Hohan Soken. He did not join as some others did not join at that time. My Shinshii explained to me that at this time most felt compelled to join as the Japanese were spreading the art worldwide and had put in place rules, rankings, teaching credentials, etc. and that most thought if they did not join this would effect there legitimacy and standings with in this ever growing machine. They had good reason to believe this as some people today still think Karate is Japanese.

I totally agree with your analogy. This is similar to my experience with teaching. I feel that I gained a broader understanding of the Kata and to be honest the art itself when I started teaching. Needing to explain the techniques to students more or less turned on the light bulb. Things that I only had a mild understanding suddenly became clearer. Being forced to really think about something so you can put it into terms that a novice can understand actually taught me what I only though I understood before. I can understand where you are coming from in terms of needing to write something so that everyone can understand what you are trying to explain. Great example.

I understand where you are coming from and understand your view point. You have valid points.

David Nisan, I forgot to mention that terms for techniques where not originally described or pronounced in Japanese but rather in Hogen or the Okinawan dialect. It wasn't until the Japanese pushed their ideologies that the techniques became described and pronounce in Japanese. This I believe is mainly do to the spread of Japanese arts world wide and Okinawan instructors going with the flow since students from other countries were utilizing the Japanese pronunciations. My Shinshii actually taught us using the old tongue when I first started. It later changed. But my Shinshii's Shinshii refused to join the Budokai (forgive me if this is not accurate or not spelled right) where most styles/arts joined and adapted quickly to the Japanese methods and ours did not. This may be why it took longer to adapt. Having said this, and more to your point, I have never heard any terms pronounced in Chinese. Actually I will take that back as some of the Kata still utilize the Chinese names. I stand corrected.

I understand that the relationship between when the Japanese influences and Chinese influences where at different times in maybe most cases. However both influenced the founder of my art during his life time. Matsumura studied under Chinese teachers, Ti'Gwa teachers and also studied under the Satsuma clan. Thus three influences in the same time period. Why then is our art not Chinese, Japanese or purely indigenous Okinawan fighting arts but a melding of all three? I think the answer is, like Bruce Lee's famous saying, the Okinawan masters took what was useful and combined it to make what we now know as Karate and made it unique to their culture. I agree that the Okinawans did and may still have a very high regard for the Chinese culture and especially for the Chinese fighting arts. I was merely pointing out that the Okinawan people had their own fighting traditions prior to the Chinese fighting arts. It is human nature to maintain their identity. Yes I agree that the Chinese traditions heavily influenced the creation of Karate. I will bring this into the discussion for your consideration... Sakugawa was referred to as Toudi (Tode) Sakugawa because of his proficiency in the Chinese fighting arts. His student Matsumura "Bushi" Sokon had many instructors in both Ti'Gwa and Quan Fa. Sakugawa was a Ti'Gwa expert but spent most of his life studying Quan Fa and because of that was known as an expert of the Chinese arts, so much so that his nick name was China Hand. In knowing that, you would think that Matsumura would turn away from the Okinawan arts when he created what is now called Shuri-te or Shorin-Ryu. This is not the case. Knowing that he studied under 7 Chinese masters [this counts Sakugawa](that we know of) and only 3 Ti'Gwa masters [also counting Sakugawa] the Chinese influence is over whelming. So why then does Shorin Ryu not resemble Quan Fa in every way? Again I think that this is due to the fact that the Okinawan's are a proud people that utilized what was effective from each art form and combined them into something uniquely Okinawan. Further proof is the way that we practice Kata that came directly from Chinese Quan like Seisan or Useshi or Wanduan or even the most hotly debated Hakutsuru. Chinese practitioners will point out that they are shortened, do not completely match the original Quan or some will even say they are completely different forms. Again I think this is for a reason and IMHO it's because they are not the same. They are a mixture of Quan Fa and Ti'Gwa. Okinawan's do not practice forms like the Chinese. They are fast, crisp and tight instead of flowing and open. I could go on and on but the point is... yes I agree with you that the Chinese arts had a huge impact on what we call Karate and so did Japanese Ideology. However in the end it is uniquely Okinawan. Even Uechi-Ryu and Goju-Ryu are unique when compared to Chinese arts. They share similar forms, Sanchin (Sam Chien) comes to mind, but they are practiced differently and are for all intensive purposes uniquely Okinawan. I understand and respect your point of view but I think you may be painting with a very wide brush. As far as Chinese imagery is concerned, I never said that this was not utilized. If you look at what most call the "Bible of Karate", the Bubishi, you will see many examples of chinese imagery. Whether the Ryukyu people utilized this practice of imagery or not, I really don't think can be proved or disproved. I have never actually seen examples other than in the Bubishi. I appreciate your view point on this and did not mean to dispute your views, but was merely pointing out my views on why I think the Okinawan's would not have followed all things Chinese. They are Okinawan.

I could not disagree with your premise more. I guess you would call my style external but it is not about domination. Yes we do condition to toughen the body and it's natural weapons but the main premise and the teachings of the art is focused on skill and technique. Again I will state that without being put up against opponents of different sizes and skill ranges one can not learn to overcome this type of opponent. Tameshiwari is not about toughness. It's about focus, technique and body mechanics. I don't really care how tough someone is, without the proper training there is only one scenario in breaking (unless you kiln dry your medium which is to me nothing but a magicians trick which serves no purpose), the tough guy goes to the hospital with a broken hand/foot/elbow/knee/head/whatever. To answer your fear comment... I never feared my Shinshii. He was a gentle soul and great teacher. I never hated him for putting me into situations in which I learned my true limits. My students have never feared me because I want them to reach their potential and despite what you might think I am not barbaric nor do a subscribe to barbaric methods. All training is controlled. However if you never let a caged bird fly, they drop to the ground when released. Facing your fears is a part of the journey. If you do not want to be put into situations were you may feel uncomfortable then you should not be in the arts. It's about the perfection of ones self, learning to concur ones fears, pushing past limitations and yes you might meet up with someone that is bigger, stronger, faster and meaner than you. This is were mentality and intent comes into play along with training. I understand your premise but I disagree with it. Maybe that is my old school up bringing or maybe it's because I'm old and was brought up in a different time and mind set. However you don't concur your fears by sitting on the sidelines and watching and you do not walk out of a dark alley if you have never confronted someone that is bigger and badder than you are. How do you propose to teach a student to overcome adversity unless they DO IT?

Love the explanation. Great presentation. Thanks for sharing.

It is a common misconception that is pointed out by non-Okinawan Karate practitioners that Karate does not resemble Quan Fa (Gung Fu) because it's techniques are crisp and the kata are not identical to the Quan. However there is an easy explanation for this. IMHO Okinawans are not Chinese. Karate was called Toudi (Tode) before the Japanese coined the term Karate. This is because Quan Fa influenced the art to a great extent. However one must also realize that the Okinawan's had their own form of combative techniques called Ti'Gwa. This some say is a result of Siam boxers visiting/trading with Ryukyu and teaching Muay Boran or the predecessor to Muay Thai. One has only to look at a Kata to realize that it is made up of several parts. Its not Chinese, although some are predominately influenced by Quan Fa. It's not all Ti'Gwa, although it can be seen through out the Kata. It's a mixture. To be quite honest it's the first MMA. So why in knowing that this art was developed from the indigenous art of Ti'Gwa and Tegumi, and the many arts of Quan Fa (Five Ancestor, Five Animal, Monk Fist, Tiger and Crane [baihe], just to name a few) would anyone think that it would resemble just the Chinese martial arts? It has elements of all. The most important aspect is the Ryukyu people had their own methodology of fighting and in that Quan Fa was incorporated but not a replacement for it. They had their own culture and traditions. Yes influences from the Chinese and the Chinese arts are present even today but the Okinawans are a people unto themselves. The same could be said of Japanese influences. If the Okinawans were so quick to emulate another country then all Styles and Schools of Karate would resemble Shotokan. This is not the case so there is no reason to think that they would mirror the culture of China to such an extent as to change who and what they were as a people. Just my personal opinion.

JR137 and Prototype, You are both right. Prototype, Funakoshi did water down the art in that he removed the combative, "dangerous" applications of the art. Pretty much as you said the grappling (Tegumi) was removed, but Tuidi and Kyusho were also removed. In order to fit it in with other Japanese arts it was changed to a "Do" art like Judo, Aikido, Kendo, Etc. more or less the "Jutsu" or combative methods were removed. However JR137 is correct as well in that Japanese Karate at the college level was barbaric and highly combative. I have read reports of students dying during practice. It really depends on what your definition of "watered down" is. If you mean that the true intent of the art was removed and Japanese ideals were injected, then Prototype is absolutely correct in his assertion. If you look at an art in terms of it's effectiveness to maim or kill then JR137 is correct in his assertion. I will interject that any martial art is effective in that if you strike someone with enough force in the right place and with consistency, your opponent will in fact die. However Prototype is correct in saying that Japanese Karate is not the same as Okinawan Karate. However it depends on what you get out of it. I took Nisei Goju Ryu and found it effective. It stayed along the lines of Okinawan Goju Ryu with some differences but IMHO is a valid art and I would not call it watered down. Not sure if this is the same as Goju Kai but is of Gogen lineage so I would assume it is.

I agree with some of your view points but you mentioned Niahanchi (Naifanchi) kata. IMHO this is the last Kata you should tell anyone that they should ignore or not put importance into it's Bunkai. This is, again IMHO, one of the most important Kata there are in the fact that you CAN actually utilize the applications to fight. Most Bunkai teach you scenarios of applications that you can put together during Kumite. Naifanchi is pretty much a text of a multitude of applications to teach you how to fight. Please read about Motobu's history. This is one of the only Kata that he trained in and he utilized what he learned by taking on thugs to test the validity of the applications of this (these) kata. I understand what you are trying to say, or at least I think I do. I too feel that the true bunkai have either been lost to some styles or made up bunkai have been substituted in their place. Having said this I feel you are projecting that Bunkai is of less importance than practicing solo Kata. I personally feel that both are of equal importance. Yes you should practice Kata diligently every day so that the movements, body mechanics are ingrained into you so that you are able to develop true power and to learn how applications can flow together. However to ignore the TRUE applications is to never truly understand the Kata itself and to ignore the lessons they have to teach us. This is IMO the sole reason modern instructors have injected Tuidi (Tuite), Tegumi and Kyusho as a separate curriculum in class, because they have no idea that it is all contained within the Kata itself. Kata is basically the history and log book of all applications within ones art. It teaches us the foundational art of Ti'Gwa or some say Muay Boran (Siam Boxing), Tegumi, Tuidi and Chin Na (Qin Na), Kyusho and the different Quan Fa that the founders learned and utilized to develop their art. If you remove Bunkai, you remove all understanding and what you end up with is a modern style of Karate that has to import Judo, Ju Jutsu and other arts to combat scenarios that are already apart of the art itself. I will not say that pulling from other arts is bad, but needing to pull from other arts because you were never taught or because you do not understand or worse refuse to learn the Bunkai is why the true art is in decline. If you were never taught to true applications of the Kata or your instructor injected his own Bunkai then I can see your point. However if one is learning the true Bunkai and developing through the three stages, your statements are IMO way off base. Just my 2 cents on the subject.

A few things; 1. I have been taught that a fist is just a closed hand. It could be a strike, a grab or any other adaptation that works. The thing to remember is we are taught the applications and techniques as they were passed down from the founder. This means that the original quan or the founder had a sequence of applications/techniques that were utilized to answer a specific scenario/attack. This is Bunkai. There are three stages of learning. Bunkai (the pre-arranged responses to a specific attack sequence), Bunseki (the self discovery of the applications and possible responses to any given attack) and Oyo (which is applying these in real world drills to discover its effectiveness). The reason I bring this up is you mentioned a throw. Depending on the Kata this could very well be a throw (this is the Tegumi back ground of Karate) or it could be an off balancing, block or strike. You need to delve deeper with your Sensei and ask if this was passed down and why it doesn't seem to flow naturally. However remember that the techniques were (I'll used the word disguised but this doesn't do it justice) utilized to preserve the individual responses. It may flow and make sense and some may not. The reason for this is, just like the Quan, they are individual responses/applications that were melded together as an unwritten account. The old Okinawan masters did not make written accounts of these techniques but rather put them together so they would be preserved and remembered. It is also possible that what he was showing you was what he discovered during the Bunseki stage of his learning. If it works in real world applications then it satisfies the requirements of passing on to his students. We should never be so rigid as to think there is only one way. This is why there are three stages. The first stage is to open your eyes and to teach you what the techniques/applications are in the Kata. The second stage is for the student to explore the possibilities of the applications and then in the third stage find out if they hold up in real world applications and if they are effective. This accomplishes a few things... one it gets the student thinking so that they start to develop and look outside of the set applications and two it gives a broader base of tools to deal with a multitude of scenarios, thus making us more well rounded. 2. Hand position is a relative term. This is primarily focused on in strict Japanese styles more so than traditional Okinawan styles. Remember that no one throws a punch the same way. So if you are blocking ten different people the punch will come at you at ten different angles and at ten different heights. Again rigidity can be a good thing for a beginner to teach the proper way to execute, however and again no two people are going to attack you the same way. As you grow and develop you begin to forge your own "style" if you will, in that you may throw a back hand at a different angle, with a faster twist, etc. etc. The reason for this is every one is built differently and we all have to overcome our own personal challenges and short comings. You may be stronger, I may be faster. How we perfect our strengths is how we over come our deficiencies. The way we do this is by figuring out how to capitalize on our strengths and take our weaknesses out of the picture. If you are confined to only one way to do something you may never achieve your potential because you are limited by rigid norms. I don't know what your grade is but as you reach the Yudansha grades this will be explained to you by your teacher. 3. As your training progresses and if your teacher is teaching you the "real" Bunkai and not a made up Bunkai, you will find that Kata and real world meld very well, especially when you start discovering ways to utilize the applications to combat scenarios not covered within the founders methods. Remember as generations advance so does the methodology of fighting. The founders faced off with a particular fighting methodology that is similar, not similar or completely different than today. This is why we have three stages so you can not only learn the true applications and develop a greater understanding of the art but also to meet the new challenges of today's methodology. Hope this helps.

The barbaric way (hard styles) are fine when each opponent is fairly matched in size and weight but this is not the way of the other (soft styles) that are for smaller and weaker people, which are more appropriate for most everyone else.Imho... I just don't understand how and when MAists become so engrossed with size and weight and the like. Either you can defend yourself or you can't!! To me, this is a failed attempt to excuse off ones MA shortcomings. Never underestimate your opponent!! That has to count for something...doesn't it...anymore?!? Overpowering an opponent is what bigger people do and out maneuvering is what smaller people do. A small person's force against a bigger person's force is not intelligent strategy, due to being that it's just not using common sense. For a smaller person to duke it out with a much larger person is plain and stupid. That's why some martial arts styles exists better for smaller and weaker people, that are not based on brute strength alone. Alan, No offense intended but I do not buy in to the "certain styles for smaller vs certain styles for larger" claims. I was always told that Shorin Ryu (Suidi/shuri-te) styles where for smaller people and Goju-Ryu and the like (Naha Te) styles where for larger people. As a child I gravitated towards the Shuri-Te styles do to this but when I was older and took Goju-Ryu I found this premise to be completely false. I have trained in Gung-Fu styles that are supposed to be soft and some hard. This I believe is not accurate as most styles contain both. Meeting a larger individual power on power is crazy. However lets be honest, most styles teach us to maneuver around an opponent and utilize evasiveness and speed versus tangling up with them. However if you never train with larger individuals how do you know how to execute this with any efficiency. Every student I have ever taught fights with everyone no matter the weight or size. This is how lessons are learned and one builds confidence so that, God forbid, that day comes when they are confronted with a person twice their size they know how to handle themselves. I have to agree with Sensei8 on this one. Size is only an issue if you make it an issue. Again if your told you can't fight a certain size/weight you will fold when you need to. You are already mentally defeated. A fight is 90% mentality. "Its not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog". I have seen this play out too many times in civilian life and military life. If you believe you can win you will win or do enough damage that you can escape with your life. If you believe you can't win you will loose every time.

The barbaric way (hard styles) are fine when each opponent is fairly matched in size and weight but this is not the way of the other (soft styles) that are for smaller and weaker people, which are more appropriate for most everyone else.Imho... I just don't understand how and when MAists become so engrossed with size and weight and the like. Either you can defend yourself or you can't!! To me, this is a failed attempt to excuse off ones MA shortcomings. Never underestimate your opponent!! That has to count for something...doesn't it...anymore?!? Solid post. I agree. When I started the smallest guy was put with the largest guy and you learned how to capitalize on your strengths and his weaknesses. I was usually one of the smallest, late bloomer, and I found that speed, technique and precision over came strength and size. Of course this is before weight became an issue. This to me is a mental block for a Karateka. If you're told through out your training you can not fight this guy or that because they are bigger or smaller, what do you do when you meet someone fitting this description on the street? The worse beating I ever had was from a 120 lb guy with glasses and a soft spoken manner. Size doesn't mean as much as people purport it to be. I have fought guys twice my weight and guys smaller than me. You win or you loose. That's pretty much it. Remember that on the streets their is no referee to weigh you in and call no fair if you don't weigh the same.

Sounds like you have a good teacher. Not to many dojo train in Bunkai these days and if they do it is not entirely accurate to what the kata actually represents but rather a mixture of techniques from different arts (Ju Jutsu, Judo, Etc.) that do not fit. If he is teaching you the Bunkai to your Kata this is a good thing. The number one complaint students have is they do not understand why they are learning Kata in the first place. Sounds like you have an old school teacher that is teaching you the Bunkai. You have a leg up on most because you will have a deep understanding of your Kata. Count yourself lucky.

I could not agree with you more. My own lineage has been one that maintained the "family" art within their own family and only passed down to others what was deemed to be outside of the family art. "Secrets" if you will. However through the generations this has changed to some degree. Now it is more about giving information when information can be understood or when the student is deemed responsible and mature enough to accept it. However nothing is held back. IMHO the only reason I hold anything back is because I have a doubt about the student. I generally talk to said student and wait to see if they improve and quell my doubts. If not I tell them to move on. However if my students are worthy, and they are not students for long if they are not, I do not hold anything back from them. I actually look forward to the day when they have more knowledge and more skill than I and they surpass me. This means that I have done my job and have guaranteed transmission and passage to the next generation. To me that is really what this is all about. There is an old saying, "you can't take it with you when you go". If the art is not passed on as a whole then it is taught as a watered down version. In my opinion, if your teacher thought enough about the art and you as their student to teach everything to you, the least you can do is honor that and pass on what was taught in it's entirety to your students. This is not about ego. It's about the betterment of your students. That is your legacy. This is how you are remembered. Not as the one who knew everything but your students are ill equipped because you never passed anything but mediocrity to them. These teachers are lost to history because they are not worth talking about. If your students are the beneficiaries of your teachings they will appreciate it and pass it on, and in thru that, your legacy will be cemented in their students and their students and so on. This I believe is the mark of a good teacher. Holding back knowledge that was passed down to you, in the hopes that the art would be passed on through you, is pure ego. These teachers are easily forgotten because their students are not respected. I was always taught that I would never be given the chance to test for Shodan until my Shinshii felt I was worthy of it because I was a reflection of not only him but of his Shinshii and the art itself. Our students are a reflection of us. If your student is mediocre what does that say about you to those that only know your student?

This is old school thinking. My Shinshii and his Shinshii always taught us to pass everything that was taught to us onto our students so that the art could continue as it was passed down to them. Ego and selfishness have no place in the arts. The unwillingness to pass down all knowledge is a modern concept based on maintaining the need of the student to continue training. Morsels are dropped to keep them interested but the whole meal is never given. This I believe has a lot to do with the arts degradation and the loss of the original techniques/applications. If the student is worthy of your instruction, they are worthy of all of your instruction. It's an honor to know that there are still so many other instructors upholding the traditional methods and passing down the true intent of their art. I can see how much reverence and respect you have for your Shinshii's teachings and it shows in your posts. I respect your dedication to your instructors. It's the way it is supposed to be. They give us something a price could not be put on, passing on their teachings is the highest respect and honor we can give them. That and they live on through us. Much respect Sensei8.