USCMAAI

When you would rather watch Bruce Lee's Enter the Dragon than go out on a date with a hot chick!

When your children call you sensei even outside of class!

One of my two undergraduate majors and my graduate level degree involved a lot of study of East Asia and Japan, specifically, so I am quite familiar with Japanese culture and the history behind it. When karate was introduced to Japan, it was viewed as somewhat incomplete because it didn't obsess about character development in the same manner that other "budo" arts did (kendo, judo, etc.). This is not to say character was unimportant to the Okinawans, far from it. However, the cultural tradition of Okinawa was far more Chinese, and thus far more Confucian in its outlook. The practitioners of karate (Shuri) were more of the upperclass/bodyguards/law enforcement type and were naturally expected to have good character as the natural order of things. Another part of this natural order of things was the acceptability of using violence swiftly to remove any disruptions to the natural order of things (bandits, thieves, ruffians, etc.). Therefore they didn't concern themselves with philosophies that sounded like "karate ni sente nashi". They did not create unnecessary conflict. However, in the event of conflict, they did not hesitate to act or seize the initiative. Funakoshi was respected for his scholarly endeavors and his emphasis of character development. I do not disparage him for this. It is when ideology directly affects how you fight on the tactical level that I start to disagree. Amen!

I have had to use lethal force on several occassions in my life (military/police/ and in my personal life). Although I would say that it has never come easy to me, I have never hesitated. Is there a psychological barrier that must be overcome in order to do this? Yes and No. Some of you are quite right by suggesting that if training is made realistic, and responses are taught to be automatic, a lethal technique can be performed without thought. Although this isnt necessarily desired outside of a "combat zone". All self-defense is not lethal, and I would suggest to you all that knowing Use of Force and the self-defnse lawsof your area. I have written several articles on use of force. If you would like I would post one of them sometime.

Actually it is from my experience and the teachings of my sensei (Grandmaster Kemp). I have masters degrees in Psychology and Criminal Justice, and try to apply those aspects of my education and experience (I am a couselor in a prison) to the martial arts.

I will defer to those of you who have greater knowledge of physics. I only know that the above princples work for me. Thank you for your comments. It appears that I may have to do a little more research.

Point taken. However, the goal is differnt. The goal then was to kill/maim. Now, the goal is more or less based on surviving, in which neither of these has to happen. However, the same techniques can be used for both. Agreed! This is more a matter of Use Of Force, which we also teach in our school. Some techniques are used for what we call a lethal response, while others are more for follow up control or finnishing techniques.

Successful self-defense is often dependent upon your ability to defend against an initial assault. If you can avoid the initial attack, your chances of surviving the encounter increase by 30%. If you successfully defend against the initial assault (1st and 2nd attacks), the chance of your surviving the attack increases by 60%. Blocking and evading techniques are essential parts of this defense. Now before I start my discussion on this subject, let me say that most of what I talk about comes from my American Kenpo and Special Operations Combat Karate backgrounds. If you want greater detail about blocks and evasions, read Grandmaster Edmund Parker's Infinite Insights into Kenpo. Both Grandmasters Parker and Kemp had a complete understanding of motion, and the principles involved in all aspects of the martial arts. They were/are especially knowledgeable about the dual use of blocks and evasions. First I think that it would be appropriate to define what I mean when I say the words block and evasion. Blocks are primarily defensive moves that employ physical contact to catch, check, deflect, re-direct, stop, or destroy an offensive move. Evasions use footwork and body maneuvers to avoid or dodge an offensive move. Obviously by my definition blocks includes checks, and parries. I will go into greater detail when discussing various methods of blocking and evading attacks. Blocks Blocking techniques are not always simple to categorize, but most of them fit into one of these four categories: Striking, Parrying, Driving, and Specialized. I will discuss each category and their sub-categories. Striking Blocks: are any block that is used to meet the force of an attack with force, with the intent of not only stopping the attacking action, but also causing damage or destroying the attacking weapon. Sub-categories of this type of block are hammering blocks, thrusting blocks, chopping blocks, attacking blocks, and intercepting blocks. Hammering blocks are a particular form of striking block. The angle and direction of the block resembles the action of a hammer striking a nail. These blocks are done with a closed hand (hammer fist). Thrusting blocks are blocks that go directly to the attacking weapon, without preparatory motions (such as chambering). These blocks rely on “point of origin” for their speed and effectiveness. Thrusting blocks can take the form of closed hand and open hand blocks, as well as forearm blocks. Chopping blocks are blocks that use the open bladed part of the hand as its striking surface. Attacking blocks are offensive techniques that are used as a defense (beating someone to the punch), either against an attacking weapon or to interrupt an opponent’s offensive move. Intercepting blocks are blocks that disrupt, interrupt, or intercept an attack. Disruption occurs before the attack is launched, interruption happens during the launch of an attack, and interception occurs after the attack is launched and on it’s way to target. Parrying Blocks: are blocks that re-direct, ride, and go with the force of your opponent's action. Because these block usually do not meet force with force, they generally do not cause damage to the attacking weapon, however, they usually cause a disruption in balance. Examples of this type of block are the basic parries and intercepting blocks. Intercepting blocks that re-direct, ride, and go with the force of an attack. This is accomplished by the inward, outward and diagonal re-direction of the attacking force. Although these blocks are in the same family of the intercepting blocks of the above set, they generally do not cause physical damage, but cause a disruption of balance. Sweeping block re-direct force by using slapping or sweeping motions. Again these blocks are generally non-impact (i.e. don’t cause damage). They do have the ability to cause balance disruption. Driving Blocks: are blocks that are used to disrupt an opponent's balance. This is accomplished by going against the force of the attack, and driving the attacker back. The results of driving blocks range from "forced settling" to "forced buoyancy". A pin or fall may occur from either of these actions. This driving action usually comes from a block that has been "chambered". This preparatory motion helps you to generate more power, and allows for body momentum to be coordinated with your blocking action, thus creating a stronger block. It should be noted that many of the striking blocks can be used as driving blocks. Specialized Blocks: These are blocks that have distinct characteristics that make them advanced. This may be a result of the combination of several principles taken from the above categories. I will discuss the sub-categories of this section, as each is distinct. Checks are the use of pressing, pinning, or hugging actions to restrain, hinder prevent an opponent's action. This is usually done by controlling a limb at its joint, thus minimizing leverage and nullifying the weapon's action. Jamming blocks are techniques that crowd or force an attacking weapon back and against the attacker's body, preventing action. Lockout is a type of positioned check that is used to slightly detain or hinder the action of your opponent. It involves striking a target with a natural weapon and having that weapon remain on the target fro a time before retrieving it. Positioned blocks are accomplished by using various defensive postures to automatically check, or hinder incoming action. Pinning blocks are restraining “vice-like” moves that hinder an opponent from taking action. Ricocheting blocks are defensive moves that use the first block to launch a second block. This concept in Special Operations Combat Karate is termed a Ricocheting block strike- because there is generally an offensive technique built into the defensive action (i.e. blocking sets I & II). Trapping blocks are techniques that catch and then hold attacking limbs, preventing their use or escape. Grabbing blocks are specialized intercepting /trapping blocks that use grabs to neutralize attacking weapons. Pulling blocks are specialized trapping blocks that catches and pulls a target’s weapon. Thus forcing your opponent into a stationary position (forced settling), and preventing further attack. (Jerking blocks are also included in this sub-set). Dual/combination blocks are blocks that employ the Double Factor. This consists of dual moves that incorporate any combination of blocks, parries, or checks. It also refers to moves that are both defensive and offensive. Evasions The use of evasions in combat is something that is covered in every system (at least all the systems I have been exposed to). The use of stances, stance changes, footwork and body maneuvers to avoid and or re-direct an attack is the essence of evasion. There are several types of evasions, each dealing with a specific directional movement. Taking into consideration that 360 degrees of motion is possible from a neutral defensive posture (a neutral defensive posture is one in which your weight is evenly dispersed, and your feet are shoulder width apart or less), evasions occur in the following ways: Linear, Circular, and Angular. With all three of these categories of evasions four sub-sets exist, inside, outside, forward, backward. I will attempt to describe each of these categories and sub-sets. Inside linear evasions allow you to avoid attacks, while sidestepping to the inside of your target. This in turn sets the stage for a strong counter attack. Inside-forward linear evasions allow for you to avoid the attacking action, while staying or moving into the “kill zone” (this is the area of a target, in which most of your opponents vital areas are within reach), and applying immediate forward pressure. Inside-backward linear evasions allow you to avoid attacks, while staying in the "kill zone" and creating separation between the attacker and yourself. This in turn gives you space to recover from an unexpected attack, or to employ ranged techniques (kicks, weapons, etc). The disadvantage to inside linear evasions is that moving inside on an opponent means that he can attack you with weapons from both sides oh his body. Those experienced with infighting, and grappling often are most comfortable with this sort of evasion. Outside linear evasions are designed to avoid attacks, while moving outside of the attackers "kill zone". This momentarily neutralizes one side of the attacker's body (the arm and leg opposite of the side you evade to), forcing your opponent to either act with limited weapons/defenses, or to turn so that his all his limbs can be used. While moving to the outside of the attacker limits your access to "vital" targets, it increases your access to the "hinged" target areas (i.e. joints), and makes it more difficult for all your opponents weapons to be brought to bear. Outside forward linear evasions are much like Inside forward linear evasions. They are designed to put immediate forward pressure on a target, while moving to the outside of his attack. This in turn creates a disruption in the attacker's rhythm. It can (and should) also cause balance displacement. Outside backward linear evasions are used to create distance, while moving to the outside of the attacker's "kill zone". This allows you to execute ranged techniques from the relative safety of the outside of the attacker's weapons. Inside Circular evasions are evasions that take you into the kill zone, but not by a direct route as linear and angular evasions. Circular evasions generally are more complex and involve the use blocks and/or parries. These evasions usually take longer to develop and are considered more risky! One of the major differences between linear and circular evasions is the distance from the attacker you end up. Inside forward circular evasions are evasions that are used to close distance with an attacker, while avoiding the attack. As with the aforementioned evasion of this set, parries or blocks usually accompany this movement, either disrupting balance or causing "stunning" damage. Inside backward circular evasions are used to create distance, and usually take you further away from the attack than backward linear movements. Again, parries and blocks make these evasions most effective! Outside Circular evasions are evasions that move you to the outside of the kill zone. These evasions are often used to maneuver into the ambush position on a target. The proper use of this evasion along with strong blocks and parries can manipulate the attacker's body along with your movement to accomplish this (ambush position). Touch reference uses these evasions along with angular evasions to accomplish these goals. Outside forward circular evasions are evasions that avoid contact and then close with the attacker. In most situations this is not practical as it requires too much time to complete, but if you are dealing with an attacker who is off balance or has a cumbersome weapon, it may be useful. Outside backward circular evasions are used to disengage from an attack, while moving outside of the "kill zone". Angular evasions are a combination of linear and circular evasions. Grandmaster Kemp always referred to these evasions as "slicing the pie". This is due to the angular motion of the evasions cutting to the inside or outside of the "kill zone". The use of diagonal lines of motion helps the defender find and enter "zones of relative sanctuary" and "zones of relative attack". Many people know of zones of sanctuary and attack, but I use relative because I want to stress that evasion alone rarely make you safe or make your opponent vulnerable. Inside forward angular evasions "slice the pie" to the front inside of the attack, Often going across the attacker's body. When accompanied by blocking techniques, several results can occur which range from balance disruption to causing damage to the attacker. Inside backward angular evasions are used to create space and the "slicing of the pie" takes you just out of range of the attacker's weapons, and if done correctly will force him to have to turn slightly to put you back into his "kill zone". Outside forward angular evasion is "Slicing the pie" to the outside of the attacker's "kill zone", while bringing your momentum forward. An example of this is touch reference's "open ambush". In open ambush you start facing your attacker, but as he punches/kicks, you use parries, angular and circular evasion (foot work) to avoid attack, and move around behind the attacker into the ambush position. This process is one of the most effective lessons that is taught in SOCK. Outside backward angular evasion is creating distance while going to the outside of the attack. This results in creating more distance than side stepping (linear), but allowing you to stay close enough to attack as opposed to looping (circular). In conclusion: blocks and evasions must be a coordinated effort. If you don’t move when attacked, chances are very good that you will get hit. Conversely, if you just try to dodge an attack without some type of block, you most likely will just be delaying getting hit as well. Those of you who don't mind "trading blows" remember that anyone can be knocked out! Also rule #3 of self-defense: "Always assume that your attacker has a weapon.” Now how do you feel about trading blows with a guy with a knife in his hand? You should make an effort to teach your student that evasion and blocking should go hand in hand. Remember that stances are part of your footwork, and therefore are part of blocks and evasions.

Agreed! In my area my school/style is thought of as very barbaric because we take a no nonsense approach to self-defense. But when people join our classes, the first thing we talk about is all the ways to avoid getting into these encounters in the first place. My sensei use to say that the last person who wants to go to war is the warrior. That hold true today as much as it was throughout history.

I would have to agree with you on one this. All martial arts were designed for one purpose....protection of self. Therefore self-defense should not be a by-product of training. If anything it should be the main goal. The other aspects of learning martial arts (self-betterment, tourney participation, exercise, etc) should be considered by-products. This doesnt mean that they are not important, but secondary to learning how to protect yourself and your family. After all it doesnt matter if you have achieved enlightenment, or won the grand champion of kata/sparring if you are assaulted and killed on the way home from the dojo! Great points, both of you. The sport aspect is great, because of the way you train your body. Being fit and athletic is very important for self-defense, I think. One small point that I may combat you on, USCMAAI, if I may, is the origin of the fighting styles. I don't know if I would say self-defense, but rather, the need for armed combat in mass groups. I would think the goals would be somewhat different, but I could be off. What do you think? Your point is taken, but even though martial training in the old days may have been in terms of military application, combat in that period still depended upon one on one (and possibly 2/3 on 1) encounters. Fighiting was still individualized.

I would have to agree with you on one this. All martial arts were designed for one purpose....protection of self. Therefore self-defense should not be a by-product of training. If anything it should be the main goal. The other aspects of learning martial arts (self-betterment, tourney participation, exercise, etc) should be considered by-products. This doesnt mean that they are not important, but secondary to learning how to protect yourself and your family. After all it doesnt matter if you have achieved enlightenment, or won the grand champion of kata/sparring if you are assaulted and killed on the way home from the dojo!

In my system we require firearms training (weapons use, handgun retention, tactical use of a firearm). I am curious as to how many other instructors train students in the use of firearms.

Thank you for your suggestions, we already do what we call blind fighting in the variation phase. We also do things like having self-defense training in the outdoors (rain,snow, at night, on gravel, etc). Also a big part of this training is apparel. We require students to execute all techniques in their normal attire. This type of training is very valuable. Of course spontaneous defense and variation training should be very limited at the lower levels of ability. I am also a big believer of keeping techniques as simple as possible, and using techniques that are effective in similar scenerios. Remember Hick's law!

I am in Nebraska.

My style is called Special Operations Combat Karate (SOCK). It is a mixture of Shotokan,Kenpo,Jujitsu,Boxing,JKD and techniques and tactics taken from the Special Forces. My sensei (founder of the system) was a member of the SF. He developed this system, because he wanted something that was practical and effective. Although the parent arts listed above provide the main source of techniques, my system usese techniques from any style that works. We cross train in some of the BJJ and Muay Thai techniques as well. I would say that the main difference in my system as opposed to others is tactics. We stress tactical awareness and knowledge at an early level. We don't require the learning of kata (we practice them, but they are not required for promotion), and we do dynamic self-defense. My system also requires a student to learn how to use blades, sticks and firearms as our weapons.

In all my years working in Criminal Justice, Military, and as a Self-Defense instructor one of the things I have noticed is that most attacks occur because the risk is less than the reward! Even in today's crazed world with its Homicide Bombers, Mass Murders, and assorted nut jobs, attacks are against targets that are left vulnerable. You don't see these terrorists blowing themselves up in empty fields, or these crazies walking into a police station with a gun. No, they attack targets that will cause shock, misery and terror (reward), even if they have to give their lives (risk) to get this done, but they don’t attack targets that are not accessible or provide no potential for terror or misery. Now I feel there are several ways to deal with these attacks, but I am more concerned with the type of attacker you are likely to meet in a street encounter. Like our terrorist friends above, most bullies are looking for rewards that are greater than the risks involved. The reward can be money (robbing you), prestige (looking good for his friends, impressing the ladies), or some sadistic love of hurting people (rape, assault). What we as Combat Martial Artists must do is make the risk greater than the reward. Does that mean that every technique in a combat system must be lethal? No, but your system must address each level of force (from non-verbal/verbal to deadly force) in a common sense (combat effective) way. Thus the use of Psychological warfare in the streets. First I should describe man's basic motivations. According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, there are four levels of needs that all humans strive to meet, and each level is generally progressive (i.e. one level must be mostly met, before another is tried for). At the base of this pyramid of needs is the survival needs (physical safety, food, shelter, etc). These needs are the strongest and are even organized amongst them to a degree (your need for safety usually overrides your need to eat, unless starvation threatens your life). Physical safety (I include the safety of your family in this), generally overrides all other needs, except in extreme cases. The next level is what I call "comfort" needs (bigger shelter, more food, money, cars, etc). These needs help make our existence easier, and more comfortable. These needs and the needs of the next level are somewhat intermixed, and can be interchangeable to some degree. The next level is the need for social interaction. We are all social animals, and to have healthy development, we must have social interaction. This need does not include family, because the need to survive also includes the need to continue the species, and thus mating, rearing young are at the basic level. The need for social interaction is what motivates some gang membership, social gatherings (going to the club/parties), and other social activities. It is a well-documented fact that social isolation is detrimental to the development of young humans, and this same isolation for extended periods of time can cause symptoms of insanity to appear in adults. The next level is the need self-actualization (spirituality, self-fulfillment). This is the level which we develop our philosophical views of life (if you are starving, or your life is in danger, it is hard to be philosophical). Our value systems are developed at this level. It is important to note that while our values/morals maybe developed in this stage; once developed they can at times override other levels. Again I say that this a general outline of the needs pyramid, and each level has exceptions. Ok, now that the psychology lecture is over, let's get to the nitty- gritty. Generally speaking, an assailant is not concerned for his/her safety. The fact that they are attacking you unprovoked (this assumes that you haven't done anything that threatens your attacker) means that their safety need is not their priority! Our goal as Combat Martial Artists is to make his safety the top priority of the assailant, and to make his response to that threat --FLEE. Now in the beginning of this article I stated that your level of force could range from non-verbal to lethal. Depending on the seriousness of the confrontation, and that is true. Some antagonist that you run into may not really have the “heart” for violence, and are just as afraid as you are. These people are as likely to be talked out of a confrontation, as they are to attack you. I often tell people that if you look like a victim, you will be treated like a victim. Showing confidence (looking people in the eye), walking with your head up (scanning your environment), and maintaining mental and physical balance can go a long way in letting this uncertain attacker know that you are not going to be a push over. Other people are more aggressive, and some even look forward to violence. These people are less likely to be persuaded by your words to leave you alone. I teach students if a person like this attacks you don't "fight", go to "war". The difference is that in a fight there is a “winner” and a “ loser”. In war there is only a "survivor" and "the dead". That means that you are going to survive "by any means necessary". That is what you want to project through your movements and actions. Most bullies, robbers and idiots, will choose to pick easier prey (even those who enjoy violence. They enjoy violence, but don’t enjoy getting seriously hurt). The only problem with projecting this attitude is that occasionally you may have to really hurt someone (some people just don't pick up on the danger, or don't care). Now for you guys who may be "freaking out" about what I am saying relax! I don't condone excessive violence, nor do I say that you should not try to talk your way out of a confrontation. If someone tries to rob me, I most likely would just give up my money. But there are times when talking isn't going to work, or you feel that a robber may become violent no matter what you give to them or you have to protect a loved one (I pity the person that threatens my children!). In those situations, you should not hesitate in your action. Nor should you be squeamish about what happens. Doc put it best "Be kind and gentle to your fellow man, until your fellow man threatens you or your family’s safety. Then become ruthlessly aggressive, after all if you don't protect yourself, who will?" One of the things that I teach in my Self-defense course is that the police rarely arrive at the scene of a crime before or even during the commission of the crime! Remember in my article on speed, I talked about the responses to a threat are flee, fight or freeze. Well that holds true for your attacker as well. If they are met with a sudden and violent response to their action, the surprise may be even greater (especially if the violence is at an unexpected level), which could cause them to freeze or flee. An example of this happened to me a couple of years ago. I was a local bar with some friends, when a "tough" guy came in. He walked up to our table, slammed his drink down, and began being verbally aggressive. We got up and left. My friends and I went to another bar, and was followed by our antagonist. Again he came over to us (this time with four of his buddies) and began making threats. We got up and went out the front door, but as we got outside, Joe (his name) came from around back, making threats. This time instead of walking away, I grabbed Joe by the throat, slammed him up against the wall, told him I was going to make him my play thing, bit his cheek, and reaped his leg (throwing him to the ground). I then turned to his "friends" (my friends said that I had an insane look in my eye…lol) and asked, " who's next?" as it turns out they were not friends after all. To this day my friend Joe leaves shortly after I arrive any place that he happens to be…. Hmmm? Now I know that some of you are thinking that I still could have avoided the conflict and didn’t. I agree and disagree. In hindsight, I should have gone home after the first encounter! Since I did not and instead left the area he was in twice, I felt that his rushing up to me outside the second bar demonstrated his desire for a fight. I didn’t really hurt him, but I took the encounter to a whole other level, and because normally people back down from Joe, my action was unexpected. Not only was Joe concerned for his safety, his “buddies” and even some of my buddies were concerned for their own safety as well. Again I reiterate that walking away or talking your way out of a fight is best, but sometimes you have to be able to prove that you should be left alone. In my encounter, Joe and his friends were mentally stunned because they were expecting one reaction and got another. They all froze when confronted with the reality of what I was willing to do. Now I must say that if you are not willing act quickly and with “total commitment”, then this thought process is going to be useless to you. Total commitment is of course a relative term. It does not always mean killing a target. It could be something like this: A young girl was walking home from school. A man driving a van tried to stop her. The girl became suspicious of the man, because he wanted her to get in the van with him. The man began following the girl, asking her if she would go to the mall with him. The girl knowing that she could not get away, or hope to physically defeat the man, walked up the street. When she saw another man and a woman getting out of a car and starting to enter a home, she screamed at the man to stop following her and then walked right up to the home and entered without knocking. Of course the man sped off! The little girl explained to the stunned homeowners what had just happened, and the police were called. The man was picked up several blocks away and was identified as a know sex offender. I would say that the girl was very smart. Why would I call this behavior total commitment, because she decided what action to take and did not hesitate to act, which at the least kept her from being sexually assaulted and most likely saved her life! In this example can you see how the little girls actions turned the psychological tables on the man. He thought he was in control looking for the opportunity to victimize the girl, but became afraid when she aggressively reacted to him and used her environment to her advantage. I realize that this topic isn’t thought of as significant as discussions on specific techniques and such, but understanding the motives and psychological aspects of your possible assailants as well as your own, can make you a more effective in avoiding an assault. It is also useful in the event you have to defend yourself!

There are many forms of intimidation. When I was a young black belt, I was training with my senei in our dojo, and a group of Marines came in. One fellow in particular was very large (6'6" and probably 280lbs of muscle). They were obviously looking for trouble, and began mouthing off to my sensei. They stated that what they had learned in the Corps, could beat our "chop suey". My sensei informed them that they were probably right and therefore, they had no need to be here and to please leave. Well, the big guy came over to my sensei and stated " you are scared to show us your stuff?" Sensei smiled and said "My friend, you have trained for hand to hand combat, and our system is based on the same principles of speed, and power" At that point he threw a right palm heel strike that stopped an inch from the guys face, followed by a straight punch that stopped an inch from his bladder. The big guys eyes grew very wide at this, and Sensei smiled and asked them to leave....they did very quickly. I myself have used this same tactic when dealing with people looking for trouble. It is very intimidating and very effective.

Mike I would have agree and disagree with you. I have seen techniques that at one time may have had a use in combat, but now don't apply. An example of this is a stance that was called a "fire stance". A gentleman came into my dojo claming he was a 3rd dan in Ninjitsu. Durning the course of our work out, he seemed to be fairly well trained. He offered to show me some of the "secret fighting techniques" of his style, and as always I am open to learn. Well, he took this stance (crossing his left leg behind his right leg then twisting his weight down into almost a sitting position). He then asked me to attack him, stating that no attack could penatrate his defense. I delivered a low front snap kick to his right shin, and then rushed him, taking him to the ground, assumed an open mount, and began to pummel him. Now I don't know much about Nijitsu, am sure that many Ninja stylist would never expose themselves like this. But this is an example of technique that should be discarded. I have seen other techniques that are not combat effective, but this is mainly due to mis-application. I am sure that your students learning soley from kata is a wonderful thing, but I would have to witness them defending themselves from fully committed attacks from all those ranges to actually be convinced.....No disrespect intended, but what I call effective and what others often call effective is not the same. As far as finding the complexities and "hidden meaning" of karate kata, My sensei (6ht dan Shotokan,Kenpo (American and Shoji-Ryu), and Jujitsu) would often say that there is nothing mysterious or hidden in kata. Application of technique is passed down through the generations. Besides most Kata Shotokan kata being taught is less than 80 years old. Gichin Funakoshi only practiced the Heian katas (sho, ni, san,yon and go dan), all the others were developed later. If this is true then why would there be "hidden" or "secret" techniques in these kata?

I agree with you 100%. Although kata has some practical aspects (teaching a student to move in balance, and to combine power with speed), learning tactics and stratagey is just as important. What good is it to have perfected your side kick, if you don't know when and how to use it in a life and death situation.

After reading these threads I feel lucky. I consider myself as "old school" as the next guy(well to some extent). But my instructor trained in several systems at once while in the Army, and expected his students to cross train as well. After getting my black belt in Kenpo, I was expected to train in Shotokan and Jujitsu. I was not allowed to promote to Master ranking in my parent style (Zanchin Combat Karate) until I had achieved 3rd dan in Kenpo and Jujitsu. My instructor cross trained me in Judo and boxing as well. His philosophy was to make you at home in all ranges of combat. In my school students even have to learn how to use a firearm as part of the requirements of becomming a black belt.

Thank you. I think that this is an area where many instructors fail their students. In my school we spend time doing things like terrain training (actually practicing our techniques outside in winter clothing on snow and ice, on parking lots, and uneven ground). I try my best to get my students prepared for real life encounters.

I think some of you are missing the point. "First strike/attack" means first aggression. If someone yells at you "I am gonna kick your ...." , makes a fist and begins to swing and you deliver a strike to his chin, Did you strike first? I say no. What is meant by the saying is that we in Karate do not offer hostility to anyone, unless we are threatend. Grandmaster Ed Parkers creed sums it up best. " I come to with only Karate, my empty hands. Should I be forced to defend my self, my principles, or my honor. Should it be a matter of life or death, right or wrong. Then here are my weapons Karate my empty hands."

welcome

Welcome Red! This is a great site, with lots of cool people. The discussions are very informative, I hope you will enjoy!

To me the most disturbing thing about this story is that someone with little or no training beat so many black belts in your area. This just goes to show that a problem exsist in the martial arts. Too many people have been promoted to black belt who really do not deserve the rank. I am "old school" and remember a time when holding a black belt in any style meant that you were capable of defending yourself in most situations. Nowadays it seems that a black belt in some schools is nothing more than a money making device for the school. It saddens me to see this, and makes it difficult for true black belts. After running into one of these "paper tigers", bullies and thugs think that we are all pushovers, thus they think that we are all going to be push overs. I have personally had to deal with this type of problem in my area, and although I don't like to fight, I have had to because of stuff like this. As for your friend being a black belt...Does he understand the priniples of motion. Can he break down, analyze and reassmble the moves that he does? Does he understand reverse motion , balance disruption, striking principles, or even the intracaies of stances and footwork? It takes a lot more than being a good fighter to make a black belt. To me your friend is a good, maybe even a great fighter, but not a black belt.