Furinkazan

I wouldn’t put much, if at all. I think the “becoming a better person” part of martial arts works the same way the PSA’s at the end of 80’s cartoons (G.I. Joe, especially) worked: children are more willing and eager to heed advice from people that they look up to. And also back in the 80’s during the “karate boom,” children were more likely to look up to a karate instructor. After reaching a certain age, I think the “becoming a better person” part of karate only come to those who actively seek it, and that age is probably sometime during or right before middle school.

Is this in your dojo, or the MA community at large? If it's happening in the dojo, then that's on your instructor(s) for failing to maintain a positive training environment. If it's in the MA community at large, then I would just limit my MA fellowship with my classmates. Before you quit martial arts, I suggest checking out some other schools in your area if there are any. You'll find that no two schools have the same environment. My school has a very peaceful atmosphere, while I've seen others that are run like a military boot camp. However, this is assuming that your issue is with your school and not the MA community at large.

While an argument could be made that hikite could be used to grab, I don't think the use for power can be dismissed. Even outside of karate where the word "hikite" isn't used, pulling one hand is indeed crucial for increasing the power of the other hand that's punching. Without pulling that hand back, the punch is just another jab or cross. A punch that's designed to wear your opponent down, and not knock them out. In karate, we're always going for the knockout. End the fight quickly and get out of there. If we're just trying to wear the other guy down, that's not self-defense. Here's why I don't think it's the grab that most people think when they say it is: if someone is standing one foot away from you, you're not going to land a very powerful punch. If you look at viral videos of fights on the internet, even untrained people know this: you have two egotistical guys in each other's faces, and the guy who swings first always either takes a big step back or pushes the other guy away before throwing that haymaker. Your fist needs to travel a certain distance and your arm needs to be extended out by a certain amount before your punch can have much effect. So if you grab the other guy and pull him towards you into the punch with the other hand, you're reducing the effectiveness of your own punch.

What you put in parentheses is why I don't think these two factors should be considered. Because it makes the false assumption that the "good" kids are more likely progress faster than the "bad" kids, and that it's more likely turn "bad" kids lives around while there's a risk of making the "good" kids more violent. Again, the moral alignment of people has nothing to do with how well they progress in any form of training or instruction. This reminds me of the scene in The Breakfast Club where Bender was responding to Brian talking about why he failed shop class. Let us not forget that there are plenty of "bad" people that know how to play the long game. Even children. With Christmas being ten days away, the most common way we see it is that when children finally reveal that they no longer believe in Santa Claus, they also reveal that they haven't believed in years. They hid their skepticism out of fear that they wouldn't get anything for Christmas. If children can do it for that, they can do the same thing to remain in martial arts training. If the reason they're teaching a martial art is for self-defense, I'm assuming karate. The reason is because they already have wrestling as part of normal physical education (at least when I was in high school), but you learn according the rules of the sport, making it rather useless for self-defense. I'll admit to having very little exposure to judo, but in that limited exposure, it appears to be similar: the focus appears to be competition and sport, rather than self-defense.

There's potential for injury in all physical activity, not just martial arts. I'd assume that schools just use whatever coverage they already have for their current physical education programs.

If you're not free-sparring, sure. If you are free-sparring, you're trained on the techniques to get around the defenses. True, but I think this particular factor is best left unconsidered. The reason I say that is because moral alignment has nothing to do with dedication to martial arts training. You're going to have the same percentage of go-getters and slackers among the good kids as you will the bad kids, so it evens out. These things can be taught outside of martial arts and even more effectively so, because then those things would be the sole focus. No, because the conversation is based on the claim that everyone needs to know how to defend themselves. And that's the claim that my argument is based on. If a different reason had been given as an argument as to why martial arts should be taught in public schools, it would be a totally different conversation. I'm kind of looking at what I gave as falling in both categories. But for the sake of argument, if that's not the case, then they could have at least pointed out how they believed my reasoning is faulty. I really hate when they do that, because it puts you on the spot while denying you the ability to defend what you said. It depends on the end goal. If the end goal is self-defense, then no. Remember, if a > b, then a(x) > b(x). What this means is that, since everyone - both good and bad - is trained in martial arts, victims will still be as equally vulnerable to bullying as they would have been if none of them had trained. If everyone is trained, and the victim is being bullied, then what's he gonna do? Train in martial arts? He's already covered that. So what now? And that's the scenario that I believe would be created if "everyone" is trained in martial arts.

There was a public post on facebook that asked the question on whether or not martial arts should be part of the curriculum in public schools. I'm very anti-groupthink, but I don't dissent for it's own sake. I'm a free thinker. Just about everyone in the comments agreed that it should be. The consensus is that "everyone should know how to defend themselves." I thought that this was a horrible reason. Why? Because if two opposing people have the same advantage, then neither of them do. That puts everything back at square one, and the advantage goes right back to the bully. Basically, if a > b, then a(x) > b(x) the scenario you want is a < b(x), or at minimum, a = b(x) But you ruin that if you require everyone to train in martial arts. Of course, the responses I get are things like "that's not how it works," etc. Basically, disagreements with my reasoning, but with no attempt at an opposing argument. What are your takes on this?

I think there's one important question that you need to know the answer to: what, exactly, is this particular student's end of goal offering an unsolicited demonstration of what he can do? Because the answer to that will determine whether or not it's offensive or a waste of time.

To my knowledge, most Shotokan organizations cap automatic transferability at yondan and will then review and evaluate the transferee for promotion to grades above that after transfer. I can agree with that. We're a culture of having to prove oneself and earn every little thing, even in situations where it's completely unwarranted. On the flip side, I can't see this happening in Shotokan unless you were transferring to or from an independent school. ISKF is the largest organization in the US, and I really can't see them making you start over - or making you to take a demotion at all, especially considering that you're of Enoeda sensei's lineage. I think that some of the smaller independant schools may require all black belts to teach, and having a new black belt just waltz in like that might "upset the order."

The argument isn't for them to "transfer rank." The argument is to evaluate the new student where they are and place them accordingly. Sure, you weren't a nidan or shodan in Shobayashi-ryu. But were you really a white belt, either? Even by Shobayashi-ryu standards? Well, they did something for you. I actually happen to be in that scenario. I'm an ISKF shodan and I'm also a white belt in BJJ. I know of no one in BJJ with a black belt in karate or taekwondo who thought they were going start at anything higher than white belt. What I have seen is people with prior wrestling background get promoted to blue belt after a short time of being evaluated by the instructor. Someone else mentioned earlier in the thread that some BJJ schools will automatically place a judo black belt at blue belt. It all makes sense now, as I thought we were speaking in the context of representing schools. However, I never said anything about "transferring rank." There's a huge difference between that and evaluating new students with prior training to determine placement. I was discussing the latter. The motive for what I was saying was not to satiate egos, but to create an environment that fosters training that is both safe and productive. If you're a nidan from one branch of Shorin-ryu, and you're wearing a white belt in another branch, it's really not helping you for a brown belt to go easy on you when sparring because you're a "white belt."

I don't think this means that they're inherently violent people. When I was in the Navy, we used to do fire drills alot. Main space (engine room) fire drills, where they call general quarters and everyone suits up and gets to work. In these MSFD scenarios, general quarters is called when there's a "major fuel-oil" leak - though, in real life, a major fuel oil-leak is unlikely to result in a fire at normal temperatures. Everybody hated these fire drills. We'd be in those hot one-piece firefighter suits for over an hour, complete with SCBA tank and mask, and firefighter helmet. We'd also simulate firefighting in them (a rigorous working in itself), while getting yelled at by the damage control training team. The day eventually comes where there's a real fuel-oil leak announced over the 1MC, and general quarters is called. Everyone - and I mean EVERYONE - is excited. They're moving with that sense of urgency that you'd never see during the drills. After we completely dressed out and set zebra (i.e., closing all of the hatches to contain fires), we sat and waiting until it was time to enter the main space. Eventually, the fuel oil leak was stopped. A fire never broke out. An old Chief who was nearing retirement gave us a spiel about what he saw. He himself had actually fought three main space fires throughout his career on older classes of ships where they were more likely to occur. In other words, he "knew violence" as it pertained to shipboard firefighting, and was reminding us that we didn't know the dire situation that we could have found ourselves in had a fire actually occured. No one wanted there to be a real fire. We just wanted to feel that all of the training and drills we did actually paid off. And I think that might be what's happening in the case you're talking about. I'm going to give a hot take: I think "self defense" is possibly the worst reason to train in martial arts. I think those who train for "self defense" want to "see if it works" more than they care to admit. If self defense is what you care about, then why not buy a $10 can of pepper spray and call it day? It's far more effective at neutralizing an attacker than using martial arts, and no one gets injured. It's also cheaper in terms of time and money. Those hours at the dojo could be spent at home watching Netflix.

But why adjust for rank in competition at tournaments, and not at the school when a student with prior experience in another striking art/style signs up? Why start them at white belt when you know they can compete at the brown belt level? I don't think they not knowing your system's kata (or versions thereof) is valid. They have prior experience with kata, they know all of the stances, they know how to execute with proper kime/chinkuchi, etc. So you can feed them new katas faster than students with no prior martial arts training, ensuring that they're up to speed with a more appropriate belt ranking. Trying to make adjustments at tournaments just seems way too complicated and causes too many unresolvable problems between schools in the area.

Funakoshi discussed what he learned from both Anko Itosu and Anko Asato in Karate-do: My Way of Life, and some of his other works. Both Mabuni and Gusukuma have only had the same two teachers: Itosu and Higaonna. The Shito-ryu curriculum divides their kata into two groups: the ones taught by Itosu and the ones taught by Higaonna. The Tomari-te katas are listed under the ones taught by Itosu. Hanashiro only trained directly under Anko Itosu.

Yes - Gichin Funakoshi, Kenwa Mabuni, Chomo Hanashiro, and Shinpan Gusukuma all learned Tomari-te kata from Itosu. I don't see why Chibana wouldn't have.

I'm not so sure about that. First, Chosin Chibana did create kihon and fukyugatas. In other words, he added things. Secondly, Kobayashi Shorin-ryu teaches the Naihanchi series before the Pinan series. There are valid arguments for and against this, but the Pinan series was specifically created by Itosu to be the first katas taught, which means that Chibana went against this. The other thing Kobayashi Shorin-ryu is known for is the lack of Tomari-te katas. I know of some Kobayashi-ryu schools that teach Rohai, but it was added after the fact, as neither Chibana nor Nakazato taught it. I find it hard to believe that Itosu taught all of his other students Tomari-te katas, except for Chibana.