Sauzin

I really don't agree with a lot of that. In my opinion #4 is completely incorrect. #11 has nothing to do with whether the dojo is commercial or not. #10 has very little to do with it as well. #6 really depends on the reason behind bending the rules. If it is financially motivated then yes, if it isn't then no. I think the best way to tell a commercial karate studio is to ask yourself if you are treated more like a student or more like a customer. Usually the answer is self evident.

You know chances are as a black belt we're going to jail anyway. Either that or we're bound to get sued. Still in my mind you use what is necessary and you don't take chances. Worrying about legalities is a convenience you can afford afterwards assuming you are still alive. The term "cheating" implies rules and or codes of conduct in a fight. My first code of conduct is "don't fight". If that code gets broken then the only other relevant code is "survive". Things like "fair", "honor", or "even ground" have no relevance when your goal is to survive.

Yup those links basically sum it up. I would add that it is pretty uncommon these days to find Kobudo that isn't linked to some form of karate. I would suggest looking around for an Issin-ryu, Shorin-ryu, Okinawan Kenpo, or Goju-ryu (30% of Goju schools practice weapons) school. These are the most common styles to find Kobudo being practiced with. Good luck!

Because etiquette obviously gets in the way of learning? And aside from having a style what restrictions are these? Are you saying for example that we couldn't do a technique just because it's not in our style? That's not the case, it's just with a style comes different and often better ways of doing the same things. Each style has this, even styles that don't call themselves styles have this. So where's the restriction relative to any one else? You can't know everything. In my opinion the important thing is that what you know works. In my opinion this represents what I consider to be a mass misinterpretation of traditional arts. We don't all sit in rooms training under a certain set of conditions while choosing to ignore the changing reality of fighting in the outside world. In fact I'd say most of us don't. Sure we use kata but we apply them directly to relevant fighting in the real world. Truly traditional arts have always been focused on real world fighting. Not sport rules or dojo rules. What makes a traditional art so valuable is it's timelessness. How it can be applied to fighting in the now just as well as the past. Otherwise why would they have existed for so long? Sentimentality? I don't think that would be a very well informed conclusion.

Some very old, traditional arts were once used for training armies. This is one of the main reasons forms start and end in the same place. If 100 or 1000 people are doing an exercise obviously ending somewhere other then where you started would be unmanageable. In my mind any true martial art must be focused on the most efficient way to remove an opponent. For a beginning martial artist killing is often the most efficient way to end a fight. Eventually the skill is obtained to where killing is not always the most efficient way and other options begin to open depending upon the choices your opponent makes and what is dictated by the situation. At the more advanced level of a martial art the options become entirely your own as the art teaches you to control every aspect of a fight and your surroundings. From my perspective to set your goal at learning how to kill is to set the bar very low. Killing is easy. Given 3 months of 3 classes a week I could teach just about any person over a dozen ways to kill someone that work about 90% time. It's not that hard. But if you set your bar a little higher. Learn to fight, learn about conflict, learn about what your body can and cannot do then I think you will find the results more gratifying. It's all about asking the right questions.

-Please keep this in mind. There can be huge differences in arts. Not just the way we train but what we train. I know it may seem like we're all the same because there are so many Mcdojo's out there it's hard to see the ones training in effective methods for all the ones offering reassuring belts to the masses. Truth be told, most people aren't born fighters. Even rarer then this are people born to find real arts and practice them with the dedication they require. But these people do exist. The problem with finding them in bars and street fights where you can see them work in the real world is that the same dedication and discipline required to refine an art breeds the personal refinement that leads to the avoidance of these situations and places. Don't get me wrong. Boxing works. Practicing fighting by beating the crud out of yourself and others with gloves or whatever teaches certain things very quickly. But there are things you won't ever learn this way. Things that work. Things that separate a brawler from an artist.

Chambering really depends on what you are doing. In a real fight, you would only do a full chamber when grabbing. The motion of pulling while thrusting the punch is still used though. If you want speed that's what you focus on. The returning hand. As far as the full turn of the wrist when punching it depends on the application and target of the punch but most of the time a quarter turn is all it takes to get the job done. This isn't wasted motion, it's directed force.

Hey Joe, thanks for the referral. Yesssir we do traditional Okinawan weapons. Scads of them. Joe's dad, who lives right here in Boise, is a 9th dan under the late Seikichi Odo. And without a doubt one of the most proficient weapons experts in the US. I can introduce you. Classes cost nothing. All you need is the invite. I'll pm you with my info. Give me a call.

It doesn't. But linear motion has it's strengths and weaknesses just as purely circular motion does. Personally I think any well rounded style should have both so that you can perform as best fits the situation. What I've seen of Shotokan seems to be largely lacking circular techniques and applications. That is not to say that there are no circles in Shotokan. My personal opinion is that there are too few. But of course people have said that about my style so I probably shouldn't say anything. I think what really matters though is that Shotokan does what it does very effectively. Some might say that it lacks other things (such as softer applications, some grappling applications, and other subtleties) that styles with a greater emphasis on circular motion might offer. Of course what style can really say it has it all? I'd be more concerned with whether or not it has what it needs. That's a decision best made by an individual practicing it.

Generally when someone says that a style is linear this isn't what they are referring to. Linear is in reference to linear vs circular movement. Styles that focus on principles like "always go straight from point A to point B" have a tendency to be linear. Linear styles practice getting off line but they do so by moving directly off line. Rather then circling out of the way or performing a movement that circles and redirects the attack. Aikido is more of a circular focused art. As is Okinawan Goju-ryu.

As far as biomechanics go I'll say this. It seems to me that different styles have different goals in regards to biomechanics. You can't just one, two, or even three things about a style and say "that stance is weak" or "that maneuver is weak" or "that biomechanical structure is weak". You have to look at what the style is working to accomplish as a whole. Because every style has a slightly different strategy to it. For example, about 90% of Shorin-ryu styles likes to keep their back perpendicular and straight in relation to the ground. There's no arguing against the fact that having a straight back as opposed to a slight cant forward makes you weaker against opposing force coming at you from the front. If I were short sighted I would say that all Shorin-ryu styles that practice this have weak stances as a result. But there are those here who know better. Having a perpendicular back makes you less committed, slightly faster, and more able to react, change directions, and reposition. It is also good for energy work which is why tai-chi practitioners use it as well. So it's not about one particular thing being weaker. It's about what they are using it for. That's why I like to withhold judgement on specific "biomechanical structures" until I know enough about the style to see the bigger picture. While there are styes out there with a less refined bigger picture then others, most styles that are being practiced by hundreds or more of individual who have dedicated their whole lives to understanding martial arts, have their reasons for doing what they do. I'm certainly not going to assume that I know better after only 9 years of practicing. All I know is how and why what I do works. The rest I trust with others who do the same.

Actually there are a lot of Okinawan styles that aren't ridged to begin with. Heck in the Meibukan Goju-ryu I practiced we had drills that specifically worked softness and I never made it above green belt in that system. In the system I practice now hard and soft are taught simultaneously though it is generally accepted that softness takes a little longer to get the hang of. Still we aren't ridged. We don't fight that way and we don't practice kata that way. Now yes I will admit that's the way Shotokan does it. In fact if you look at most Japanese karate that's the way they do it. Start hard and get soft. But that's certainly not a generalization you can make about karate as a whole.

The first thing I would consider is whether or not there is any way to stop this situation before it happens. In other words bring in a third party, get a restraining order, avoid whatever function or area they will be, or whatever. If there is I would highly suggest going this route. Not because I think you couldn't take them or I think they don't deserve to get beat down, but because it is very likely that this would be far better for you in the long run. If you think about it lets take best case scenario. Say you beat the crud out of the guy without causing or sustaining any serious injury. He and/or his friends are still there the next day and very likely with further help. How many aggressive groups of individuals simply stop being aggressive and mind their own business when threatened? Not many, certain not the ones you need to worry about. Most get even. And that's the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is someone dies and if that someone isn't you then it's someone you care about or someone you are going to spend a lot of time in jail thinking about. Now am I advocating running? No I'm advocating avoiding it in the first place. If you're too lazy or don't have the opportunity to do this before hand then run or fight it really doesn't matter. Chances are things are going to end up poorly either way. Personally I'd choose to fight if they went to assault me. At least this way I'd have some control over the outcome. Still the whole time I'd be asking myself, "If I knew this might happen, why didn't I do anything about it?"

Sekichi Odo's Okinawan Kenpo Strengths: Powerful techniques that were developed by a very small man to work against very big men. They involve precise timing, structure, relaxed musculature, and total body alignment. We are very well rounded. We are just as comfortable with inside fighting as we are with outside fighting. We love to grapple, take down, and throw. Fist, open hand, or kicking, weapon or no. Tall, big, skinny it doesn't matter. We practice techniques that work in a very wide variety of situations. Most of our techniques are not specialized to a particular application. As a result, it really doesn't matter what the opponent does or how he changes up. The technique still works. We don't come upon many situations that cause us to "slip up". Weaknesses: We have bigger movements then some. This requires us to employ tricks that mask our movement, many of which are very difficult to master. It also makes us weak in initiating attacks. We aren't as strong on the ground. While we do grapple and understand joint locks and maneuvers we don't practice them much on the ground. We have been accused of overkill in the area of power and sometimes make sacrifices others would not to obtain it.

There's definitely good Shotokan and bad Shotokan. Much like other arts. However if you are looking for truly old Shotokan, try looking into Shorin-ryu. This is the style Shoto (Funakoshi) practiced before he went to Japan and you might find some interesting things both in the similarities and the differences. Like Shotokan there is bad Shorin-ryu and good Shorin-ryu, however for the most part you will find less sport in Shorin-ryu. The style I practice takes a lot from Shorin-ryu for example. And one thing I might mention is in the style I practice there are a lot more then just two distinct throws in Pinian Nidan (Shodan in Shotokan). Of course the word "distict" is subjective.

You see I really don't agree with the idea that two people in a ring of nearly equal rank should know when to call off fighting after a certain number of combinations. First of all this encourages throwing a couple of combos then backing off and hitting the pause button when you would normally have to face the opponent’s counter. Secondly it creates this blurry line effect that you are experiencing now. If you were to talk to the guy you were sparring I doubt he would think that you were done. Backing off or no, he wasn't done and he probably thought it unfair that you were backing off right when he wanted to counter. Now this may not be the reality of the situation. It is very likely he couldn’t have countered had you continued. But he didn't know that and really how could he? People back off when sparring to doge hits. People take defensive postures all the time. How can a combatant know the difference between you taking the defensive and temporarily hitting the pause button? Do you use hand signals? Do you verbally tell him? If not I would argue that the way the sparring match was set up was begging for this to happen. This is why I believe very strongly that every sparring match should have a ref. And when one guy is done or the match needs to be broken up then the ref should be responsible. There are clear hand signals and verbal ques that can be used for this. And if the sensei wasn't playing the part then I don't know how either of you could be expected to know when the other is done. In my opinion this is the ref's job or in other words, your sensei's.

Actually Muaythaiboxer it is my opinion that you are more correct then you might know. First of all I dissagree with a couple of points Enviroman made so I will quote some and point out a few differences of thought. True but how much damage each strike causes is the point. This leads into... Definitely not always true, especially in self defense situations. A wheel kick is pretty stinking strong but it is also awkward and easily avoided (as TKDBill pointed out). A series of small, less powerful jabs is most likely a lot more effective than one huge knockout haymaker. Actually this is still true. You see a strike that gets blocked/countered causes no damage or pain. So when reviewing this point you must look at the result (since that is what it speaks to) and not it's method. It doesn't. The speed and balance requirement (and resulting position) of a quick roundhouse or front kick is far superior to that of a wheel kick or other rear leg kick. Same goes for a reverse or vertical punch versus a backfist. ...That all depends. Your theory is essentially the same as economy of motion. Use the best attack for the situation (which, invariably, is the attack that is the quickest and leaves you in the best position). So I'm not sure what you're going for... Yes and no. Economy of motion is more involved as has been previously mentioned. But what I think Muaythaiboxer's point brings to the table can be rather simply put. Economy of motion does always mean less motion. It means the most efficient motion. If a motion is reduced past the point of efficiency or effectiveness then it no longer makes the most of economy of motion. I think a lot of people have missed this point and need to look at the bigger picture. Not just strikes either. Seemingly extra motion can set up and manipulate opponents in ways that increase the effectiveness enough to maintain or even increase the techniques efficiency (movement/effectiveness) ratio. Another thing that I strongly believe is that it is easier to start with more motion and narrow down the movement to where it is most efficent then it is to start with too little motion and increase it from there. Or in other words, shaving movement off a technique is easier then adding movement where in didn't previously exist.

Why was I influenced? Well to make a long story short I was very weak and not very physically inclined. I simply didn't think physical combat skills or physical anything was necessary and considered it a waste of my time. Then I got a girlfriend, something I didn't previously think possible, and my perspective changed. I knew I could stay out of trouble and protect myself (run, negotiate, simply not be there) from just about any situation. But I wasn't sure that I could do that for my girlfriend or my future family now that I knew it was possible I could have one. So I decided to give karate a shot. It was either this or learn to use a gun. In my life I have learned that the less you rely on external things the more you will have when you need it. Karate seemed to better fit the bill so I gave it a try.

Thank you Kajukenbopr, for the link to the one origin. And indeed as the link said, American Kenpo does have a link to James Mitoses Hawaiian Kenpo which comes from Kosho-ryu Kempo. And if you wanted to categorize those Kenpo's together I could understand. I wouldn't suggest categorizing American Kenpo with Kosho-ryu Kempo because of there extreme differences but the arguement could be made that they share a common history. The statement that Kenpo migrated to or from Okinawa is correct only if you are speaking of Okinawan Kenpo. Kasho-ryu migrated directly from China to mainland Japan and never saw Okinawa to my knowledge. Okinawan Kenpo came from a different part of China, indeed even a different art to Okinawa and then mixed with various karate's through the years to form Okinawan Kenpo. These completely different arts could potentially both be traced to the Shoulin Temples. But this doesn't mean much. Many arts can be. All karate and korean arts and most kung-fu can be too. Also there is George Dillman's Ryukyu Kenpo wich is a mix of Shotokan, Issinyru, and stuff he picked up "here and there". Dispite the name, Ryukyu Kenpo has absolutely no relation to any of the priory mentioned arts.

Thanks for the reply scottnshelly. I appreciate that and I understand you've been doing this a long time. Beyond being a well worded and strong opinion, your post also provides the opportunity to really flesh out what I was trying to say. Please allow me to use your examples to better state what I was referring to... I strongly disagree. As I said. True karate or karate-do is Okinawan. It's a term that originated in Okinawa and was put to use by specific Okinawan styles. Yes in America there are now styles that are not Okinawan using the term Karate, but if you pressure them they will reveal their true base style. Thus true karate is easily distinguished from the rest. The same is true of Judo as their organization and unique training distinguishes them very well. The same is true of both Aikido and Jujitsu. If I said tell me what makes Aikido what it is they would reference their founder and their common philosophies. This is why it is beneficial for Aikidoka to speak of Aikido. When they do, they know what commonalities they can reference. Really in language there would be no point in having style names and references if there was no distinction. Why have a karate forum if the term "Karate" and "General Martial Arts" was the same. You can even look at the description of this forum on the main page for several good differentiators of karate. It seems you understand the problem with these differentiators. Indeed low kicks, open handed techniques, joint locks, and circular and linear attacks describes 90% of all martial arts. This includes most Chinese disciplines along with all karate and much of Aikido. In fact even Korean arts could be described this way. Again I strongly disagree. All Tae Kwon Do came originated from Korea. They all practice the same forms. They all spar with the same rules. Yes there are differences in technique and teachers but there are very strong system wide commonalities. This is not true of Kenpo however. Okinawan Kenpo is more similar to Tang Soo Do then it is similar to American Kenpo. Likewise American Kenpo is more similar to JeetKwonDo then to Shoulin Kenpo. Take any Kenpo and I could find 5 non-Kenpo styles that are more similar then any other Kenpo that you might compare them to. Quite simply there is no uniquely or remotely common basis. There is no distinction that makes Kenpo what it is. Kenpo is just a name. While I do agree with you there is two sides to that coin. I have no problem with making a broad Okinawan Kenpo distinction. Within Okinawan Kenpo there is Oyata's Kenpo there is Shinjitsukan Kenpo, there is Ryukyu Hon Kenpo and yes there is no point in breaking it down that far. But if you don't make the distinction of at least Okinawan Kenpo then you loose the meaning entirely. Because American Kenpo has no barring on Okinawan Kenpo at all. And if all you said was "Kenpo" how would you know what in the world was being referred to? For example if you said, "Kenpo is very pressure point oriented." it would be true if you speak of Ryukyu kenpo. Not true at all if you speak of Okinawan Kenpo. Most American Kenpo wouldn't know the gall bladder meridian from the tripplewarmer meridian if it was painted in glow in the dark ink. Their style doesn't focus on that kind of stuff. How about asking about Kenpo's Naihachi Shodan? Wait a sec, how many of you Kenpo guys have any idea what that is? What if I asked what the opening of that form means and I wanted the Kenpo interpetation? Is there an answer to this question? No because Kenpo offers no distiction. In fact you can ask any question in the terms "Does kenpo do ? ",there would be no complete answer because there is no commonality. Now if you say "Does Okinawan Kenpo do ?" then there is a definitive answer. This is the point I am trying to make.

I'm sorry but I can't let this one rest. Karate, true karate not some random martial art that decided to call itself karate, is Okinawan. You can say all Karate comes from or has roots in Okinawa and thus it is a family of arts. They have some connection. There is absolutely no connection what-so-ever amongst most Kenpo aside from the fact that they are all martial arts and happen to have the word "Kenpo" in their name. Now yes you can argue that things coming from the same place can be different. But at least where they come from is a distinction. I would challenge you to find a single identifying distinction that separates Kenpo from any other martial art, such as karate, or kung-fu. There is no such identifying distinction. As such I find it pointless to categorize Kenpo seperately. I don't mean to get all uppitty here but belonging to a style that is called Kenpo myself I find it somewhat frustrating when people assume or make judgements about the art I practice based on a common name that we share with other arts that have no relation to what we practice.

Funny how Shorin-ryuu brought relevency to what he is calling an irrelevent question. He brings up a good point that you don't want to get stuck on a certain number of bunkai per movment. Official bunkai are great when you are first learning the movement but if that's all you focused on in your kata then you would be severely limiting it's use. In my school there is one official bunkai per move. The most basic interpretation. You use it for teaching, but it is taught with the understanding that it is not the only one, but one of an infinate number of various interpretations. The official bunkai is simply a teaching aid for those first learning the movment. On another note, I think how many are taught with each kata is a relevent question in another sense. It bares to question what the mix of kata and bunkai is in each school and I for one wouldn't mind knowing. Like I was saying earlier we spend about 70% of the time on kata or perfecting kata movments. 30% is spent on bunkai. This is a gross over all percentage though and can vary greatly from class to class.

I'm sorry but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying most karate styles don't jump at all when throwing. These styles don't practice jumping when learning to throw nor do they practice jumps in kata or bunkai or in any circumstance involving a throw. My style would be one of them. Goju-ryu was another. I've also never seen an Issin-ryu or Ueichi-ryu stylist jump to throw. While I've got limited Shorin-ryu knowledge, I haven't seen them do that in their kata either. Now that's not to say I haven't heard of it. But I think it is a gross misconception to say that karateka have been practicing throws by jumping around for hundreds of years. If this has been the case, it has been a rare, and shall I say unique karateka who has done this. Most styles practice throws without jumps.

If what you are trying to do is get extremely good at a relatively small group of techniques, designed for a relatively specific situation (such as specializing in grappler on grappler combat in a closed arena) then of course the best way to do it is to train drill upon drill with a partner. You set up the same situation you are training to deal with and you practice defenses and attacks that would be used for that situation. There is no better way. Plain and simple. But as you start to add more situations, perhaps combat against a kicker, or combat against 2 kickers and a boxer, oh and maybe there's a chair and a table involved, then there starts to be too many situations to set up partnered drills for. What do you do then? Train drills that work in any situation? But they can't be just two man drills because those only work against one guy. So what's the point of a partner if it's limiting the scope of what you are training for? What you need is drills that work against any number of different opponents that can be broken down into specific 2 or 3 or 4 man drills that even involve a chair or two if need be. This is kata. Training for a wide variety of situations requires different methods. Plain and simple. This is why kata exists.

No offense, none at all. I just kind of reacted when you used Okinawan Goju to point out an art that does not focus on grappling when actually they do but as a means to an ends. I don't entirely agree with these statements either. I think it depends on how you view complicated. What I mean by complicated is when a maneuver you are doing requires several motions that rely on very specific and not altogether common circumstances. Such as a motion that only works when you block a certain way, move the arm to 3 specific positions, apply pressure at a specific place and relies on the guy just standing there for 5 seconds while you do it. To me this is too complicated. Movements should have a certain tolerance for the different things an opponent might do or positions he might be in and they should still work. On top of this the less things required to make it work the better. Now this doesn't mean that getting or learning to do the movement right is simple. This can be a very complicated process and rely on several principles of motion. There can be a lot to learn. But the end result is a good grappler who knows when to move what direction and how. And the best make it look simple. Uh, by jumping? I'd just like to mention that this doesn't represent all or even most of traditional karate. 99% of the time we don't jump, even in kata. We throw by disrupting our opponent's balance, having strong balance/basis of support, using the opponent's own momentum, and by maneuvering to positions that offer control. We practice this with kata that involves doing the same motions we would in a throw and we drill them with partners. I'd say the emphasis in our school is about 70% kata/solitary practice and 30% partner drilling. This allows us to refine the particulars in a technique and make the motion second nature in kata while still getting a feel for the application and response of an opponent.