Rick_72

That's a very good question. I can't answer it, I don't have the experience, thank God. I guess the most important part of your question would be, what is truly the honorable thing to do in that situation. Some people would say that the honorable action in that isn't to let the courts take that over, that it may be poetic justice that he's laying in your back yard. On the other hand, how do you know its the guy? Could be him and his buddy broke into your house and his buddy went nuts and killed everyone, when he tried to stop him he got knocked out cold by his crazy buddy. Could be he's a guy down the street, that you've never met, that was out walking his dog and tried to stop it, getting himself knocked out by the bad guys instead of killed because they were in a hurry. This is one of those instances that has too many variables to answer. A choice that I hope I never have to make.

The part about me being a U. S. Marine, with three Iraq tours was true. The senario was hypothetical. On my three tours to Iraq I only received direct fire on the first tour, which was during the invasion and the months that followed. The second two I only received indirect fire, the infantry units that I was assigned to (I do close air support) wouldn't let my element out of their sight. Hence the reason I don't consider myself anywhere near a warrior like the men I was assigned to support. What I can tell you from my limited experience (6 months) on the receiving end of fire, and from the much more interesting stories from some real live hero's is.....it takes a whole lot more than an "average joe" to make a decision of whether to return fire (strike back) when faced with a potentially life threatening situation. You'd be very surprised how quickly humanity evaporates, and the desire to kill another human being sets in when you perceive your life is in danger 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for months on end, and you've seen some of your closest friends blown to pieces by people that you no longer view as human beings. Often the only thing you have to rely on is the training you've received, and that training includes honor and morality. Since we seem to be on two completely different sheets of music, answer me this. For a skilled fighter, not in a ring or battlefield, but on the street, the martial artist that your describing to me, after he's gained the advantage over the person he's fighting, what makes him stop beating the guy until he's dead?

Sohan, can you explain the "sit and pull" to me? If I knew what it was maybe I could explain how we execute that part. There are many different styles of the same kata's, but they always seem to be very similar, just have technique's executed differently.

Your kidding me right? You think because two guys step into a cage to beat the snot out of each other makes them warriors? The only cause their fighting for is themselves. Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with what their doing, its great entertainment, and its how they feed themselves and their families. But they certainly are not putting their lives on the line for people they've never met, a certain way of life, or some higher meaning of life they live by. Not warriors. Professional athletes, maybe even gladiators, but NOT warriors.

Ok let me put this in better context for you...... I'm a U. S. Marine. I've been to Iraq on three seperate tours. I don't know if I fit the definition of warrior or not, make your own decision on that, but I've spent the better part of my life (the last 15 of 34 years) training for combat, and the better part of the last 4 in the sand. Let's say I'm driving through Fallujah or Ramadi (doesn't really matter which their both crawling with enemy fighters), and I start taking fire in a crowded market place. Do I tell my machine gunner to start lighting up everything moving because I'm taking a few rounds of small arms fire, or do I tell him to hold his fire until he has a clearly defined enemy target that doesn't pose the risk of killing several innocent civilians? Mind you, I've already decided that a single contact firing a few small arms rounds at my unit doesn't pose an immediate threat to my people (because if the threat was more significant, the answer would be much different). The answer to that question is quite simple, at least to me it is. That's the maturity to use the power in your hands properly in extreme situations. Its also the difference between a warrior and a clown with some skills. A warrior has to the compasion for humanity to make a moral decision, before he/she cuts lose with everything they have. A murderer may have the same physical skill as a warrior, but lacks the moral courage to use those skills properly.

The only thing silly about using Karate on the front of a TKD school is that isn't Karate a Japanese word for "Empty Hand"? Or Karate Do "the way of the empty hand"? So basically all it is is a Korean martial art being described by a Japanese word. Of course none of that means anything until you learn those meanings. Its just funny is all.

Yeah, I guess your right. I just never associate them as such because most of our kicks are targeted below the waist, and I can't think of one of our kata's that has a jumping kick, or a high kick, in it. Even though we train kicking higher to gain balance and power in our low kicks.

I whole heartedly agree. I think there is plenty of bunkai in kata that is effective in modern society. Its up to us to find it and bring it out. I do think that the ability to see bunkai in kata is really up to the individual Karateka. You can tell a student over and over what a specific technique of combination of technique's is supposed to achieve, but unless they can see it, they'll never be able to execute it when put in the position to need to.

I've actually just begun training in Seisan, and haven't yet learned Kusanku, so I wouldn't know about them yet. However, I know Ananku very well, but I'm not sure what your referring to with "sit and pull". The only stances that we use in Ananku are front stance, cat stance, and horse stance. No L shaped stance. Of course this could just be due to different teacher's or Shorin Ryu styles. I do know there are some L shaped stances in some of our Kobudo kata's though. I think Tsuken Sai has some....I have to think harder on it though as I don't practice that kata often.

I think your post (and my definition post) absolutely relate to this topic, simply because of the definition of the word martial. It has been argued here that to be a good martial artist doesn't require the moral's associated with being a warrior (not by all, but by some). That all is required is the fighting ability associated with war like arts (ancient or otherwise). Since the definition of martial is clearly associated with those aspects of someone that is warrior like, then you clearly have to have those morals that are associated with being a warrior. In my opinion a warrior is not only defined by his skill in war, but also by his compasion to the weak, his giving nature to those in need, the maturity to know when to turn his fighting skills on and off to meet the need of the situation, and the ability to see the difference between right and wrong. I believe these morals to be the difference between a true warrior and a tyrant or conqueror that self proclaims themselves a warrior. Warriors should have an ethos they could be proud to proclaim in any circle. Does the training in martial arts, coupled with the heart of a warrior make you a no kidding warrior? No it doesn't. Warriors are those that have fought, or are training to fight for a cause, like the survival of their people or stopping an unjust aggression. Which means a warrior doesn't neccessarily need to be enlisted or commisioned in a standing army. Anyone that fights for a just cause with thier actions is a warrior in my mind (that doesn't just apply to those that fight in the physical sense). Those that train simply to better themselves, or to win fame or money with their training are not simply given the title of warrior (not that makes them less of a person, they just aren't training to be a true warrior), until their training takes on a reason besides themselves. Making the comparison between those that train in martial arts, and athletes may be fair in some sense, just because of the athletic nature of training. However, real martial arts, and going with the topic of this tread "a good martial artist", is about more than just fighting ability or tournament trophies. Its about learning the true warrior spirit, even if you haven't yet earned the title of warrior.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it a semantical discussion (I'm not arguing ), I honestly thought you meant combat when you said that originally and that you were contradicting your quote, didn't realize you were using the word combat in that sense. Its not tough to make that mistake when we're bouncing back and forth across the line that is the diffence between war and street fights I guess.

Thought I'd just throw this up there...... The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word Martial as this: 1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of war. 2. Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms. 3. Characteristic of or befitting a warrior. This is my two cents, not from the dictionary: So, with that I guess we have to define what characteristic's are befitting of a warrior. Of course having the characteristic's befitting a warrior doesn't make one a warrior, just means they have the character that a warrior should have. If an individual wants to have those characteristic's befitting a true warrior, than that individuals character needs to be of the highest caliber. A warrior without morale courage, or compassion is a menace to all around him. When warrior's without high morale standards take a battlefield the end result is massacred non combatants, genecide, the basic breakdown of humanity and civilization in the area their operating in.

The quote, "the techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter in an arena or on a battlefield. they were, however, most effective against someone who has no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behaviour", absolutely conflicts with what you said, "in his time, kata was still the basis of genuine combative training". You and I have very different definitions of combat, or combative training. Combat, real combat, occurs on a battlefield. If you get into a fight in the street is your intent to kill your attacker? In real combat, when I encounter my enemy/opponent, my only mission is to end his life. Not hurt him so I can get away, and I have to fight him again tomorrow. I want him dead, so that my buddies and I go home to our families instead of him. That's combat. Training for combat has you not only physically training to conduct that act, but also becoming mentally able to deal with taking someones life. A modern street fight isn't combat, a cage match isn't combat. It's hand to hand fighting for sure, sanctioned fighting is great entertainment, but it certainly is not combat. Sort of off topic, but just to put it out there, I take great offence when people call professional fighter's, "warriors" (not for myself, but for those that have paid with their lives for a cause). Gladiator's maybe, or thrill seekers. But "warriors" fight for a cause, not for money. Those that involve themselves in combat simply for money are not warriors, their mercenaries. As far as Choki Motobu making that statement about kata, I wonder if maybe he had forgotten the roots of his art when he made the statement. No disrespect to him or his lineage, its just that the history of the Ryukyu's and all of the Far East tells a different tale.

We don't do jumping technique's, too much to lose if you miss. Traditional only here.

In Shorin Ryu the back foot is either straight forward, or 45 deg's to the front. I'm not aware of any Shorin Ryu stances that have our feet in the L shape. When I did a little Aikido training it was very hard to get my feet to do that after training in Shorin Ryu. Tough to break muscle memory lol.

I'm not sure if all this "arrogance" talk was directed at me or not, but I'll try to better explain my position on this. I didn't mean to say "my style is the best out there". Maybe it came off that way, as sometimes happens when words are typed. What I meant from the start is that, any student of martial arts should absolutely have confidence in the training they're receiving. Meaning, that you have to feel that what your giving up your time, money, sweat, and sometimes blood for is the best thing for you. If you don't have confidence (not arrogance) that the things your learning are bettering you not only as a martial artist, but as a person as well, than your wasting your time. When you walk into a school you should not only feel comfortable with the environment and your teachers, but you should also have confidence that you will learn something new tonight, and its application is real. I don't know about a lot of the traits of a "good martial artist" that are listed here are what it takes or not. What I do know is that my idea of a good martial artist is someone who has learned their art beyond their natural ability (never stop giving more effort than you have left, you always have more energy inside), someone who is open minded enough to learn (you can't teach a man/women something they already know *yes that's a deep quote from my teacher, think about it*), and the maturity to weild the skills that you've been given (if your learing martial arts to beat people down in the streets, chances are you don't have the mental capacity to see bunkai anyway).

On your first point, doesn't that conflict with the quote though? If he made the statement that kata was for combat application? Today's generation of soldier (I'm a Marine, not a soldier, but combat trained just the same) practice what I would consider to be kata, its just not called that. We do plenty actually. Before you fire your rifle you snap in, where you practice aiming in on a target and squeezing the trigger, while using breath control. We do bayonet training, where we practice butt strikes, slashs, stabs, etc., we can't practice this on a live opponent for obvious reasons. In my service we have MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program), and we do plenty of drills without a live opponent. Now all these don't sound like kata in the traditional sense, but they are very similar. On the other point I quoted, your correct, I seriously doubt anyone's going to take a swing at you with a katana, however does it swing a lot different from a baseball bat? Sure a baseball bat's significantly clumsier, however, some of the same techinque's may apply. Your also correct in thinking that some drunk in a bar is probably not going to throw a nasty rear leg round kick to your head, however, how different is the actual physics of a high round kick from a haymaker? All I'm saying is that much of the bunkai we learn may not apply in its traditional sense, but much of it apply's to many present day attacks. Also, if bunkai is practiced verse's a skilled opponant, how well is it going to work on a skill less moron?

This is completely different from what you've been saying. Feeling your art is best is very arrogant. Who are you to think that your art is better than any other art out there? Saying that you think your chosen art is best for you though, is completely different. Well I guess that's what I meant. No one can say one art is better than another honestly. I think I explained that above. There's too many variables at play for there to ever be a true test of that. But everyone should feel that the style that they train in is the best for them. I've heard plenty of people say that they are training in, or going to start training in, a specific style of martial art because its the only thing in town. Many have said they don't even like it, or they would rather be doing a different style. I guess that's what I was trying to say, don't settle. I will say this, I pay a lot for my training and if I didn't think I was getting my money's worth, and that it was the best available, I certainly wouldn't be doing it. If that's arrogant, well than I guess I'm arrogant.

Actually, the Matsumura Seito cat stance (not sure if this is what you meant) width is almost non exsistant. Looking in the mirror, your front foot should cover your back heel. You should only see the forward part of your back foot. There shouldn't be any light between your forward and back foot in the mirror. Try this. Stand in a front stance. Then put all of your weight on your back leg (it will cause it to straighten out). Slowly draw your front foot back into a cat stance position. As you do this, roll your hips forward. As you roll your hips forward, your back knee will automatically start to bend, and the hips will force your back to remain straight. It ain't comfortable, and really takes some getting used to and to get it good and low. Something I noticed is that the more I sat in seiza, the better my stances got. I now arrive at the dojo 20 or so minutes early to stretch, and I sit in seiza as my last stretch for about 10 minutes.

We don't use knees in kumite, however, knee's are awsome for close fighting. A knee to the floating rib is devistating for your opponent.

I must be missing something here, or I'm just not as well read as some. Which one of the founders of Karate said that kata was designed for defense against an unskilled attacker? My history must be a bit foggy, because I was under the impression that Okinawan Karate was a hybrid of Chinese martial arts, and was used by the Okinawan's after the Japanese banned weapons in Okinawa to wage guerrilla war against the Japanese Samurai. Then Tode Sakagawa, who trained in Chinese martial arts for 20 years, and was himself Samurai to the Okinawan King, honed the style into Karate, or Okinawa Te. I must also be mistaken in the believe that Karate is based upon kata that was brought back from China. Of course there's a lot more to it than this, but I've shortened all I've read due to space and interest. Now I seriously doubt that Chatan Yara, and Tode Sakagawa were really concerned with defending themselves against drunken muscle head's throwing haymakers at them in a bar fight. I also seriously doubt that the Samurai of the Satsuma clan of Kyushu were themselves invading the Ryukyu islands with a bunch of no skilled morons that grabbed up little villagers by their kimono lapels for them to practice their breaks, grabs, and holds on. I don't mean to sound disrespectful to anyone, I just don't understand who's teaching bunkai out there. When I was to the point where I started learning bunkai (I firmly believe novice students shouldn't be learning bunkai right away in their training, as its going to be too much to understand until the basic movements are in their head), we have always been taught based upon skilled attacks, not some garbage haymaker, or unbalanced nonsense swipe in the air. Of course the bunkai will also work on those unskilled attacks, but why would anyone under estimate their potential attacker like this?

I'll bet those synchronized swimmer's think their's is the best sport though. It's only arrogant if you act arrogantly about it. "I feel that my art is the best", is not an arrogant statement, it's a personal opinion. An opinion that you or anyone else doesn't have to agree with, and its not arrogant. You can take any 10 people you want but that doesn't take into account any number of factors. The guy that wins is the one that trains the hardest, is in the best physical condition, is the smartest, and is the most athletic. In other words, there's no way to actually determine which style is actually "the best" based off of competition, because there's too many variables. That doesn't, and shouldn't, stop each individual from feeling that the style they train in is the best, because it should be the best for them or they should be looking elsewhere for training. I'm not arrogant (well maybe a little ), but I think the style of martial arts that I practice is the best for me. It suits me, and I do well at it. That doesn't mean its the best for anyone, as I can only speak for myself.

I have two gi's, one white, one black and both of them simply have my style embroidered on the left side of the top (black one has my name in Japanese embroidered down at the bottom that you can hardly see). I'm just a simple guy. However, I personally don't see any problem in people decking out their gi's with whatever they or their school likes to wear. Its just something to work out in, if you like to wear patches and whatnot, what's the difference.

Why would anyone waste their time with something that isn't "the best"? If you going to do something, do it right....of course being the best, or doing it right are subjective to the individual. I personally only strive at things that I think are worthwhile. I work hard to be the best at those particular things that I personally think are the best (all subject to personal opinion). I don't work hard to be the best that I can be, I work hard to be the best period (better than I can be). If you train in a martial art that you don't think is the best one out there for you than your cheating yourself, if your not training to be the best ever in that martial art your wasting your time, and if you tell yourself that you don't have the ability to be the best than your defeating yourself.

Actually, I have to disagree with you on this. When practicing the bunkai for our kata's we're defending/countering against the same type of attacks that we would give. Straight punches to the ziphoid process, throat, or head.....karate style kicks, straight or round.....and countering tuite/jujitsu holds. We certainly aren't relying on our opposition being unskilled, because when the technique's are demonstrated by our instructors we aren't throwing bogus technique's at them.