Tommy_P

While I see good suggestions for developing hip rotation I also see the point being missed. Turning or twisting the hip is only part of the equation and hip torque alone won't power a punch. I see many trainees rotating their hips as if on an axis. This does little for power generation. Think of a lunge punch (stepping punch) where your driving forward off your rear leg thrusting it into the floor as your whole body is driven into the target. What is happening is you are projecting your mass into the target. You want to get as much mass and speed as possible. Now picture a stationary punch such as a reverse punch. Your not moving forward as dynamically as in a lunge punch but the proper technique can help mimic this. Not only do you have to rotate your hip but you also have to drive off the rear leg and move your center forward. If you keep the rear knee slightly flexed and your hip cocked you will be able to forcefully drive your rear leg/foot into the ground as you turn your hip and also "drive forward." The key here is to get your center moving forward, everything should move into the target. Don't just rotate your hips in place but make the knot of your belt move forward with the rotation of the hips and drive of the rear leg. Done properly this will also slightly unweight the front foot from the ground much like a drag racer's wheels leave the ground slightly when the rear wheels "drive' the car forward forcefully. This forward movement and slight "air" under your front foot will force all your weight forward and into the punch. It forces your center to drop down and forward causing your fist to penetrate with all your body weight falling/ being driven into the target. Try placing your punching fist on a wall in a front stance then lift the front foot. Feel your weight being projected into the wall? Combine that with timing and speed as well as your center/body moving toward the target and drive of the rear leg. It's all one smooth motion. Kind of a simplified explanation. Practice against a target (bag/shield/makiwara) is a must. Tommy

Katrin, Check your messages Tommy

Yes I am. I have been training under Okazaki Sensei for 4.5 years. Katrin Very good I've never met or trained with him but back in 1988 I took an instructors course at Long Island University in NY that I believe he co-designed along with Milorad Stricevic. It was closely based on his book "Modern Karate". Tommy

Yes I am. I have been training under Okazaki Sensei for 4.5 years. Katrin Very good I've never met or trained with him but back in 1988 I took an instructors course at Long Island University in NY that I believe he co-designed along with Milorad Stricevic. I was closely based on his book "Modern Karate" Tommy

I don't mind a good ground fight although I prefer to watch more of the standup. A good mix is good but I still prefer to see the grappling or wrestling done standing. Use of the hands, feet, knees and elbows, a takedown attempt by clinching on the fence and then a counter to that and a continuance of the standup. The reason is that IMO it makes it more realistic. I know this whole thing comes down to the argument that "fights end up on the ground". On this point I can't listen to those who have never been in a "real" fight. Nor can I listen to those who have trained extensively in MMA or BJJ but also have never been in a real fight on the street. In my experience a real fight "often" goes to the ground but not always. When doesn't it go to ground? When one of the fighters knows what he is doing or is naturally a good scrapper. When does it go to ground? When both parties are at a loss for what to do and so swing for the fences and then rush and tackle because they don't know what to do next, then a wrestling match begins and it's the "stronger" (or sometimes the luckier) that ends up on top. This is barring any accidental ways of hitting the ground like tripping or something. I've been involved in many (real) fights and have seen countless others that have not gone to ground. Attempts may have been made, sure, but the dominant fighter didn't allow it. You have to be well rounded no doubt but just enough to thwart the attempted, and in the street unskilled and half baked, takedown attempt. The chances of meeting a skilled grappler/BJJ/MMA in a street fight or ripping you off for your wallet or carjacking you are slim. Now back to the matches on TV. Based on what I've said above about fights going to ground, on TV they mostly go to ground because they want it to. It's a sport and that's the premise, they pretty much have to take it there. I watched a fight the other night where a fighter was knocked down by the use of hands and feet twice. Both times, the fighter standing actually went down after the downed fighter purposely to try and finish him on the ground. Come on now, sport, sport, sport! In a real fight either you kick his head in or use the opportunity to run. You don't go down to the floor of your own free will. IMO that's where this whole thing becomes a little unrealistic and that's where I say a real fight would be a little different. As much as I love MMA and as much as I think those guys are incredible and that the art is great, I do think it's a little skewed and the rules or the way the fights are pushed for entertainment are funneling the whole thing to end on the ground. It's becoming a little unbalanced. Tommy

Katrin, I see you're from Philly, I'm not far from there (Allentown). Are you associated with Okazaki? Tommy

Wut?

What I meant was that if, for whatever reason someone decided to "not test" and ended up waiting a few extra years, then that's a personal choice. If it takes them 23 years to get to sandan then it's by choice, whatever they're reasoning may be. I myself didn't test for my nidan for 11 years after my shodan only because at the time I didn't see a reason to and just didn't feel like it. Personal choice, but I could have tested 2 years after my shodan, I chose not to. If the organization sets their curriculum so that it's required to take you 23 years to reach sandan then that's crazy. That's what I meant, it can be done in half that time...normally. Tommy

Jion, There are many schools out there practically giving belts away and promoting too fast IMO. On the other hand 5-8 years in one belt level? That is way too long and three years is more common for brown to black. White to black in 4-6 years is average in Shotokan schools and I'd say closer to 5. Don't forget that most of the great Shotokan teachers sent to America from Japan at the start of Shotokans introduction had only trained a few years themselves. Check out the JKA webpage, http://www.jka.or.jp/english/e_index.html it gives current length of time at each Dan level. 2 years at Shodan at least to test for nidan, 3 years at nidan for sandan etc. It doesn't give Kyu grade requirements citing it's up to the orginization but I know it's average. 4 months between kyu's? Less? Before black belt you are getting a grasp of basics, sort of like learning the alphabet and some basic writing skills and printing. BB and above you are learning to put basic sentences intoparagraphs and move from basic printing to writing in script. How much time can one waste learning those basic skills? So from white to black would take what? A possible 10-12 years? I can see this as a personal decision but it's a bit long as far as an orginizational requirement. 23 years? Average would be 5 to black belt another two to nidan another three to 3rd dan. Lets make it a little extreme and go 6 years from white to black, 5 to 2nd dan and another 5 to 3rd. That's still only 16 years. Tommy

Then why do people bash it?? the dojo near my area is more from old school too. They don't wear safety gear and sparing is full contact. But I'm not sure if the compete or not. And also not sure if the instruction there is good or not. Because there Sensi is 3rd dan black belt. I'm not sure if a 3rd dan have the skills to teach? My current TKD teacher is 7th dan and his assistant is 5th dan so Rank, rank, rank Don't believe the hype. It's not quantity it's quality that counts Shotokan gets bashed because lately they have become very tournament oriented. That and the fact that MMA is all the rage these days, it makes it easy to compare real fighting against point sparring tag. I agree but it's up to the individual to train his art how he sees fit. You don't have to do the point thing if you don't want to, I didn't. Try it, you may like it, it's a good style if taught well. Go in and see how it's taught and if you like it don't worry about rank, it's meaningless. Tommy

As far as differences, I like to think there are more similarities than differences in styles. Especially those coming from the same roots, Shotokan is mainly from Shuri lineage (Itosu). There are similarities to some TKD and Tang Soo Do because those systems are basically Korean versions/interpretations of Shotokan. Old TKD looks almost exact, TSD still does. In Shotokan the difference is you will learn "why" you do everything you do and you will practice it until it's coming out of your ears until you perfect it. Less techniques and more time spent on each to hone them to perfection is their way. Fast, clean powerful weapons. Fighting style is mid to long range and very ballistic meaning time your opponent find or create an opening and then send in the big bomb before he has a chance to react. Fast covering of distance. Mid to long range suggests no grappling. Doubtful you will learn grappling unless the instructor is into it. Bunkai (analysis of kata) has been all the rage these days and grappling found in kata is more and more being explored so some Shotokan schools are getting into it. Typically this is not their way though. Kata is big and practiced endlessly. Competition is promoted and kata and kumite (sparring) are worked to be flawless. I'm from a more old school Shotokan and don't compete or train that way. We don't wear safety gear and sparring is full contact. There are still some schools like that out there but they're fading fast. Some schools practice both hard contact and point. It's a whole lot stronger than TKD and the punches are trained to count. Tommy

Training to not be taken down is called wrestling. The "sprawl and brawl" style of fighting you see strikers like Chuck Liddell, Mirco Filopovic, Maurice Smith, and others use works because of their wrestling skill, particularly in sprawling. Liddell, for example, was a national level wrestler in college, yet he is billed as a "kickboxer." He uses his wrestling skill to allow him to keep the fight standing so he can use his strikes. Also, MMAers these days train for all ranges of combat: free-moving/striking, clinch, and ground. Even those billed simply as "Muay thai" or "kickboxing" train in all these ranges in order to be able to defend themselves in all phases of combat. Do you? Yes I understand that but I'm addressing the fact that some of these guys ( and I see it quite often) are winning without any type of wrestling or grappling going on, purely on striking. Sure they probably know at least some of the skills needed just in case they are grabbed or taken down, but in these instances it seemed unnecessary and they're not having to use it. Chalk one up for the strikers. They used striking and went all the way. That seems to be a contradiction to the argument put up by forum MMArtists selling ground fighting as the ultimate. It makes it seem that it's the ultimate against those who aren't doing it, but for the UFC guys who choose only to strike ...oh well for them it's ok. Have you seen the UFC guy (forget his name) that specializes in the flying knee against the shooters? Seems he has developed a striking technique to work against the grappler trying to take him down. My point again, it's all about being better at what "you" do, whatever that is, than your opponent is at what "he" does. Nothing at all wrong with being well rounded, but not always necessary. These UFC fighters I am speaking of seem to enforce a contradiction to what I've been reading here and elsewhere is all I'm saying. Tommy

Kyokushin practitioners wear regular traditional gi with regular sleeves. If you've seen sleeveless I'm sure someone cut them off themself. Tommy

I personally believe they have taken care of the problem of "boring fights" by changing the rules. They now return the fighters to their feet if nothing is happening on the ground. I really enjoy watching UFC. However I do have a question for you MMA guys. There are a lot of discussions and much debate between the MMA fighters and the traditional karate folks. It pretty much amounts to stand up verses ground fighting. I won't go through any of the rhetoric by the stand up guys but my confusion comes from the MMA faction themselves. While they push the idea of ground fighting necessity and even go as far as saying how the stand up or karate practitioner should get in the MMA ring and see how far he gets, I think they are missing something. What about the guys already in MMA who prefer not to fight on the ground. I watched three matches the other day and none went to the ground. As a matter of fact I watched a guy who was introduced as a Muay Thai fighter only, no grappling in his resume go against a boxer/jujitsu (and maybe TKD?). The Muay Thai guy ended it in 11 seconds with one punch. I also watched (help me with the names here) Kim Silva? against A. Silvia? one guy was 6'8" in height. All stand up. I have always believed that it's personal fighting preference and how well you train it that wins. For stand up fighters that don't want to go to ground they should train to "not" get taken down. Be better at their standup game than the other guy is at his ground or take down game. Just like some of the best MMA guys out there are already doing. So this is where my confusion comes from. For the fierce debaters out there that go on about ground fighters and MMA. What about the UFC fighters (who I would imagine you would respect because they belong to the branch of fighters you deem the best) who are stand up fighters and win that way? Tommy

I don't know of any Japanese name for this (not to say there isn't one) nor a Japanese technique that would be "leapard fist". However the technique you refer to is called "Hiraken" in Japanese Shotokan and refers to foreknuckle fist. Tommy

An instructor like that is insecure and maybe doesn't deserve the high rank he holds (sorry). Any of the styles we practice today were developed the same way, by the founders studying with various teachers. If he cares about you becoming the best you can be he would encourage you to train and learn about other systems. As an instructor his goal should not be to hold you down and to always be less than him but to help you surpass him. If you become better than him then he has done his job. If you eat at a friends house and love his moms cooking does your mom feel threatened that she will lose you? Don't be silly, it's just something different. Maybe you should seek instruction elsewhere. You're paying him and he is providing a service, you don't owe him a thing. Tommy

Yeah...but the point of this thread is to dicuss training, and you can't kill your partner!You are correct about the point of this thread but I was responding not to the point of the thread but to this statement: See where he says "real life fighters" ? Then someone asked him to qualify that and he gave his answer to which I responded. Tommy

While you make some valid points they can be looked at from another angle. The so called street fighters you mentioned are no longer street fighters once they enter that ring. Now they are governed by rules. Rules of which don't allow them to bring their street fighting experience into the ring. What they have to do now is fight their opponents fight. In the street maybe the BJJ guy has his throat cut before he knows he's even in a fight...no rules. The other thing is you mentioned Tank getting beat by someone and then the next guy getting beat and so on. All that proves (IMO) is that no matter who you are there is always someone better. That isn't the style or art, that's life. And that's the "individual", they all just met "someone" better. It happens...eventually. Tommy

The interesting thing about these two statements is the comparison between Tang Soo Do and Shotokan as style against style. In actuality these two systems are the same. Tang Soo Do is just the Korean version of Shotokan as it's founder studied in Japan. They are almost exact. So what we have here is actually a view of how two different "schools" train differently, not styles. Same system (pretty much) different instructors, individual training methods of a particular school. Tommy

What does it mean "decimated"? Was it point sparring, was it knockdown/full contact? What rules were imposed? How did he lose (get decimated). that could mean just about anything. Did he get knocked out or did he lose 5 points to 1? Big difference. Tommy

Funakoshi didn't travel from Japan to Okinawa to learn karate. He was from Okinawa and he brought karate "to" Japan "from" Okinawa. Actually it was after he brought it to Japan that it became "karate" (more or less). Shotokai wasn't developed out of Shotokan, they were/are pretty much the same thing. Shotokai was the original name of Funakoshi's organization and Shotokan was the dojo "name". Students within the school had some differences about karate's direction so they split. JKA used the name Shotokan and the rest remained Shotokai. "Shotokan" went the way of tournaments and Shotokai is dead set against any type of competition. The poster might be talking about "Shudokan" founded by Toyama rather than Shutokan. Tommy

No Tommy

Kicks to the head, kicks to the lower extremities, punches to the head, biting, pulling hair are all just tools in a toolbox. It's always good to have one handy just in case. I wouldn't go into a fight "planning" to kick my assailant in the head but then again I wouldn't go in thinking of opening an attack with a kick at all. I rather use kicks when an opening presents itself, usually opened up by the hands. With that said, if a head kick presented itself then I say why not? I think the real key is "how good is your kicking ability". That's the question the fighter has to ask himself in his training. That decides what your weapons are. How good can you use what you have. If there's a doubt, leave it out. I mentioned plans just to make a point, if you were to ask me what I would do in a given situation I couldn't give a definite answer. I don't plan anything, it's all situational and I go with whatever is happening. A fight (a real one) is ever changing, second to second and it's too unpredictable. What I will do or what "tools" I use will be dictated by the direction of the fight which I will be trying to control and "add" at least some predictability to. The key for me is to be conditioned enough as a fighter to feel like I'm standing there with a baseball bat. My weapons have to work fast and hard. Head kick? If I see it, sure. Whatever works. Tommy

I always say "A good run is better than a bad stay" I have a slightly different variation on this theme. I ask if I can buy the guy a drink but I also order one for myself. I make sure my drink is a beer and it's in a "mug". This is only so I can have a weapon if he doesn't comply. Tommy

I remember that article, good stuff. Bad mouthing of systems is common and not just a Kyokushin thing. I can say the very same about those who bash Shotokan as being a pitty pat system. Comments like that come from the uninformed. Personally I think Kyokushin is a great style of Japanese karate and I for one love it. While my main style is Shotokan and that's where I have my rank, Kyokushin is my supplement style and I have been involved in training with a particular dojo since around 1996. However it's up to the practitioner to decide what he wants from his training and for some Kyokushin is too kumite focused. Kyokushin has become purely Japanese while other Japanese systems hold on to their Okinawan roots. This is what I like about Shotokan. I like taking techniques and finding out their origins through Kata of Shorin for example. I like discussing these things with other knowledgeable practitioners also. I like to delve deep into my system to find out what makes it tick or how it was developed so as to know how to best use it's techniques. I have to understand the old to understand the new, there's depth in most systems this way. With Kyokushin I don't find any of these common traits. Kyokushin is part Shotokan and part Goju but I rarely come across a Kyokushin practitioner that can discuss Shotokan or Goju's roots or fine points at any length. If asked about Shotokans roots (or Goju's) and how the techniques developed or about "in depth" bunkai concepts or kata analysis and history the knowledge isn't there. It's all about Kumite. Kyokushin concerns itself with Kyokushin and that's it, they pay little mind to other systems or even their Okinawan roots, some don't even know they have Okinawan roots. Is that a bad thing? No, I don't think so. It could be said that other systems spend too much time on the things I mentioned and not enough on fighting. Kyokushin fights and doesn't concern itself with all the other nonsense. This all boils down to what I said at the beginning. It's about choices. I wouldn't give up my Kyokushin training. I've had a love affair with Kyokushin since the 80's when my instructor introduced us to his buddy from Japan (Kanamura) and his students in NY. I use my Kyokushin training to enhance my Shotokan. Not because it's better but because I think they help each other and I happen to already have rank in Shotokan. I don't listen to bashers of anything, I give it a shot and make my own decisions. Don't be afraid to train hard and get hit. If you want to be a mechanic you have to get some grease on your hands sometimes. Tommy