bushido_man96

I remember you showing me Wankan, Bob. Good fun. I think I still remember Naifanchi, too. When my arm gets better, I'll be reviewing and practicing it with more zeal once again.

I think that's great that you got to continue learning requirements through the rank of sandan.My question is, what the difference between knowing those requirements as a junior, and knowing them when you came of age to hold the rank? To me, it seems a formality of age, and not of passing on knowledge. Unless I'm missing something that I would understand better being a Shindokan stylist, not knowing the intricacies of what you learned when you did.

I'm not sure of the translation of those other two techniques, but I'm guessing side kick is one of them.I thought the round kick was considerably easier to learn than the side kick, and teaching a side kick is hampered by the knowledge of how to do a round kick by the student in the early phase; the new students will usually cheat and do a half round, half side kick as opposed to a really good, true side kick. So, I think there is some truth to the statement. But one should still learn and practice the round kick.

I think this is the question that bothers me here. I can get that Karate may not be Karate without kata. Why do we say "just kickboxing" concerning an art with no kata? What's wrong with kickboxing? What's wrong with wrestling? Or fencing? Or Aikido? Not a thing wrong with them at all; they are what they are and so is their methodologies. So often the question of karate with no kata turns into an indirect bashing of all things non-karate. So basically, with no kata, it should just be called by another name? I'm not sure it even would have to be called by another name. After all, Karate originally meant "China hand," and then became "Empty Hand." Not "Kata Hand," or "Kata Empty Hand," or anything like that. I also agree that just because someone chose to taught Karate without kata, that it would be denigrated to being just "Kickboxing."

My question and concern with any forms training, is can you learn the things proposed to be learned in the forms, without the forms? If you learn the applications through the forms, then why not focus more on the applications, and less on the forms. Because it appears that if the applications are what is important, especially for self-defense, then why not do what is important for that aspect of the training? This is why I wonder about forms sometimes. I think they can be a good tool. But I don't think they are always the most important tool, or the most necessary tool.

Hey all. I'm interested in thoughts on the correlation that could exist between fight training, like for knockdown, grappling, or MMA competitions, and self-defense training, and if the two can be done simultaneously, but not so much with one at the expense of the other? I know there are several schools of thoughts on this; between the "traditionalist" view point, the fighter view point, and what we would call the RBSD view point (a term I've noticed hasn't been popping up as much as it used to). Once again, I look forward to any and all thought processes on this subject matter.

Its very cool that your instructor allows you to work what you need for training into the framework of the classes, then. My current instructor would not do that; I'd have to find the extra time to work in that extra work.

Perhaps you could talk to the pre-school coordinator about getting a chance to come to the school and talking to the class or having a meeting with the parents about what you have on offer.

What kind of recognition in particular are you looking for with the grades?

These are all very good points to consider as well. Thank you everyone, for the responses so far. Great responses!

This is so true. That was one thing that was nice in the ATA was that they had a structure laid out for becoming an instructor, and we had various clinics and what not that we participated in to work on teaching techniques.

How many years have you taught, just out of curiosity. I've been doing it a while, too. I don't think a kid's perception of the techniques and an adult's is necessarily different, or should be taught differently. Adults need to learn self-defense just as much as kids do. After all, more kids get bullied than adults do. If you can teach kids to successfully stave off bullying, then why can't they be a black belt?

Weaver would be the typical shotgun/rifle "hunter" stance you see. Isosceles would be with the body square to the target, two hands on the pistol grip, with the feet parallel or just a bit staggered. This is how LEOs learn to shoot, to keep a much of the vest presented forward as possible. Its also a very stable platform to shoot from. I usually close one eye when I shoot. You can try to shoot with both open, and some people do it well; I just don't do practice it, really. Sometimes I'll open both eyes, but squint the non-dominant one so I can focus on the sights better.

I enjoy Gae Baek quite a bit.

You say you won't give a full dan grade to anyone under 16, but your son will have all that adult, full dan grade knowledge by the time he is 12. Why make him wait? Or any other student? Will you make them wait, and then take a "full dan" test when they come of age, charging them more for that testing? Many would call that a "McDojo" ploy to gain more money. Or, you make them stay in the system at that age longer, therefore bringing more monthly dues out of them; another one of those money-seeking McDojo ploys. I'm not saying you run a McDojo; I know enough from your posts to know that quite the opposite is the case, Dobbersky. But, can you see what I am getting at in the "fight against child black belts" cause that keeps going on?

Here is the important question: Is the quality of instruction and the knowledge learned at the school good quality and effective? Everyone sees the money going in there. Yeah, some seems questionable, like with the stripes, but, no one is asking if the instruction is good and if the curriculum is reliable. I would pay a bit extra if the school is that good. Especially since it takes a bit of money to keep good schools around, for the most part.

That would be fun, and I know there would be value there, for sure. Although I feel you would have considerably more experience and knowledge in Tuite, but whereas someone like myself or Alex would have more experience in using Tuite/joint manipulation to bring someone under control for arrest and detention, as opposed to just breaking someone, and where as a different instructor might use it as a way to get away and affect an escape.

Thanks for the response, MP. I can see this as a good idea, too. With that said, especially your last statement, if not an ammy MMA fight, what about some level of competition pertinent to the style? Also, in regards to the MMA idea, I can see value in making a student go out and find the instruction they would need in order to compete in the MMA ring by rounding out their abilities; if they need ground experience, by finding that somewhere...perhaps like a high school student taking up Wrestling for a few years to gain some ground experience.

10/12/2012 AM session at the clinic. 45 minutes.

I don't think Kata really has to be a mainstay in order for Karate to be Karate. Other styles successfully complete their curriculum without kata, and Karate could do so, as well. I'm pretty sure there was a time when there was "empty hand" with out katas, and the katas were designed as time went on. Now, just because you drop the katas, doesn't mean that Karate becomes "just Kickboxing." It can become that, if you want, or, the focus can remain on self-defense through only the bunkai practice, along with other paired work to improve self-defense aspects. I think problem lies in that Kata has been such a big part of Karate for such a long time that no one thinks it should ever be removed.

I just wanted to throw this out there to see how much of a mix I can get in responses, and why everyone feels the way they do. So, the question is, what would your thoughts be on making at least one "cage fight," or more appropriately, one MMA fight under the belt, a requirement to test for a black belt? Now, notice I didn't say winning was a requirement, just competing in one fight. Let everyone's thought processes commence!

I don't think this has to be the case and definitely not always a symbol of a belt factory. You're not teaching them martial arts itself. If anything it's teaching the life lessons of martial arts with a bit of motor skills thrown in. We have a Little Warriors programme at my school and the kids go through that then when they're old enough they start the proper programme from white belt. It often gives them a leg up on other students because they already know the procedure and what's expected of them and have better control over their techniques than total beginners. Maybe you could call it a glorified gymnastics programme but it is a great way of attracting students who can then feed into your main class. And you can think of it as 1-2 hours of your week doing something which can generate money for you to use for proper students: buying equipment or help subsidise their training fees. I'm still trying to figure out why its bad for a 10 year old to earn a black belt. If he starts at 5, then that's 5 years in a program. Why do we all have to be old to be masters?That said, I don't think just because there is a kids program = belt factory. Our Little Lions program runs a completely different belt system than our regular program, and is designed to prepare kids for regular classes when they get older. At our school, if it wasn't for the kids program, we probably wouldn't be generating enough income to keep the adult program alive. Now that our school is coupled with a gym, we have the gym memberships to help keep us afloat, too. So that's another way to think of things; parents are always looking for activities for their kids, and many activities only run seasonally. MA programs run year round. And just because you start a kids program doesn't mean you have to sacrifice your standards to the adult programs. As for the answer to the question, I think definitely marketing to the parents is the way to go. One idea would be to see if you can link up with the local recreation department, maybe run your program through that rec department, and try to get things going from there. Lots of parents flip through those magazines to look for their children's activities; I know I did it for my son when looking to start activities. That's one way to go.

I see what you are saying here, Bob, but I see what Danielle is asking, too. And after being an instructor for so long, I can understand your answer. But, I think what Danielle is asking, is when, as a Martial Artist in general, did you start to see not only that a technique was "wrong," but why it was wrong, and what said student was doing that made it wrong or inefficient or whatever. I don't think I can pinpoint when this came about for me. It was probably around the time I was earning my original black belt when I was in the ATA. I was doing more teaching, and I was learning to not only see what it was that a student was doing wrong, but also figuring out how to correct it, and how to describe this to each individual student, as each one learns differently. I'm still getting better and better at this to this day. Its kind of fun for me when a student presents a challenge in being able to ascertain where they are going wrong, and then explaining it and demonstrating it to them so they understand and register how to work on correcting it. Its one of the truly fun aspects of teaching.

Great response, ShoriKid. Good points.

That does make sense, thank you. Are you a student in your school, or are you the instructor?