Shorin Ryuu

Um, you do understand what I am saying, right? Maybe you do, but your posts (if they are directed towards me) seem to indicate that you do not. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I'm taking martial arts for the fighting and combative ability because I do not need martial arts for my spiritual and/or mental development, character, etc. There are many that do, but I, personally, have other venues that do those things for me now, and have done them for me before I even started training in the martial arts.

When teaching people, I usually emphasize to them the importance of the principle, teach them the technique, and then emphasize the principle once more. Sometimes, it helps just to teach them several techniques that emphasize specifically one principle and see if they can grasp it (um, pun intended). Also, it isn't always necessary to have them grasp the principle the first few times they even do it. But, whether you are doing kata, a headlock, or whatever, it is important to relay the importance of the principle. Otherwise, you're setting them up by failure only by teaching techniques.

I agree with you on some points, at least. If martial arts is the only venue in your life for spiritual and/or mental development, then yes, I would agree even more. This is the case with many people, I might add. I think many people get a lot of extra benefits beyond the physical ones from martial arts simply because a lot of them have not had other kinds of life experiences or activities that would have already instilled in them those virtues. However, I don't need martial arts exclusively (or inclusively, for that matter) to do any of those things, and hence my focus on the fighting aspects.

Excellent point, Rich67. I was going to write something along those same lines. The fact that he is a beginner with no coordination should not be an excuse for him hitting you. In effect, he is doing what people want to do to you on the street, which is hit you. Obviously, there will be no control used on the street, so you should prepare for that using him. Take this from the other angle. Say he had the best control in the world. If he never hit you, and instead just simply stopped the merest fraction of an inch from your face, does that change a thing? The only difference here is that you are not being hit. Either way, you are failing in your duty to not get hit or have someone with control stop their hit directly in front of your face. Everyone else has mentioned the great points of moving sideways instead of straight forward and back, or other tips. I would, however, like to really emphasize Master Jules's advice: keep those hands up. It sounds so obviously easy, but having hands that slip down are very common, whether you do karate, kenpo, boxing or (fill in the blank). Since you obviously keep getting hit in the face, you might want to cover it. My brother (he's young and still lives with the parents back home) does a more sport-oriented karate and is consequently sparring on a very regular basis. The one thing his instructor, my dad and I always tell him is to keep those hands up, since he usually rushes in there with one of his hands down by his side (I attribute it to watching too many movies) and always gets clocked in the face if he does not overpower his opponent. It's relatively simple to fix, if you work on it. And, you have a good attitude about it since you say you want to use it as a learning experience, so keep it up (the attitude and the hands)! Edit: One more thing that I forgot, I was really hammering on keeping the hands up, because this story really emphasizes how much you may have to change things like your "usual fighting stance" dependent upon who you are fighting, how tall/big they are, etc. I used the quotation marks, because it really should be at least slightly different every time, depending upon who your opponent is.

Who do you learn from, the yakuza? Anyway, I learned with wooden ones back in the day because my instructor wanted me to "learn from the school of hard knocks." I hit myself a few times, but haven't done that in years. Very self-correcting. The only warning I would have is that some people do have a tendency to totally butcher their technique, moving every which way but the right one to try and avoid being hit, which usually ends up making them hit themselves more often.

I've found that the standard "six-shooter" holster works, one on each hip. I also whistle the tune to "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" when I saunter around with my sai on my sides and my sheriff's badge. Fastest hands in the West...

They custom-size it to your fore-arm length and probably your hand as well (Which is customizing the shaft and the handle length).

My thoughts are this: If you want to get a sai that you can use and train with, go with Shureido. If you want one that looks cool, don't worry about engraving a Shureido sai. Save your money and buy some poor quality, but "cool-looking" sai... I still say a simple, unadorned weapon used with skill and precision looks far more "cool" than a gaudy showpiece.

I am actually a bit distressed by the fact that this one particular topic has had numerous posts in many threads (some still going) with slightly different names. However, I'll just resort to copy-pasting some of my responses from other posts. Shorin Ryu (but really this applies to Tradtional Okinawan Karate in general). Employs both the use of hard and soft techniques. Has a myriad of striking techniques (not just the variations of the punch and kick, but fingers, various bony protrusions in various places of your body, basically, everything). Has a huge emphasis on grappling (yes, I said karate and grappling, do some homework if you don't believe me). Meant for use at all ranges, but best at close, in-fighting ranges. Kata. Kata. Kata. If you don't know why I like kata, force yourself to read some of my other exhaustive rants on the topic (maybe exhausting would be a better term for it).

Some extra "useless" knowledge is that Miyagi Chojun hashed out gekisai with Nagamine Shoshin (Matsubayashi Shorin Ryu) because he also wanted to incorporate some Shuri-Te (Shorin Ryu) concepts he thought would be good for his students to practice. This shouldn't strike people as strange, since many Shuri Te and Naha Te (and Tomari Te) practitioners were friends and often trained with each other.

Take this as you will, songoku, but the saturation of your posts with smilies and capital letters often makes them less likely to be responded to seriously. My question is this: is he actually taking ninjitsu or is he just enrolled in something like the "Little Ninjas" program so prevalent in many martial arts schools in America? These are just programs, often more like daycares, focused on teaching little kids some basic coordination using martial arts as the medium. Not that all of them are bad, but you will not be learning anything lethal there, as most of those kids simply lack the coordination to do things (not to mention strength, biomechanical precision, and mental advancement necessary to grasp all the concepts). This sentence was not meant to elicit examples of child prodigies or exceptions to the rule, so please leave them out...my whole point is that some kids may even think they are taking ninjitsu because of the names of the programs they take. They may not even know the name of the style they do. But, that is because they are kids, not because they are stupid.

Are you wishing to use the Chinese characters for it or the actual Korean Hangul? Like Japanese, Korean writing has a script unique to itself, but incorporates the Chinese characters for the base of the words in the sentence, using the Korean script for conjucation, particles, and the like. Of course, the Korean government has gone back and forth on this, sometimes having publications, schoolbooks, newspapers, etc. either using both or just only the Korean phonetic alphabet. Currently, I believe Korea is in the "Hangul only phase", but in higher academic circles, you learn the Chinese characters anyway. The only reason why I brought this up is because you wrote "My design will be the meaning of my name in Korean." The Korean Hangul itself is not ideographic and meaning based, like the Chinese language (the characters). Instead, it is phonetic and the letters form groups of syllables (Just think of it was English, broken into syllables). So the question is, are you actually writing it in using the Korean alphabet or the Chinese characters used in Korean writing?

You're right, a lot of my post was more about a hold rather than the takedown itself. And for the record, most of my lamenting was not directed towards posters like yourself, SevenStar. I love that method. I can't tell you how many bruises I would leave with (or leave others with) during many yakusoku kumite (arranged sparring sessions), studying kata bunkai, or just free sparring. These weren't necessarily just from strikes, but from grabbing skin and muscle tissue. I agree, a quite disconcerting sensation, and worrying to the recipient, depending how nice you are and what it is you are actually grabbing (skin, isolated muscle, connective tissue, etc). If possible, I find grabbing on two opposing sides of the body (vertical and/or horizontal) to be especially advantageous, and even more so depending on what you plan on doing.

If cost is not a consideration, you may want to take the plunge and look at some of these: http://www.weaponsconnection.com Just give the guy a call or email him (I recommend calling, that way he can answer any questions you have). I have a pair of shureido sai, but I handled two or three different pair of the sai made by weaponsconnection and found the balance of it to be intriguing (but I don't get mine for another 2 months, as they are all handmade to order, not pre-made). I have seen one of the Okinawan masters pictured on his website do a kata using a pair of those sai.

I'm about a year out from my ACL reconstruction surgery (patellar tendon graft). I do have some slight pain whenever I do very intensive or long workouts involving lots of knee bending. However, I never hear pops when I flex the knee or shift weight. I have never had a moment of instability (after the required recovery time, of course) with my affected knee. Nor do I feel pain going down the stairs or walking, though. Apart from an extremely painful period where I got an infection from the surgery (which thankfully did not reach the joint), I've never had any problems with it. It just isn't quite as limber as it used to be, and I can not snap as explosively (I can still do them though, just not quite as whip-like) with side kicks or front kicks (but lunge or thrust kicks are just fine). I was a bit of a maniac during physical therapy, however. During the first 8 months, I was literally working out about six hours a day. Since we had different surgeries, I am unsure if it is due to that or due to the amount of therapy you did.

Well, I must say that I am certainly flattered that some of you found it enjoyable and perhaps even entertaining. And Happy Birthday (late), Shorinryu Sensei!

I usually find such debates kind of repetitive. However, I will add just a few lines of my own. There are a few things that I think this debate is missing, or perhaps not focusing on correctly. The first is the wrestler's incredible vulnerability to strikes. Strikes have been brought up, but I think everyone is thinking of just punching, or even just elbowing (which are incredibly brutal in and of themeselves). In most people's mind, there is a tendency to think of some karateka in a low stance doing the generic lunge punch in one scene, and then trying to envision that same karateka in the next scene desperately trying to punch someone who has a hold of them. I beg you to rid yourself of this illusion. And here's why. Dismissing the ability of someone to cause damage even while in a hold on the ground grossly underestimates or shows a lack of knowledge about the multiplicity of striking methods and targets that exist whilst in a hold. The use of the thumb as a weapon is perhaps one of the most useful things I have found in a situation where I have very limited mobility. But you have to remember, that in actuality and not only in cheesy stock phrases, every part of your body really is a weapon that can be brought to bear on your opponent. The other part of the misunderstanding the argument towards striking is that it isn't necessarily always pain compliance. The most common line I always hear from my friends is that "Oh, but if I am pissed off, I could take all your hits and more." However, the pain is always a bonus, never a deciding factor. The purpose of any strike is to create a weakness in a hold or shift in the balance and connection between you and your opponent. If you don't have any basic concept of grappling or feeling the opponent in close range, then your karate is incomplete and not representative of true traditional karate. I'm sorry if I offend anyone with that remark, but karate at its roots, which is Okinawan karate, always emphasized heavy grappling and close in-fighting. They didn't have to practice exclusively on the ground because it was foolish to go to the ground, and because if they ever did, they would simply modify the principles they used in stand-up grappling to reach the ground. So maybe I'm cooking my books, so to speak, by requiring that the karateka who will be able to defend himself has experience with grappling. Therefore, I don't consider those that have not had any grappling to be practicing true traditional karate. True traditional karate's best pull for me is that it really is the bridge that gaps striking and grappling, in my opinion, as it emphasizes both very heavily. So if you want to say that "Yeah, but most karate places don't train in that matter", then I would agree and disagree. I would agree that most places calling themselves traditional karate do not. But I would disagree because places that teach traditional karate do involve heavy grappling. Lastly, I've wrestled and tussled with my friends all during my four years in college. Many of them were wrestlers in high school, and were often state-level winners. One of them was a major in the Marine Corps who was a military cop and an instructor for one of the lamentably short and inadequate ground fighting course (8 hour-and-a-half lessons that were fun because we got to grapple, but very basic). A bit of them also did judo or bjj or other "grappling centered arts" (a term which I use facetiously, since I consider Okinawan karate to have a huge emphasis on grappling). I've been able to best them far, far more often than not playing by their rules by simply adapting my standup principles to the ground. When I am allowed to "cheat", I find that nearly everyone, regardless of experience, was incredibly vulnerable to short, directed strikes to sensitive (or not so sensitive) areas. Once I am allowed to do whatever I feel (and obviously not inflicting any sort of injury on them), I don't lose to them. You can attack the validity of my post by saying I'm making this up or perhaps exaggerating, and frankly, I don't care. However, I'm just bringing my wares to this marketplace of ideas...

For me, fighting is everything in my martial training. If I didn't think it would help me in a fight, I wouldn't train in it. All the other things (discipline, self-control, social interaction, etc.) are welcome, but merely ancillary benefits. I don't need the martial arts to have those things. I might use the martial arts as a medium to do so, but no more so then I would in every other aspect of my life (martial arts just takes up a good deal of time in my life, that's all). If you read my other rant...I mean post... in the Maintaining Tradition vs. Evolving Your Martial Art (http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=16284), I will address what I see in this as a flawed perspective, even though I am a huge advocate of kata. Of course, I have mixed feelings about the term "Martial Art" itself, but I might address that at another time.

XVampireX, if you can't find any common ground between karate and the internal schools you are doing right now, then what you did wasn't representative of traditional Okinawan karate. But since you mentioned Kyokushinkai (and I'm not bashing it), that's obviously not Okinawan karate.

Happy Thanksgiving to all, I will be heading away from my computer for a day or two... I'm thankful for my training, my wonderful instructors, my wonderful friends and family, and for living in a wonderful country.

The old masters would consider the internet the tool of the evil one and shun its very existence. But, in all seriousness, on Okinawa, at least, the old masters didn't care to teach one and all. They'd probably use a message board to communicate between each other, but I don't see them building elaborate websites to mass merchandize their schools. I'm not placing a judgement on schools that have websites. I think it is actually a good idea to have at a bare minimum, if nothing else, just the name, contact info, and the style. You don't even need anything else (not that anything extra is bad), but this way someone searching the web can come across your info and if interested, can call you.

You get what you pay for. http://www.murasakikobudo.com/

WHO PUT THE TRADITIONAL IN TRADITIONAL KARATE? Okay, here's another opportunity for me to rant excessively, I suppose. I always have mixed feelings when I hear the word traditional in conjunction with karate. There is the respect I have for many traditional training methods, such as kata. There is also just the sense of, well, tradition, that evokes certain notions in the mind. I don't mean the tradition of hanging up stockings over the fireplace during the Christmas season, or hiding eggs so that your children have to earn their breakfast for a change by finding them on Easter morning, but you all know what I do mean. Traditional values like respect, humility and self-control. Further still, I still use the word "traditional" to describe what I do, mainly because of the perspective and the general idea that it purveys to who my audience is. It certainly denotes to the reader that I do not do more "reality-based martial arts" or "forge myself in the furnace of the ring." Depending on your viewpoint, it may also suggest I don't "waste my time with sport karate." Whatever you view it as, the word "traditional" is convenient in discussion. And then, there's the part of me that wants to jump up and down with a bullhorn and a banner, announcing that as it relates to karate, very little of what most people see as "traditional" is, in fact, traditional at all. Now, now, put away the ropes and the torches (and you with the pitchfork, let's just say it was meant to stick into hay, not bored writers on internet forums). There have been countless posts, both by me and others, pointing out how relatively new the dan/kyu and belt system is in traditional martial arts. About how in the oft-quoted "old days", people trained in what basically amounted in a loin cloth and belts were made to hold your gi closed (no, not hold your pants up, do you ever think of the physics of that? If people used obi to hold their pants up, there'd be a lot more hanging in the breeze than grandma's freshly washed laundry). There have also been a few posts, quite a bit of them mine, that address the extremely recent nature of the solidification of styles (the ryu system) on Okinawa. I haven't seen too many posts on what strikes at the issue here. I've hinted, cajoled and directly stated it from time to time. I have also seen others post something along those lines as well, but not very often. Unfortunately, what I do see is a rather large misconception on what "traditional karate" actually is and what it is we do. I think the largest part of this is confusing what is "traditional karate" and what is "traditional behavior patterns of Confucian-influenced societies." The bowing and the respect paid to the sensei and superiors, the sense of group unity, the notion of the transmission of certain practices, these are obviously not exclusive to karate. Nor are the values of being a "team player", humility and self-control. You can find as much in Japan on the Hanshin Tigers baseball team or the Thursday Evening Ladies' Ikebana (flower arranging) Club. These are people that have (although with much less emphasis nowadays) a ceremony dedicated to drinking tea, for heavens sake. My perhaps flippant treatment of this is simply to help put things in perspective. The Japanese response to Okinawan karate's introduction to the mainstream (first half of the 20th century) was quite condescending. They viewed it as incomplete. Whatever it's combative capabilities, there was no established curriculum, no concerted effort towards the indoctrination of spiritual and self well-being. They probably didn't know which they thought was worse, the lack of an established ryu system or the archaic teaching methods that didn't necessarily lend itself to being taught to large masses. This ushered in a large host of changes into karate. The wearing of gi. The dan/kyu system. The creation of established ryu that taught one person's method of doing things. The perception that training in more than one ryu as being disloyal, undedicated and unscrupulous. Kata became more rigid, more formalized, more symmetrical in orientation, whether that meant in pattern or body structure. Many people did go about merely copying the many moves perfectly, without knowing the deeper meaning behind them. Rigid adherence to a "count" totally disrupted the timing of the kata, and was more of a tool for teaching the kata than for learning it. But that wasn't always the case. If anything, in traditional Okinawan karate, at least, and I'm sure the same goes for true traditional Chinese boxing, combative training was always tailored towards the individual. Sure, they were given certain drills and things to do, but everyone had their own way of doing them. You look at all the karate masters on Okinawa and what did they do? They didn't obstinately learn just one thing. They traveled all over Okinawa, learning different ways of doing things. Maybe one person was famous for his bo techniques. They went to his place and trained. Another was perhaps famous for kicking, and one for punching. Odds are, they're probably friends and maybe traded students with each other. They traveled to "mainland" Japan, China, and Taiwan. They took things they liked and discarded things they didn't like. So as far as counting in Japanese and using Japanese terms (that's only because they spoke Japanese...of course, the Okinawans spoke Okinawan), bowing, wearing gi, the belt system, the ryu "style" system, all of that isn't exactly what truly makes up traditional karate. So, what is? Kata. In my mind, that is one of the few things truly traditional in "traditional karate" in terms of what has been part of the training for over 105 years. I could perhaps continue my discursive dissent with the widely held views of many people. However, I will limit it to a more pertinent topic, which to put it elegantly, really gets my goat. I have said this before, and so have others, to their credit. But this time, I'm going to say it. Perhaps I'll have to edit it out later, but here goes: Most of the disparaging of traditional karate is in my mind, the product of Bruce Lee's denigration of what he viewed as uncritical copying of technique to create mindless automotons that had nary a free thought of their own, let alone the ability to win a fight. But I'll let you in on a deep secret. Bruce Lee and I, we really think alike. Me, the defender of "traditional karate" and one who, to say the least, did not hold it in high regard, have the same view. Unfortunately, what I think Bruce Lee missed is the generalizations he made only apply if you are guilty of what he said never to do: Be obssessed with techniques. But, I'll stop picking on Bruce Lee. He was a good fighter. In my opinion, not great and certainly not the greatest, but he did a lot for the martial arts community in terms of popularity. He definitely had a work ethic that could probably somehow fuel the electricity of a small rural town during winter. And like I said, he and I think alike. We like the idea that the only limit you have is what you place on yourself. Not quite what Nietzche was saying, but more like what Immanuel Kant was saying. Don't sell humanity short, because we have unlimited potential. Now, before I take this on a more philosophical bent, let me get to the whole reason I bothered to bring Bruce Lee up at all. We also both agree you need to have an open mind, and you shouldn't be hung up on techniques and learn principles instead. If anything, that's the principle of JKD. My beef with him is that concept isn't anything new. And this is where I actually tie everything together. Let me start by rebutting this statement: "Lots of people who are great at kata cannot translate it in real situations." I answer this statement in two ways. The first is that what many people's idea of being "great at kata" is usually wrong. There are many people who are excellent athletes who can kick high, fast, and move real quick. Often times, however, they learn kata that only teaches them to be in great physical shape, rather than being a great fighter. This is a drawback on many people blindly accepting kata that has poor mechanics and thinking it is useful. The other way is that many people who are "great" at kata are just "great mirrors." You can teach a monkey to mimic a pattern. A person can mimic the looks of even a practical kata, but unless they actually concentrate on learning the "why" instead of the "what", they will never become good fighters. Most people I've trained with or discussed with divide their training into "traditional kata" and "the useful stuff." With that mindset (and if they're taught to divide it, the kata probably is crap anyway), they'd never be able to gain anything from the kata, even if it was worth knowing. I've met many "kata" collectors who can show me the Shotokan version of one form followed by the Wado Ryu version. I ask them why they do a certain movement, and I rarely get any response better than "I'm punching" or "I'm blocking" or "It's just tradition." For these people, the critics are right. Kata was a waste of their time...but it should not have been. The focal point is that kata is a training method, a tool. Just like many things in life, "you get out of it what you put in". Unfortunately, if you don't put effort in it properly, you won't get much out of it either. And this brings me to the point that I have been trying to promote ever since you all became unlucky and I found this forum a year and a half ago. Kata and drills, the staple of traditional karate, are meant to teach you some techniques, but more importantly, they are supposed to teach you PRINCIPLES. My caps-lock key is actually not stuck, but I harp on that for a reason. There is too much of an emphasis on techniques by many people, some traditionalists (none very experienced traditional martial artists that I've encountered) and many non-traditionalists. As the non-traditionalists argue, a technique may not work in a "real fight" (ironic in and of itself as it often is meant to mean the sports arena, whether that is Taekwondo, the wrestling mat, or UFC). However, you train to gain the understanding of the "why" behind it. Any real fight is often dirty, sloppy and fast. Techniques often don't work out quite the way they do in kata or partner drills. Unless you know the principles firm enough, through a combination of kata (pure theory combined with complete execution) and drills (technique compromised by real world limitations), you're right. The defender does not have to "play by the rules". If you've trained correctly and learned principles, you will make him regret he ever came to the table because you can adapt. So what does this have to do with the inability of traditional karate practitioners to adapt? Oh, nothing much, except that the notion of nonadapting, unchanging traditional karate practitioners is not the heart of what traditional karate is. Granted, there are some things that are established as "the way" to do things, but even that changes from year to year, and is only for the purposes of preservation for future transmission (kata being the most obvious example). Nowadays we put karate masters on the spot by asking "what is the official way to do the kata?" We have them make videos or ask how they "count" a certain kata. But in the old days, they weren't necessarily always as precise in their hand placement or demanding that everyone look exactly the same. Because everyone's body is different, the kata will look different. Maybe the emphasis isn't on placing one hand with the fingers of one hand touching the wrist, maybe the emphasis was placed on crossing your hands in whatever manner you can without having to rotate the body, which means the hands will be in a slightly different positition for every body type. But still, you learn the "official" way of doing kata. But as you progress, you develop your own way of doing it, the way that suits you the best. You might argue that the act of learning kata in and of itself is a sort of limitation, but that is an underestimation of the act of learning kata itself (not to mention the myriad of other training methods that karateka do in addition to kata). In short, the only thing really traditional with karate is the kata. Most everything else, from teaching en masse to wearing a belt and gi, to rigid adherence to form, is new. The purpose of the kata was self-defence and/or training for self-defence, as was the purpose of traditional karate. Kata isn't necessarily always set in stone (maybe jello, perhaps), but getting rid of kata would get rid of that which defines traditional karate. And this is why I believe changing with the times isn't exactly necessary. And the reason for that, is because the training method of kata itself, despite the commonly held view to the contrary, is not a rigid, locked, unadapting method of training. It is only that way if you, as the individual who is training, is rigid, locked, and unadapting. So maybe when people that go on about the metaphysical and spiritual glories of the kata are right. In this sense, the kata truly is the representation of yourself.

A lot has been said that I agree with, but I think it is acceptable to strike first in a given situation. Granted, this is only in situations where all other options have been exhausted, so don't misquote me. Perhaps there is a difference where I draw the line. Many people see the line as soon as the punch is being thrown (I'm using this both literally and figuratively), which then gives you the right counter. However, for all this talk over "using a wider sense of awareness to avoid conflict", I have not really seen any posts that address the issue of when your wider sense of awareness tells you that there is no other possible outcome than a fight, and that it will happen whether you throw the first blow or not. I think that by waiting for the first punch to be thrown, even if you know it is coming, is foolish. I'll cause a hailstorm of controversy by saying this, I'm sure, but in those cases, I'm perfectly alright with throwing the first punch. Once again, don't misquote me. This is a very narrow range of circumstances. Most of the time you can either back out of it or it happens too quickly for this sort of judgement to occur. However, always waiting for the strike to occur, even with the full intent of evading and counterattacking is not what I view to be the best policy. Now, as far as the legal implications go, it may cause an even greater restriction on your freedom of action. You may not want to strike first because of the simplistic view of many people (jury) that see the first act of physical aggression as the true aggressor in a situation. That is why it is important that we, as martial artists, resolve this issue, at least on the large scale, before we are ever confronted with this situation. Whatever your position, make a firm commitment to it before a situation arises. The tactical situation may cause you to change, but your strategy should be well-articulated in your mind. Otherwise, the choice will most likely be made for you.

Uh-oh, I hope it wasn't my fault I'll just blame it on instant messenger...