Shorin Ryuu

The most common response that people exhibit when learning that I do karate is making some sort of knife hand imitation with both hands, usually accompanied with movement and an approximation of a sing-song kiai sound. But then again, that's the same as me saying golf is little more than people hitting a small ball with a stick into a small hole. I say this facetiously because I am terrible at golf, nor do I find it interesting. Certainly I try and explain at length about what karate or martial arts are (as evidenced by my addiction...I mean, presence on martial arts forums), but not everyone has the capacity or the desire to understand. As with most things in life, it's best not to get fed up when faced with these situations. There are far more important things to think about, like ensuring that your karate isn't just "chopping up wood and bricks".

That's what I hear. I certainly would like to take the opportunity if it presents itself (or if I can grab it).

Within my organization, the ones that I have mainly heard about failing a belt test are usually those testing for high rank (4th, 5th, 6th dan) as the standards are quite high. They are usually asked to retest later though. Recently, there was a rule established where in order to test for these ranks (at least 5th and 6th dan I think) you have to test in front of three Kyoshi level instructors (7th or above). In the case of lower belt testings, there are not as many failures for several reasons. The first is that in the grand scheme of things, color belts don't mean too much, so there are a few people that kind of get by with time spent in grade, so to speak. This varies from dojo to dojo, of course, as some instructors allow less of this than others. Once they get higher, there is a tendency for brown belts and shodan to usually "deserve" their rank more than others. Again, I have seen some disappointments, both in my style and others. To be totally honest, I think people should be mature enough not to test if they aren't ready. This is a bit harder at lower ranks, especially if they are younger. The rank system isn't the best thing in the world, but if it is going to be used, it might as well be used correctly. As a corollary, instructors shouldn't make their students test unless they are ready or are assured they will "step up to the plate". I've tested for all of my rank, although my current instructor does not test for rank (he also only gives out white, brown and black belts), although he is in the same organization I've always trained in. For the granting of lower ranks, organization control is decentralized, so the individual instructor is given latitude to test people or award rank as they see fit. I kind of much prefer my instructor's way of doing it, as I think testing isn't really that important. But that's another topic...

Thanks all. I thought something was odd when I noticed a bunch of funny colors under my name...

There are many that practice and train but do not get better. The emphasis on whatever word you choose to use isn't so much "repetition" as it is "learning."

Just a quick story relating to the topic: Kenyu Chinen, who is now teaching in Paris, remembered seeing Chosin Chibana presiding over a grading examination in the early 1960's. The old master got up to demonstrate blocking technique, picking up a candidate at random and telling him to attack with mae geri (front kick). The candidate attacked and Chibana said "Not strong enough. It isn't necessary to block such an attack." He called for another attacker, with the same result. This happened several times until a muscular, (and nervous), karateka delivered a kick which, according to Chinen "would have knocked down a bull," Chibana blocked, watched the attacker fall back from the force of the block, and then returned to the examiners' table. He explained to all the candidates that they must always strike strongly - especially against the old experts "This old master's spirit was really very strong!" Chinen recalled. -originally appeared in Fighting Arts International, Issue No. 51, Volume 9, No. 3, 1988 in an article written by Graham Noble P.S. Chibana was the man.

Sounds interesting. I might make one if it was, say, next year. I'll be in Texas for about a year starting around this November. San Angelo, to be more precise (yes, the middle of nowhere). It's quite a drive from to Houston from there (400 miles) so it may not ever happen...

Man. What are all these old codgers talking about? But to be serious, I think there are always those kinds of people, regardless of age or even time period. If this energy can be channeled into something productive, it can yield great things. One only has to look at the likes of people like Motobu Choki to see what I mean.

Yup. I have a feeling that even though you're discouraged, you recognize that what you do is still good. So I think even that recognition is a sign that you've got your heart and mind in the right place, and you probably just wanted to vent a little. Just remember, the teacher that corrects you the most, cares the most.

Yeah, that is a pretty good book, although there is some bias here and there. As I mentioned in other threads, if you really want an authoritative, definitive book on the history of karate, get Unante: The Secrets of Karate, 2nd ed. by John Sells. The Mark Bishop book is still good. But for depth you can't find elsewhere (in English), get the John Sells book. Edit: Okay, so I've said the same thing even in this thread before...my bad.

Actually, what you described as short scythes are "kama".

A word of advice: Machine translation for Japanese is absolutely horrid. Never rely on it. I would have used the word muteki (無敵） for invincible. Your avatar actually means "Certain Victory". As far as Pain is temporary, it would literally be "痛み　は　一時的　です。” How formal do you want this? (It could get pretty long) There's actually many ways to say this, some more literal than others, and if you want to be grammatically correct, it may take up more space than you want. Maybe "痛みは束の間”　(Pain is transient) Nowadays, it isn't entirely uncommon to see Japanese read left-to-right. Traditional Japanese was always top-to-bottom with the lines left-to-right. Many books in Japan use this format. Or, you could even shorten it further. Something like "痛み一時”　Which is just "Pain temporary" You can also use "苦しみ”　instead of "痛み”. This has more implications of anguish and suffering, although 痛み could mean both. Someone more fluent than me should probably field this question. I'm sure there's also some good 四字熟語 (Yojijukugo) for this, which are 4-character proverbs.

I've made this statement before, but I believe the best book on karate history that I feel anyone should read if they are seriously interested in learning the history behind karate (Okinawan and Japanese) is John Sells' Unante: The Secrets of Karate. It will tell you what is myth, what is recorded fact, and what is in between. It's the most extensive and comprehensive work of its kind in English. https://www.martialsource.com is where you can get it for $55 (I don't think you can get it elsewhere), but it is well worth the amount. Books on philosophy and things are good (I have most all of the books suggested above by others), but this will give you actual detailed histories of masters, styles, kata and other things. A MUST READ in my opinion. And another book I like for its very interesting concepts and principles is The Secrets of Okinawan Karate by Kiyoshi Arakaki, which you can get off of Amazon.com or something. I've actually bought his two sequels (in Japanese), but I've yet to translate them. But, fear not, as this first book is in English and is a great book that deals with the technical aspects of karate. It isn't your run-of-the-mill karate technique book, as it has some techniques, but focuses more on emphasizing several biomechanical concepts and has an interesting theory on ki. This is another book I consider as highly valueable. Again, philosophy is good, and I read those books too. But for the technical part, I recommend this book. Don't let the inclusion of the cheesy word "secrets" in the titles fool you. I feel these are the two best books I've read on karate (history and technical), and I've read quite a few.

I think you're a bit late. The whole matter has been resolved already...please read all the posts to see the answers to your statements.

No, I would still argue that there were more kata back then in "circulation" then there are now. We've only got the "main ones" taught by various teachers due to the implementation of a rigid style system by the Japanese (and ego and money had some role to play in this, sadly). No, once again, back then, people had way more teachers than they do now. Nowadays, there is this ridiculous stigma (in the eyes of many "traditional" martial artists) placed upon people who train under different teachers. In those days (only a matter of a few decades ago, I might add), people truly did go around to many teachers for various things, even traveling to Taiwan (Formosa back then) and China. Again, in reality, they probably had more access to kata, not less. Sorry for continuing to stick on this point, but it's something I would like to emphasize. As far as good books on this sort of thing, the best book would be John Sell's Unante: The Secrets of Karate (2nd edition). It is the best book on karate history and development in English. I do NOT say that lightly. Get it from https://www.martialsource.com. It's about 55 dollars, but it can perhaps be the bible for karate history enthusiasts. He critically analyzes things, tells you which things are recorded fact, which is oral passing down, and which is most likely just a myth. If you check in his bibliography, he uses many of the definitive sources out there in Japanese (such as Uechi's landmark book). I do agree with you here in some part. I simply practice them because it is "easier" to isolate the few main principles they do have, as much of the advanced ones have so many things "going on" at once. That, and it is part of my system, and as I plan to teach, I wish to excel at them. But I agree with you on principle. They were simplified kata outwardly (and to some extent, inwardly) watered down to make them easier and less obviously lethal. But as I and others have mentioned before, if a master does the Pinan kata, are they truly "beginner's kata"? I think Motobu is a good case for your argument. However, I find it incredibly unlikely that he only learned the Naihanchi kata. For one thing, he knew more than one version of it, as he taught several versions. He has also written published material detailing and describing many features of various kata, suggesting that he had an even wider knowledge of kata than the legend around him states. It is certainly much, much easier nowadays to know about a kata you've never practiced then it was back then. He's also been known to have recognized many kata by simply seeing them performed, something most people who have never done the kata before are not necessarily able to do. But the belief that he only knew Naihanchi probably stems from the fact that he felt all you needed to know was Naihanchi and that it was a complete system in and of itself (something he stated about the Passai and Rohai kata as well). I believe there is also a Motobu (Choki) version of Passai as well. But you're right, he probably knew less kata than most, but I would say more than the Naihanchi.

In most cases, even in "old-school karate", people knew much more than two or three kata. Most people knew far more kata than they actually taught, as is the case in schools nowadays. But again, even in the old days, people knew many kata. Of course, they spent more time on the kata, more time focusing on each. But to say they only knew two or three (or four or five) is in most cases, plain wrong.

I disagree that a competition is very close to a real street fight. If that's just something we're going to differ on, then so be it. However, you have admitted there is a difference, so how does that put us in conflict or disprove my argument?

Holy Thread Necromancy Batman! Anyway, all those things are definitely part of the system. You have to realize that a system is a collection of not just techniques, but also principles.

It has less specific applicability to competition because the more "advanced" interpretations of it are composed of doing things that are not allowed or as a set-up to things that are not allowed, like breaking bones or grappling, for example.

Just to add to some of what was said. The traditional Okinawan story for the origin of the kata Chinto was it came from the name of a shipwrecked Chinese sailor (it happened a lot in those days). The sailor was stealing food from various farms to survive and Matsumura was sent to track him down. They fought and Matsumura was defeated, so Matsumura tracked him down and asked him to teach him his fighting style, which was passed down in the form of the kata we have today, known as Chinto. According to John Sells and other martial arts historians, another possible explanation would be interpreting it as "Fighting to the East" or may simply be referring to a city in some eastern district of China. The thing is, none of the kata ever had their names written down in kanji (Chinese characters). Any such assignation of characters and interpretation from it only happened in relatively recent times. There are three main types of Okinawan Chinto, the Shuri version (Matsumura lineage), the Tomari version (Matsumora lineage) and the Kyan version (derived from Kyan Chotoku who derived his from Matsumora). There are other variations, of course. I believe one of the main features of this kata is using the turning of the body as a weapon and principle. I don't mean purely in terms of centrifugal force, but for more close in-fighting purposes. As far as saying this kata is a [blank] rank kata, I think that statement is humorous. The number of years that karate has had a ranking system is far, far less than the number of years it did not. Criticizing those not in your system for the sometimes arbitrary assignation of rank requirements for learning certain kata is rather narrow-minded. That being said, I believe Chinto is a rather difficult kata, but saying someone shouldn't be learning it just because they don't meet the requirement for your organization isn't something I can agree with. Organizations have their own requirements for their kata, and even these may vary slightly from dojo to dojo. It is mainly used as an aid to help organize training, not to say without certainty that someone can never do a kata without reaching a certain rank, especially considering again how new an innovation the ranking system is and how inadequate it is to truly capture the skill of a practitioner in many instances.

Just to clarify (and Skeptic2004 can correct me if I'm wrong), he's not talking about a "press" in terms of a specific technique (like osae uke or osae dori). It's more of a principle dealing with the application of force or something carried through in every technique, rather than being a technique in and of itself.

My bad. I misread that (I was tired).

It is also a little known fact that the slinky was in fact a weapon designed to fend off intruders invading a castle. They would walk down the stairs, alone or in pairs, and make a slinkity sound. Quite troublesome for the those not having the advantage of the high ground.

I don't believe all three of the Naihanchi kata were one kata. Mainly because Matsumura taught the first two and the third was made by his student, Itosu.

Asheville? Did you ever have a chance to meet Kyoshi Kevin Roberts or Kyoshi Doug Perry? They're in your area, I believe. Great karateka. And welcome.