Shorin Ryuu

That's a good history lesson. The only thing I would add is that in much of Japanese drama/movies/anime/video games/novels/manga, Oda Nobunaga is usually portrayed as a villian or even a monster or demon because of his cruelty. Therefore you see him a lot in these kinds of roles.

This question can only be answered by applying generalities to both Okinawan and Shotokan ways of doing things. Individual schools will vary, but these will most likely hold true for the majority of schools out there. First: Shotokan, as you know, has its origins with Gichin Funakoshi. My criticism with most Japanese systems (even though Funakoshi himself was trained in Okinawa) was that it was introduced first to the Japanese elementary school system in what I believe to be a watered down fashion. When Itosu and others developed the Pinan (Heian) kata for xample, they were vastly simplified from their origins to make it easier or the practitioner (and indeed the instructor) to perform or correct. For example, the full rotation punch (there's an old thread on this that I posted on a year or two ago). The full rotation punch was introduced because it was simply less effective. The body is designed to take blows at a full 90 degree angle. The Okinawan 3/4 rotation turn (in between the vertical tate and full rotation punch) takes advantage of these angles. One of my instructors always used to say that the body is strongest and weakest at 15 degree angles....This applies in this case. The biomechanics of the arm are optimum at the 3/4 punch. In the full rotation, the bones cross one another and there are pressure points that are vulnerable with the full rotation punch that aren't vulnerable with the 3/4 punch. Second: Most of the level of study is not as in-depth. By that I mean there are many Shotokan fighters that can punch hard, kick fast and have a good knowledge of distance and timing. However, they lack an advanced perspective on close range fighting, to include grappling and joint or pressure point manipulation. It simply isn't there in most Shotokan stylists that I have encountered. This also goes into the kata. Generations of Japanese who learned a simplified version of karate saw "kick, punch, block, maybe a throw here and there" in there kata, but that is the depth of their analysis. True Okinawan styles have this level of analysis, including the basic level, grappling, pressure points, breathing and energy. Third: Speaking of energy. My opinion is that most Shotokan stances and fighting are deadlocked in terms of energy. That means that when techniques are executed from a Shotokan stance, the energy can not flow. You can view this energy as ki or biomechanics. Arakaki wrote an interesting book in which is fundamental theory was that ki was merely the utilization of gravity. Take it as you will. My point is that Shotokan has unrealistically deep stances that require pure muscle strength rather than optimum body mechanics to fight or shift from. I knew a Shotokan stylist that had an unbelievably deep front stance. Yet he could kick with his reverse leg extremely fast, but it would require much more muscle power (that he had gained from years of practice). Muscle power helps in martial arts, you must strengthen the body. However, muscle power must always be a supplement, never the foundation. True, there are Okinawan styles that have deep stances, yet these are always in a grappling context or some sort of body manipulation or center of gravity transition. I believe this to be a mistake on the Japanese part. Japanese karate was developing in the era that many of the practitioners were witness to the Industrial Revolution in Japan or enamored of its effects. During the Taisho era in Japan, there was an even greater attempt to study Western sciences, such as physics. I believe they misapplied many of its principles to karate. Yes, Force = mass x acceleration, but biomechanics means the body must be relaxed to function properly. Shotokan is an extremely "hard" style, meaning it relies heavily upon muscle and physical fitness. That isn't entirely bad, but there needs to be more of a balance. Fourth: Related to the last point. Shotokan looks strong. It does. The static stances require muscle and strength. Yet it is too hard in my opinion. It needs to be softer. I know they teach about relaxation in Shotokan and other styles. There is a need to work more angles and more circles into the techniques. It really is a matter of efficiency. When you get old, you won't be able to be as fast or as strong. You simply need to be more efficient. Softer styles teach efficiency via body mechanics, stances, that sort of thing (not referring to timing, as both types of styles do this). Harder styles teach that you need to train harder. I think a mix of the both is beneficial, but I believe the softer to be superior. The debate on this alone is the substance of many books, but suffice it to say, Shotokan needs to rely less on pure muscle. Fifth: Related to the second point. Pressure point manipulation and close range in-fighting is such a huge part of Okinawan karate. I find it heavily lacking in Shotokan and many Japanese styles, as they are more oriented towards sport fighting or pure stand-up fighting. I would be lying if I said there was not a big sports contingent on Okinawa. In fact, some styles are more traditionally taught in American then even in Okinawa! Fuse Kise, head of one of the brances of Matsumura Shorin Ryu even remarked that soon to find true traditional Okinawan karate, you may have to go to America (although his English wasn't quite so good...the meaning is the same)! Sports in karate aren't evil. I think it is a reason that has helped it flourish around the world, and that is good. Yet many places, even if sport is not the main emphasis, have devolved into sports- level analysis. There is such a wealth of pure fighting technique in Okinawan karate for all ranges of combat, yet even some styles in Okinawa are losing that range, I regret to say. Pressure point manipulation, and I don't mean tap at a point and a person dies, but I mean honest-to-goodness (in some cases, even scientifically verified in a lab) pressure point theory and practice that require contact and precision. Pressure point doesn't just mean pain, but also unbalancing and internal injuries/nerve damage. Pressure point theory includes activating pressure points to make joints vulnerable or manipulating joints to make activating pressure points vulnerable and have a full range of effects on bone, muscle and the nervous system. I find this lacking in most all Japanese styles. It is truly a higher level of understanding (along with the more internal aspects of martial arts). Sixth: "Yes, but Gichin Funakoshi was Okinawan, wouldn't he have taught it one way if it was superior?" The sad fact of it is, that he did teach it differently than it is practiced today. His emphasis did shift later to a more philosophical approach. At the same time, he did want to maintain functionality. But his students vastly changed his teachings. Look at his stances in old photos, they are way higher than practiced today. Even during his lifetime, he remarked that his teachings (technique-wise) were changed (negatively). I think he was pleased with the philosophical aspects of it, but after watching a demonstration by his students performed at the Budokan, he said that he was ashamed. He could not recognize what they did as the karate that he taught them. I think that is a pretty condemning statement. Seventh: The simple things, like the block. I believe there is no "block" in karate, that they are strikes. In Japanese styles (with the exception of certain ones, like Wado Ryu for example) the blocks are lower in front of the body. In Okinawan systems, they are much higher. Sometimes they teach the block with the fist at eye level. It seems ridiculous to have a block that exposes you so much. But it isn't a block, it is a strike to the face, for example, that happens to also make sure that your hand doesn't reach me. Or the shuto (knife-hand). In many cases, it is taught as a two-count motion. Both or one hand goes back, then it goes forward. It "chambers" then strikes. There is no such thing as a "chamber" in my opinion (same as the chambered punch). Depending on how it is performed, the first movement is the block, one hand retracts the opponent's hand while the other strikes a pressure point on the wrist. The actual "block" is a strike to a corresponding pressure point in the neck that can cause unconsciousness with much less force. I believe the chamber to be a pull inwards, never a preparation. Eigth: Thus everything is done for a reason. Even the yoi or ready position. I ask many people, "why do you do that?" They say "it is for respect", or, "it shows I have an empty hand." I believe that to be hogwash. The bow is for respect. Just like there is no chamber position, even the motions into a ready position have several explanations in Okinawan karate styles. I seriously ask people why they do it, explain to them my background or it is people I know so it isn't a trust issue, and they can only give me explanations like the fist at the side of the body is merely a chamber and their yoi position is merely a symbolic gesture. Going back to levels of interpretation....it is too simplistic. Ninth: As a general trend, there are more Shotokan dojo that do not do weapons training than Okinawan dojo that do not, for whatever reason. Perhaps this is due more to the name "empty hand" given to karate in 1936 and a philosophical consideration. Tenth: More Shotokan dojo seem to teach classes in a much more "rigid" fashion where people are mostly at strict attention and in solid lines, etc. This isn't so much a Shotokan thing as it is a Japanese thing. It has influenced many Okinawan styles as well (the influences have gone both ways), but I've seen a lot more "casual" Okinawan dojo then Shotokan dojo. Primarily due to the idea that "traditional" always meant hardwood dojo floors and large masses of karateka, which is a relatively new thing in karate. I could go on and on. I really don't mean this as an all out bash against Shotokan. But these are just differences I have noted in between Shotokan (and more Japanese styles of karate) and Okinawan karate. Feel free to pm me, email me or contest me here if you disagree with anything I said. Once again, these are criticisms of a system as a whole, not necessarily individuals or individual dojo, which vary.

I strongly disagree with you here. Of course, if a student tells you in a disrespectful manner, then maybe you have some leeway. But even then, I wouldn't simply walk away like that. You may want to get that person to shape up if they are being disrespectful, but I think there is a better way to handle that. I have questioned the validity of things some of my instructors have done (always very respectfully, of course). In these situations, they have always asked if I could come up with a better solution or reasoning for doing so. Likewise, I have done the same for those people who thought or indeed knew a better way of doing things when I showed them something. This forces the burden of work upon the person who is questioning. Rather than discouraging the question, it shows that you, as the more experience person, are still willing to learn, even from those lower than you. It also helps them to think more deeply about the technique or principle in question. Sometimes, they may see it from a completely different angle that may actually *gasp* teach you something. Either way, it lets the student know that questioning is acceptable and makes them think more in-depth about their technique. It also makes baseless accusations less common. Part of being a good teacher is learning from your students. This includes learning from them even if it is at "your expense". Respect is something to be maintained, but the free exchange of ideas (and their debunking) is also very important.

In my system, you have the option of adding stripes to your black belt. Most people do not. I think that is very uneccessary. I simply have my name in katakana one one side and the name of my organization in kanji on the others. My system is also one of the few Okinawan systems (relatively) that has a red-and-white belt for Kyoshi Rank (7th, 8th dan) and a red belt for hanshi rank (9th, 10th dan). Probably about half the Shorin Ryu styles do this, but it is less prevalent in other Okinawan styles. I've always found it kind of amusing, but hey, if they want to do that, then I'm not about to tell them to stop. It is useful if you are in a camp or other function with about 250+ people. You can spot them from far away. I draw the line at my name and organization on the belt, and I even have some mixed feelings towards that. But, since I suppose most people in my organization do it (not necessarily a "peer pressure" thing, but more of a politeness thing), I figured I would go for it. That being said, I cut off the Shureido emblem on my belt and the manufacturer's patch on my gi...that was too much commercialism for me.

My turn to respectfully disagree. I think this point of view is often cited by many. The problem I have with this point of view (it's heavy Bruce Lee origins notwithstanding) is that it continually underestimates the adaptability of the opponent. If I had a knife or any other weapon for that matter, I would not be too "pre-occupied" with it to the exclusion of everything else. For trained weapons users, the weapon really is an extension of their self, meaning that just because they have it, doesn't mean they won't use other "weapons" at their disposal. This logic would be like saying those who are good at punching will only punch, because it is their best weapon. Hogwash. The sad fact is, you just simply have to accept the possibility of getting cut in a knife fight. Once you get over that, you have a chance at winning. However, saying that the person with a knife is at a distinct advantage always seemed rather silly to me. If that was the case, then we wouldn't necessarily use weapons in combat, would we? We would just be content with being so incredibly versatile that we wouldn't need weapons; they would just distract us. Meanwhile, we would most likely be getting sliced to ribbons... Underestimating your opponent simply because he has a knife would be a huge mistake. Again, it is simply not giving him enough credit. There are those who really focus on just the weapon they have. That is the same for people who are unarmed as well. But a trained knife fighter isn't necessarily one of these people. As you mentioned, getting in close is your only chance of success if you can't run away. Otherwise, he'll just slash at you from a safe distance. But just because you've gotten in his zone or even temporarily stopped his knife from hurting you doesn't mean you're "safe". Bottom line: Don't assume the person with the knife is "stupid".

Well, I'm not going to say much about Bruce Lee. I have a rather low opinion of him in the first place, so that line of reasoning actually lost points with me... But I think the main thrust of the argument against him teaching is that most people who are at his age simply lack the maturity to actually teach. Being a teacher is more than simply conducting a class. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Even if he is technically pretty decent, it does not necessarily mean that he has developed critical thinking skills in regards to what he does which I believe are neccessary to distinguish someone who simply holds class and someone who is a teacher. I could be totally wrong. Maybe he is mature and is more than competent in a technical sense (if only in XMA, that is). But I would be extremely surprised.

Shhhh! You were supposed to play it off. "Yeah, that's exactly what I meant" or something like that. Not all aikido schools do, but I've come across many that do.

I agree. You can be stern enough without resorting to shouting. Many people see that as a loss of control and lose respect for you. Even if I was younger than you, I would view some teenager yelling at me as quite ridiculous. In some cases, even the opposite is better. If you talk to them quiety and firmly, they have to quiet down in order to listen to you.

I'm not much help with the fan. However, the belt below your name simply corresponds to your post count.

(That was ovine king's way of suggesting you should look around for aikido schools in the area, as some offer sword training)

I brought this topic up in another section and thought I should just put it here instead.

Oh, that's okay. Please don't let me stop you from buying it for pure novelty purposes. I mean, who wouldn't want to pretend they were talented in Hiten Mitsurugi Ryu every now and then and still not hurt anyone? Anyway, it's up to you. I just recommend that you be careful regardless of what you decide to get. Regardless of whether you get a regular katana or a reverse-bladed one, since it is still made by a kind of cheap manufacturing process, either one can be dangerous if you get carried away. I wouldn't go about chopping random things with a regular, cheap mass produced katana, let alone a reverse-bladed one. But like I said, if you want to get it for pure novelty purposes (just stay away from giving yourself a scar), go ahead.

That is a pretty decent explanation. Bunkai just means "application" and is the reason why you are doing kata. Most beginners view kata as a collection of pre-set moves. Their interpretation of these moves is usually basic. Punch. Kick. Block. That's okay. That's really what most beginners know, so it shouldn't be expected to be anything different. Later on, Punch, Kick and Block become more refined. Blocks turn into strikes or throws. Kicks and punches become strikes of varying kinds with deliberate aim. Grappling becomes heavily emphasized. But advanced interpretation of kata does not simply mean a more advanced set of moves. Timing is also important. Not only timing with respect to a chain of movements combined to form a specific sequence, but also how fast each movement is performed is important in showing if you understand what is going on. Breathing is also important and must be timed correctly with your "timing" and execution. Biomechanics is also a huge part of kata. Sometimes it is less the specific technique and more of a biomechanical principle that should be taught. Then, there is the breathing and energy aspects of it as well that can be studied. All of these things form an integral part of what it means by "bunkai". More often than not, bunkai is referring specifically to just the application of it on an opponent and is just one piece of the puzzle. However, to really get a good grasp of the bunkai and of the broader principles behind it, you also have to study these other aspects of kata. They not only complement the bunkai as separate entities, but also complete the bunkai as part of the bunkai itself. I don't mean to offend anyone, but unless the kata is done with all these things in mind, it is not "traditional". Doing the kata just for the sake of doing the kata (whether for spiritual reasons or demonstration or just for grading purposes) is not "traditional". Much of that is a relatively new innovation started in the 1900s as karate became open to the public.

Oh, I didn't mean to leave the wrong impression. We do weapons before the rank of shodan. There are no ranks in kobudo given out before shodan (meaning, there are no kyuu ranks in kobudo in my system). This means you'll train for quite a while without having any rank in kobudo. Edit: By the way, I don't necessarily view doing empty hand kata with weapons as the best way to learn them. While you do want it to be an extension of your hand, so to speak, many of the empty hand kata were not necessarily designed with a weapon in mind. Each weapon has it's own unique characteristics in addition to the general principles that apply to both empty hand and weapon fighting. These unique characteristics are important in getting a real depth for your training in the weapon. You can only get these characteristics by studying kata designed specifically for that weapon. I understand if things like pinan shodan no sai are just to aid the beginner without having to learn a brand new form. However, I think it is inefficient and the student would just be better off learning drills and weapon-specific forms from the beginning. What does everyone else think of this? Edit2:Oops, I guess I'm starting to hijack the thread...I'll just re-ask that question in the weapons forum....

Ah. Forgive me. I meant "the one that doesn't exist in reality except for modern custom design stores". I was referring more to it's historical validity as opposed to it's present gimmick status (due to a rather high quality manga I might add...). There were no reverse bladed katana in Japanese history. I was also going to make a comment about how putting a blade on the reverse side would be the worst possible configuration for a katana due to the way they are constructed because it completely reverses (so to speak) the design properties that made the katana effective, but since that one is just a solid stick of metal anyway... I'm having horrific visions of someone getting hurt with this...it says "This is made for display only and is an excellent piece for anyones collection" for a reason.

Yes, the good ol' fake sakabatou that doesn't exist in reality...

I hope not. I live in the same town as he does, although I've never met him...seems nice enough. Tell us how your test went.

My response to "karate means empty hand" is here: http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=18002 I'll just repost it here though: I've noticed that it is more typical of Japanese karate schools not to teach weaponry within their dojo, whether that weaponry is part of their style or part of unique weapons systems. This isn't an absolute rule. Some Okinawan masters (There was one...but his name eludes me right now) feel that learning weaponry is too distracting for empty hand. I disagree rather respectfully with those who say that though... In my system (it used to not be this way until relatively recently) they actually have separate rank for the weapons system. However, the ranking only starts at shodan or higher and there are also those places that test their students at the same time (empty hand shodan and weapons shodan, for example). Edit: I didn't mean this to sound like we don't train weaponry until you are at shodan rank. I just meant that there are no kyuu rankings in our kobudo system. In other words, you train for quite a while without having any kobudo rank...

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have any shinai. I'd also be lying if I said me and some friends never just played around with them or did light sparring with them out of sheer curiosity (heck, most boys did that with sticks when they grew up). We just wanted to experiment with them and see what the feel was. In all honesty, it was pretty rare for us to do that though. I could probably count the instances on my two hands over a period of four years. We were just curious to see what principles may apply between our other weapons and empty hand training and the shinai. This wasn't anything in class, just on a few occassions when we were down there working out in our free time. The bottom line is that we were looking at the sword through the lenses of our other martial arts training to see if there were any interesting similarities or obvious differences. That's all. Almost more of an academic interest than anything else. (That, and I suppose swords are cool) But what we didn't do was as important as what we did do. I've had a friend in my younger years who would show me a thing or two with the sword, but I didn't let that trick me into thinking I knew much about it. Likewise, we didn't have any delusions that we were teaching ourselves kendo or the proper use of the shinai. Nor did we delude ourselves into thinking we would be competent to teach others, let alone ourselves. Since then, I've had a few iaido classes and noticed that we weren't too far off on some things and pretty far off on others. As a side note, I later quit the iaido class because while I would obviously gain knowledge and skills in using the sword, the general fighting principles remained the same, so I wasn't getting too much extra out of it in terms of overall fighting ability. I'm not going to tell you to not fool around with shinai, if you're just curious about various weapons principles or about it in general. I've done that with the sword. I've done that with many things. Experimentation isn't necessarily a bad thing (as long as safety is a primary concern). However, I draw the line at thinking you have gained serious knowledge and in no way would ever recommend you teach something like that to others. Like others, my advice is that if you are determined to pick up anything beyond a rather cursory examination of the weapon, find an instructor. The vast majority of all the "experimentation" I have done is usually on things outside of class that I would have an opportunity to learn inside of class as well.

I just stick with the old-fashioned bo at 6 ft. On Okinawa, that was the height they cut the spears or other long weapons of the royal guards to make them de-bladed. This is perhaps where the notion of the Japanese imposing a weapons ban on the Okinawans came from. While there was a weapons ban a good many years in place before the Satsuma samurai even arrived on Japan (contributing largely to their swift victory), there were some exceptions. The samurai merely strengthened the weapons ban rather than imposed it where it did not exist. Therefore, 6 ft. was the "traditional" length. You have to realize that 6 ft. was not a fist-length or a few inches above the heads of most Okinawans. For most Okinawans then (and many now), it could be well over a foot taller than them. Most people meeting Okinawan masters are still struck at how short they are (despite the mostly accurate pre-conceived notion of their shortness in general which holds true more for the older generation). Yet they practice with a 6 ft. bo, all the same. The jo, on the other hand, tends to be more personalized to their heights. But I figure if they can do use a 6 foot bo, I might as well do my best... Granted, there are many different bo traditions out there. I'm just sticking with this one. (Get it? Stick? Um...nevermind...)

あはは。そうっか。なるほど、なるほど。 んじゃあ、京東大学の隣り所で（病院とか？）生まれたんだ？ 俺、ドイツで生まれたけど。。。

I'm not a master, but I play one on TV. Okay, I can't back that up. I've felt I've been in the "above than average" category. Some of it may have come from a natural aptitude, but I attribute it mostly to dashing good looks, charm and a knack for handling the ladies. Okay, I can't back that up either. I've felt I've been in the "above than average" category for years spent in training. I also have a knack for picking up and remembering kata. For that matter, I'm really humble too... I think most of this is due to trying my darndest to apply critical thinking skills to my training, trying to get a better understanding of the martial arts as opposed to simply practicing, having had rather amazing teachers and opportunities, and long, long hours down at the dojo or elsewhere in and especially outside of class time. I've also read vociferously about the martial arts as well, which I think has helped to shape how I view them as well. Of course, "above average" for 5 1/2 years of training isn't exactly saying much, in the grand scale of things. When I started taking martial arts, I joined at around the time when I was in peak physical condition (17 years old). Since then, I've probably gotten stronger but not as all-around great shape as I was in those years. More of it is specifically tailored martial arts muscles as well. But since I was in great shape when I got into martial arts, I didn't necessarily have to tackle that hurdle as well, which may have helped things. Lastly, I would be quite remiss if I didn't mention my best friend from college, Skeptic2004. If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't have had anywhere near enough the opportunity to try out new often half-baked theories and techniques. Nor would I have been able to learn from the often half-baked theories and techniques he'd try on me. From simple discussion and hashing out ideas to practicing kata and techniques, or whatever crazy stuff we were trying out...he was always there to help me train. That, and I'm wasn't about to let HIM beat ME... *sniff* I love you man. Er...in a manly, let's go watch football way... *AHEM* Anyway. Yeah. A little bit of aptitude, a strong dose of critical thinking, good teachers and training partners, and a heck of a lot of time and effort.

Oh c'mon. We know you were giving Adam and Eve fashion advice on how to wear their newly donned fruit leaves... Anyway, just one note about your last post, Shorinryu Sensei. I believe the rokushakubo (that's the common 6 foot bo, for those laypeople here) was used outdoors where there was room. The jo (that's about 4 ft for those same laypeople) was used indoors due to space limitations. But yes, the royal bodyguards did like to use them. In terms of penetrating flesh with a throw, I would have to disagree. Hitting someone with the weight of a launched sai would be sufficient to stick someone. That's my opinion, anyway. I would agree on the commonality of it, however. There's no reason to "give up" your weapon by throwing it at somebody. There's actually an old thread about this, but the search command is a little broken right now (For me).

If you wish to learn pressure points, holds and takedowns, you might want to look into Traditional Okinawan karate. They have all of those. Not just as filling on the side, but as a main dish.

Right. The myth of farmers fending off rampaging samurai is just that. A myth. The Satsuma samurai subjugated Okinawa rather quickly. And the thing about the rice, it doesn't make much sense. First of all, having three of them at a time, as I said would be awfully expensive. What's more, if they were used for rice, they would be used only one at a time. In order for them to have three, that would mean that you would have 2 extra "rice hole makers" for every person in addition to the one they already have. That doesn't make any sense now, does it? I've found nothing in support of the "rice-planting" myth other than stubborn insistence on legend. Some people probably aren't even lying; they honestly believe it. The sai (which has variants) existed in forms before they were imported into Okinawa. They were all weapons.