Elky

That must really confuse any passing Japanese people As a "Steve", I think the closest to my name would be something like "su-te-ba-n", which really isn't all that close - and I dread to think what it translates as

Awwww, cute dog! He was just having a bit of a play!

Maybe I've misunderstood, but I thought you were suggesting writing your instructor's name in japanese letters on your belt. I was pointing out that English words/names don't transliterate into the Japanese alphabet and there are rarely Japanese "equivalents" of English names. So what you would be writing on your belt would be a meaningless string of characters that just happen to be the closest sounding to your instructor's name.

I haven't read all the pages so maybe someone's asked this already: is your sensei Japanese? If not, how worthwhile is it to get his name spelt out phonetically in kanji? Seems a little, I dunno, strange! If he's called (e.g.) Hirokazu Kanazawa, then fair enough there'll be a set japanese way of writing his name. If he's called Malcolm Jones or something, you're just gonna end up with some meaningless transliteration like "Marukomu Josu" which isn't his name or anything with any real meaning.

Absolutely! That's a very effective way of disciplining kids. Instead of giving them attention and excitement, give them boredom. They should soon learn that attention is more fun.

Depends which type of TKD. ITF is pretty close to Shotokan, but WTF does seem focus on kicks more. Superficially, but the way that the same moves are perfomed and the methods of generating power are different. It's really difficult to describe without just saying "watch a class of each and you'll get what I mean!"

In practice, they're quite different though. Difficult to describe. TKD is bouncier and kickier, karate is punchier and less flashy.

So you shouldn't train as realistically as the exercise allows? I'm not sure I agree with that philosophy.

I'd also say "always spar as if you're fighting!". You shouldn't be trying to harm your opponent in light sparring, but you should be trying use it as an exercise to prepare you for a scrap. So try not to fall too much into "point sparring" habits like standing side on or over-extending your reach to tap your opponent. Always imagine you're fighting these guys! http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9171300151662938375&q=shotokan

This is true to some extent. Let's say there's a bracket of about six months worth of training on either side of your current grade (so someone who's been training for a year could be as good as someone who's trained for 6 months or 18 months, depending on their athletic ability and dedication). I still wouldn't want someone who'd trained for 2 years teaching me even if they were a 30-monther in skill. I've been training in karate for nearly 8 years and wouldn't consider myself good enough to set a good example to a class or to know everything I need to know to teach good students. Some people might be good enough after this time if they've studied and trained endlessly. But if you're talking one or two years, it's just too little to have absorbed enough karate!

You quite honestly nearly brought a tear to my eye there. I'm sure with a devoted parent like you he'll grow up into a fine chap! But yeah, keep busy and chin up!

I use it to pay my rent and shuffle money between accounts. I'm not sure what else it would be useful for.

Keep your elbows down to protect your sides, keep your forearms straight (i.e. no bent wrist) and your striking knuckles pointing at your opponent so you can punch without telegraphing. Use distancing and a fluid guard to protect your head. Keep relaxed and mobile, not stiff. I'm guessing if you've only just started, it's lack of experience rather than any major technical flaw that's letting your opponents hit you. Think about distancing much much more than guard. Once your opponent's in range, they can proabably get past your guard anyway so keep them where you want them. If you see them moving into range, hit them.

Shaved - can't beat it!

That's a valid point. I used to know a GKR teacher who was a really good karateka and really made an effort to make his class about the karate, not the money. The people who don't do the door-to-door sales stuff for GKR get paid very little, but this guy did it for the love of the karate and was a genuine black belt. I still try and make it to his club a couple of times a year as you get a good work out! Much as I don't like the "business" emphasis of GKR, you do get one or two real karateka who get caught up in the whole thing.

You must've had teachers that tried this at school though - it doesn't work. The people who cause trouble, by their nature, are less likely to feel guilt at making others share their punishment. If anything, it makes the punishment less meaningful as it doesn't single out the individual responsible - it "dilutes" the punishment. Adults are unlikely to administer a good kicking to a disruptive child (quite rightly!) so the idea that, as an instructor, you should rely on your pupils to administer punishment on your behalf is faulty (and a little silly). Also, in the format of the average karate class, there isn't the opportunity for adults to help maintain order - you're rarely working in groups independently for extended periods of time so there isn't usually enough interaction between adults and kids for them to help keep the kids in order.

Why? What was the point in punishing the people who weren't involved in disrupting his class? The point of punishment is to teach people that their actions have a negative outcome and therefore they should avoid those actions. Punishing everyone teaches the class that even if you behave perfectly well you are likely to be subjected to random punishments that have nothing to do with your actions. Learning theory says that punishment (or reward) should always be immediate, relevant and specific. i.e. the punishment should follow the action, be clearly related to the action and have suitable value as a punishment (or reward).

In all those cases it's gonna depend on the instructor more than the style! See if the teacher teaches in a way that suits you.

You need to define what you mean by "style". If you mean "prettiness" in the sense that a double butterfly kick from wu shu is pretty, then yes that is sacrificing function for form. If you mean "style" as in performing a mechanically proper punch rather than a sloppy haymaker, then yes style is important. Techniques are considered "proper" for a good reason most of the time - they are the optimum way to perform a maneuvre.

Die

They're usually the same in all japanese styles, but there are some minor differences between styles (e.g. kizame tsuki/tobi komi tsuki both used to refer to a lead hand punch. Hiji empi/age empi both used for rising elbow) but it's probably fair to say that you should just use what your instructor uses. Yes. Use whatever the heck you like! Use either, both, vary it depending on your mood. I do! It's quite nice to know the Japanese terms though as they help you differentiate the different moves more clearly (i.e. maegeri, kingeri, kakato geri are all "forward kicks" so knowing the specific names helps to sort out which you're talking about)

Nothing in the grander scheme of things. Some people are just grouchy sods like me who don't like "impressive" techniques. I find a good, hard, perfectly targeted front kick way more impressive than jumpy spinny kicks, but that's just me. Each to their own!

That happen often where you live?

According to the credits it was created by world-renowned self-defence specialist and karate yudansha Geoff Thomson. He is really a guy that knows what's what when it comes to self-defence. I don't agree with some of the principles he puts forward (or at least not the context they're put forward in) but you can't argue with his credentials. His main point though, that TMAers are disinclined to strike first by their training is false, in my opinion. People in our society (from school children up to adults) are scared of striking first because of the law! "If you hit first you are the instigator" is drilled into us from day one. The law may make allowance for pre-emptive striking in defence, but I'll bet it's a bugger to prove! Also, the criminal always has the advantage as they've already made the decision to attack you. You have to weigh up the situation before you decide to strike and the criminal will always do their best to muddy the analysis by acting harmless or distracting you. Your best bet seems to me to be, if someone is acting in a way you perceive as threatening, simply ask them to take a few steps back. If they do, strike up a dialogue. If they don't, then you have grounds to pre-emptively striek in good conscience. The production quality might be a bit shoddy, but the arguments are just what Mr Thompson tends to put forward.

A grading examiner once said to someone in my club: "you're technique's good, but it has no 'soul'". I think that describes that video. Where's the "oomph!", the "zanshin"? Amazing strength and flexibility though.