Shorin Ryuu

Thanks for the response. I have seen them in use before, but I still think it is more dangerous for the other practitioner. Of course you're not supposed to hit in the face, but if that never happened, they wouldn't have the cage there now, would they?

Perhaps I'm in a minority. I don't know. But I've always found "fist law" to be a rather strange way of translating kenpo. Certainly the "po" does have legal connotations. However, it is more certainly drawing upon the connotations that have to do with "system" or "method". Therefore, it would be more accurate to translate it as "fist method" or "way of the fist", if you want to sound more poetic. But "fist law" just sounds absurd in my opinion, given the characters and how they are normally used... I would also argue that Kyan Chotoku was probably more responsible for the spreading of Wansu than Shimabukuro. Also, while Motobu Choki did do Naihanchi (there's several ways of writing and pronouncing it, but most tend to agree there is a "chi" towards the end, not a "shi") a lot, it was more of a staple of Okinawan karate anyway rather than made famous by him. If he never existed (thankfully he did, as he did much to further karate), it still would be pretty famous. Other than that...nice post. I didn't mean to jump all over you. These are just what I believe to be my educated opinions.

Well, I think assigning a rank to that technique or even just a very broad range (for example, between shodan and yondan) is kind of arbitrary. I don't see the point in that. Regardless, if you are already in a full-blown exchange, I wouldn't recommend doing a distraction in that manner which leaves you so open. As Sevenstar said, a feint would be far safer and more effective.

Yes. There's some pretty nice applications to that one. But to clarify, you don't need to "overly commit" to these double strikes in order for them to be effective. The reason for that is the same reason you don't need to "overly commit" for any single strike to be effective either. That double strike I described in the thread I linked to above is just one of the many (obviously) ways to do a double strike...you mentioned you haven't been shown any, but some of these can just figure out yourself. Relying on your instructor is good, but you shouldn't expect them to give everything to you.

Yes. There are ways of doing double strikes without comprimising your centerline and structural mechanics. You can also do it without compromising your balance. There are certainly many that can not or do not do this (usually more of a blind repetition of kata rather than a serious practitioner of it), but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. It's not that difficult either. Scoff as much as you want, but double hand strikes to certain areas have the ability to disrupt someone's balance/energy/ki/nervous system/breathing/whatever. Sometimes they are simultaneous, sometimes they are timed one after another (timing is somewhat precise but not that demanding in terms of precision). Pineapple, ask Skeptic2004 what happened when our first instructor did a double strike on him... Anyway, please read my post on page two of this thread: http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=16088&start=10 I wouldn't necessarily use it in the situation that the person asked about. I was just describing it because someone talked about it and I wanted to provide a more structurally sound and practical usage of the technique. Again, I'm not advocating it for the situation in question in that thread...

I think I saw that in a Jet Li or Jackie Chan movie once...I don't remember which. As JeetKuneDo said, I'm not sure how effective that would be against skilled opponents. If you have that much time to mess around, you might as well go in for the kill (so to speak).

? My comment didn't have anything to do with Choki Motobu (as great a fighter as he was and as much as he liked Naihanchi). It was just from my own experience and the experiences/teachings of/discussions with others.

By labels we mean the manufacturer's label. I'm pretty sure almost every belt you can buy from a store has these...

Bought my ticket. I'll be arriving at 1:35 pm on Friday the 24th and leaving that Monday morning.

I cut off the Shureido label on mine. I thinks labels are a bit too much. Some might think belts are a bit too much (I'm not too attached to mine, but it's just useful if you're in a large organization), but I draw the line at the label. If people want to know who made it, they can always ask...

I'm not a big sparring person, so I don't use all that headgear. But I just had a question out of curiosity. Do you all actually like those head cages and things like that? It seems like it could be pretty dangerous to the other guy. You might mess up your hand pretty bad if it gets stuck on the other person's head cage.

P.A.L.: I've seen a video of Chuck Chandler performing Tsuru sanchin (from what I hear, it's a more "ShuriTe" form of Sanchin). It appeared to me to take a different approach than the heavy tension of Naha Sanchin (not to say there isn't tension...I just couldn't tell right off hand). I haven't done it or had anyone show it to me in person, so I can't speak for it. Does this sound anywhere near accurate to what you've observed? As other people have noted, I feel the Naihanchi kata have more fighting applications than the Sanchin. Not to say Sanchin does not have any. To me it just seems that Naihanchi is more oriented towards that while Sanchin is more oriented towards training. Regardless, I'm not as able to comment about Sanchin as much, since I've not had that much experience with it other than just observing it a few times. Gekesaidaijon: In response to saying that Sanchin does not have any kicks (I assume this applies to Naihanchi as well), this is the more "hidden" way of doing the kata. It is more "Chinese" to disguise kicks as merely steps, so usually a step indicates a kick or other significant leg usage. As you mentioned, the masters did not include moves in kata "just for fun". Carrying this a step further (pardon the pun), every leg movement is there for a purpose. I do feel that if you know Naihanchi really well, you would be well suited for a fight. I love working on Naihanchi because getting better at those kata makes all my other ones that much better. The fundamentals in Naihanchi really help you to understand the grappling context of many of the other kata as well. I've also done a version of Naihanchi that goes forwards and backwards as opposed to side-to-side, which is interesting. It helps you to better visualize how to utilize or perceive the bunkai.

The Secrets of Okinawan Karate by Kiyoshi Arakaki Unante: The Secrets of Karate by John Sells Don't let their over-usage of the word "secrets" in their title fool you. They are among the best books written about martial arts I've read. The first one is more technique and theory (actual combative theory and principles, not just basics). I thought it was so good, I went and bought it and the two sequels in Japanese (the two sequels are not translated yet) in an attempt to read up more on it. It's not what I would consider light reading though. Some of the stuff is obvious, some of it is semi-new and some of it is just intriguing. I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, since the majority of it is on actual fighting concepts rather than a more "artistic" orientation. The second one is the most exhaustive book out there on the history of karate in English. It also dispels common myths out there about karate. I did like "Living the Martial Way", although I really just nodded in affirmation to a majority of his points rather than it having a life-changing impact on me. Perhaps it has more impact on people not used to his kind of armed service culture. Martial Musings by Robert Smith is another good read. As the name implies, it really is just the author's musings on various things and some history of his life.

I put "never". Picking it up at the bookstore for an occasional laugh doesn't count...

I don't ever really think too much about catch phrases and all. I think many people like to say them without truly meaning it or trying to live up to it. I'm not sure where this originally came from, but here is one that has always appealed to me and one that I strive to emulate: "I do today what others won't so I can do tomorrow what others can't."

I'm a huge advocate of traditional martial arts. However, like most practitioners of what is truly "traditional", I don't get too hung up on the whole style debate. As usual, I'll point out that in karate, the notion of a rigid style-structure is a relatively new innovation. Sadly, much of this is fostered either by ego, money or misguided sentiment. In those oft-quoted "old days", which really weren't that old or long ago, masters trained with other masters and weren't strict on keeping exclusive control over students. That being said, I'm perfectly comfortable sticking with the system I train in right now. Why? Because from dojo to dojo I train in a different style. People who denounce the rigidity and lack of openness in styles are either observing systems that promote unhealthy dogmatic single-mindedness or they underestimate the individuality and openness of the instructors. I think the truth is probably a mix of the two. Having the somewhat mixed blessing of being able to (and being forced to) travel and move quite frequently, I've had a chance to train with many instructors from within my system and without. Even just between different instructors within my system, the individual "style" is quite marked. There's enough leeway within individual systems for the "style" of individual instructors to develop. What does this have to do with the question? Well, I approach the question of creating a new style from several vantage points. The first is ability. As people have mentioned, there is relatively little or nothing that is new under the sun when it comes to martial arts. Therefore, people are somewhat limited in their ability to create something totally original in regards to martial principles or techniques. That being said, the only things that can distinguish a style is the specific combination of principles and teaching methods used to transmit it. Another point on ability: Few people actually have studied well enough to reach the point where they can "piece together" various aspects of learning to a composite, workable whole. Simply learning techniques from styles X, Y, and Z isn't enough. You have to weld them together in an appropriate context in order for it to stand together by itself. If you died tomorrow, it has to be able to be more than simply a personal collection of information that requires your presence. This is what distinguished the personal "style" of Bushi Matsumura when he started the Shuri styles of karate as oppossed to Joe Schmoe who started Kwik-E-Karate. Perhaps this is semantics, but if it can't survive on its own, then it isn't truly a new "style". The majority of all those new styles out there are simply patchwork hodge-podge collections without depth. There are some that have depth and probably have worth of their own. But those are much rarer exceptions. Next: Neccessity. Does the world really need another style? Someone alluded to it before. What's the purpose of creating one? If you don't wish to be part of some organization or want to deal with all of that, that's fine. You don't have to. At the same time, you shouldn't really put on the pretense of creating something truly unique. Most often, it's just an extension of system X. Shotokan. Shorin Ryu. Judo. Whatever. So yes, you can create your own "style" of martial arts. But it is a rare occassion for something to be noteworthily different or profound enough to celebrate by calling it a STYLE with capital letters. Most often, it's simply just a style. Personal, individual and pretty common. I'm not against people forming their own styles. I wish people wouldn't go off and do them without a decent foundation in something. When it comes down to it, all styles in existence today are merely the products of talented masters who wished to pass on their own teachings but in a context that others can take and personalize for their own. When you advance in your training and understanding, you realize that even if you train within a system, style or organization, your karate is your own. You just can't let that fact get to your head. So sure, found your own style if you think it is necessary. Just be prepared to painfully self-critique yourself. I don't mean self-evaluation, but purely divorced criticism. My path I have chosen for myself is to gain a firm foundation in Okinawan karate and learn about and from other styles, instead of trying to learn many styles.

Barring any strange circumstance or unfortunate event, I should be there. I'm waiting to buy plane tickets until I coordinate another trip I have in the making to reduce travel time.

Right...I'm aware of what he claims, which is downright shady. However, his more legitimate principles and techniques are awfully reminiscent of Oyata's stuff. Of course, there are more similarities and differences between Ryukyu kenpo and Shorin Ryu, anyway. He does claim Oyata to have been an "important teacher" of his and says he learned much from him. As a side note, I have several videos of Oyata doing bunkai, and they are very, very nice.

There's a saying that goes something along the lines of "There are many paths up the wooded mountain but we all see the same moon at the top." Likewise, there are many styles of martial arts with varying ways of getting up to proficiency. However, all styles are not equal. Some paths never lead up the mountain and go in circles instead. Many styles share common principles with variations on techniques. There are also maybe a principle or two or three that a style has that another hasn't. In Okinawan karate, at least, the very notion of a "style" is less than a hundred years old, anyway. "Style" very much referred to personal ways of doing things, and teachers would often customize training to the individual, as mass-produced karate is another relatively new phenomenon. Bottom line: Styles are different. Some are equally valid but different ways of doing things. Others are simply less complete, comprehensive or efficient than others.

Sorry...I never did summon the motivation to rewrite everything. Here's an old post of mine I was referring to. Some of my views have changed here and there, but it's more or less the same as this. http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=14623&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight= Perhaps one of these days I'll rewrite it along with my updated opinions and whatnot.

The whole belt system itself is a little over 100 years old. In regards to karate, Funakoshi promoted the first black belts in the 1920s, I believe. On Okinawa, most masters wore them on formal occasions or during demonstrations, but they really didn't catch on in full force till years later. In other words, belts are a pretty recent thing in karate. Don't get hung up on them...so to speak. The issuing of formal rank and all that is also new, coming with the incorporation of the belt system. The red-and-white belts are usually worn by kyoshi ranks (usually 7th and 8th dans) while the red belts are worn by hanshi ranks (9th and 10th dans). My system of karate actually uses this, as does about half of the rest of the Okinawan Shorin Ryu systems. I believe this method of actually creating a different color is even more recent as well. I'm pretty sure Chibana Chosin (died in 1968) didn't do that. From what I hear, this method of coloring is less prevalent in other Okinawan styles, although it certainly exists there as well. I actually like the positions of "kyoshi" and "hanshi" (actual numbering aside). In systems where there is accountability for the rank structure (if you're going to have one, might as well have one that is somewhat relevant), there is a definite line of distinction between "kyoshi" and those who are not. You only need to see them in action or talk with them to notice this. As for adding the extra colors (red-and-white and red belts), I'm not sure I really see the need for it, but at least it helps you pick them out in a crowd...

My lineage is... dangit...Skeptic2004 beat me to it. However, I differ in him in that I changed my "main instructor" to Sam Ahtye. I still hold dear my relationship with my first instructor Mark Staal, however, and still think of him as one of my sensei. Interestingly enough, Mark Staal trained under Sam Ahtye for a year last year, which is how I found out about him. Therefore, my lineage goes from Sam Ahtye to Doug Perry (and the same from there as Skeptic2004 listed above).

As to be expected, I will propose that Okinawan karate (such as Shorin Ryu, Goju Ryu, Uechi Ryu, Ryukyu Kenpo, many others...) offers a full range of combative application, from striking to grappling and the takedown. Striking is an integral part of these systems, but so is joint/muscle/pressurepoint manipulation in order to end a fight quickly and on your terms. It also stresses biomechanical efficiency and combat effectiveness rather than sport application. They are also very close styles that tend to favor in-fighting rather than staying very distant, which is due to their use of takedowns and grappling. I could go on and on...obviously the karate board would be a place to look up on that sort of thing.

Thanks for the response. My only concern about this is that in doing so, you train yourself to move relying more on muscular strength, thus the emphasis on "strong" whenever people talk about Shotokan stances. You are right in this sense. Those deeper stances allow for muscle development that make shorter stances "stronger", but it is making you rely more on the muscles than on biomechanical efficiency. It is because more natural stances do not rely on muscle that they will always be quicker and in my opinion, more combatively stable and effective with regards to muscle transition stances, even if those muscle transition stances are "higher and more natural". Relying on muscle is okay for people who are young and energetic in some cases. But when we talk about refinement and betterment of technique, you have to shift your training. Don't get me wrong, I am all for working out and getting stronger. But when it comes to something so combatively oriented as kata, I want to train the way I fight. Anything else would be detrimental in terms of efficiency in training. I'll go into depth about my thoughts on the punch later once I summon enough motivation.

In looking at Dillman's stuff, it looks more like direct a rip-off (or learning, depending how you see it...) of Oyata's Ryukyu Kenpo rather than Hohan Soken's Shorin Ryu, if you ask me.