ShoriKid

Karateka63, Here is a good link to start with. You're within 20 miles of one of the top Matsubayashi Ryu people in the US, Hanshi Frank Grant. Closer to some others. Ohio has a strong representation of Matsubayashi in the US, look around and I'm willing to bet you'll find some good folks teaching for very low prices. However, you're going to have to look for them because they may not be on the net or even in the phone book.

"Closing the distance" means, to me at least, moving into the space where the weapons that fit, or I want to use, work. That may mean moving in from 3 feet out to 12 inches out, or moving to clinch. From "Free movement" to "Standing grappling". That is a distance, a gap, that has to be closed. Outside of the consideration above, which can become entirely a matter of language, there are cases in self defense where you will have to close distance. The two that most readily come to mind are are third party defense and multiple attackers. If I am forced to defend a third party, which is still legally self defense in a legal sense in many parts of US(Sorry, not at all up on SD laws outside the states), I may have to maneuver to intervene and be required to "close the distance". In the case of multiple attackers not being versed in closing the distance leaves you without the ability to maneuver into a better tactical position, or to go on the offensive once things have been initiated, something I very much believe you need to do if you hope to come out of things in one piece. Again, I disagree for the above stated reasons, and others. If I have dealt with the initial assault, have a gap, but not enough to ensure a good escape, or they are blocking the path to escape, that aggressive ability to close the distance, inflict harm and get away. You do not have to wait for the other person to attack first for it to be self defense. Being passive in a fight and hoping reaction is faster than action put you a step behind and cut down your odds of successfully defending yourself. Now, back to ranges vs. phases. I sort of agree and disagree with what was put out by the Gracies. While you don't have to define things as "kicking range" or "punching range" you should be aware of the range your various weapons/techniques reach and can be effectively put to use. And be aware of what sort of things you ca be in danger from. Knowing your 'reach' and being able to judge the reach of an attacker is a very important skill.

I agree with this. I should also mention that the changes I had made were to add some things in from BJJ and Aiki Jujitsu. I had set it up so that when a student tested for black belt in Shotokan, they would also be eligible to test for their black belt in Aiki jujitsu and BJJ blue belt as well. I didn't change any of the core arts or call them anything new. It was clear to each student what they were learning. Each individual technique was taught just as it was taught to me. The core techniques aren't anything I'm looking to change. Add elements from ground work and pairing down the number of kata is more what I've been involved in. I don't change the way I've been taught to throw a reverse punch, or a front kick. I've not learned a better way to do the basics, never claimed to. I'm more interested in the depth of knowledge, ability to apply what students are learning and rounding out their skill set.

If you are looking for intense cardio that focuses on building that recovery mechanism, and raw explosive strength, separate is the way to go. Most folks aren't looking for a martially focused, fighter style workout.

Been around here a little while now. Enough to appreciate the experience and advice of many on the boards. So, isolated from several of my old instructors as I am now, I'm turning toward the KF community for a bit of wisdom or guidance. I've been training for 18 years now primarily in Matsubayashi Ryu, some Shotokan and flashes of American Kenpo. Combine those with a wrestling background, every scrap of judo/BJJ I can get hands on and time with pro kick boxers. I've held a yudansha since late 1996, trained hard and constantly, but haven't pursued rank. There you have who I am martially. Now, I've taught for years, usually with someone else running the school and I'm either supplementing what they do, by invitation, or complimenting it. I was the primary assistant in our school up until about 2-2 1/2 years back. At that point the main instructor had to relocate for school, which I've worked hard to grow with good, solid instruction. I don't do it for money, we look to cover rent, utilities and buy/replace gear as we go. My brother and I have tuned up the curriculum. Codified the kata, basics, self defense and ground techniques that we think best fit our approach to the martial arts and beliefs in what compose an effective core art. Now that is all written so you will know where I'm at along my martial path. Right now I'm faced with is starting a conversation with a couple of my instructors on what we are teaching. They know the basic contents, but we have made some alterations to what they taught us. Additions to some aspects, reductions in the number of kata, a larger emphasis on ability to apply what you've learned. Going forward I don't look to add tons of kata to what we are doing now, perhaps 11 all told and I have a particular list in mind, just delve deeper into application and refine those basic skills. How do you broach the subject of looking for martial guidance, but say you have an idea of where you're path is leading and that it may not line up completely with where they are going? I have great respect for these martial artists and can definitely still learn from them. Part of me is still hesitant to break away from them, but feel the desire to set my own course and that of the school I'm running. So, have any of you faced a similar point in your martial path? Or even just considered it? Is it arrogance to think I can do something like this? I'm not claiming to form a new system, I give full credit to the origin of whatever I teach. And I'm fully aware that part of this process is going to isolate myself and my students in the martial world somewhat. Dealing with that would be the next step/problem that I have to deal with. Assuming I find a way forward, anyone have any advice in dealing with that situation? I blather on, sorry about that folks. Any words appreciated in advance.

Is it a bad thing if you tend to switch over depending on range and target? In tight, and especially to the body, I throw a hook thumb up/vertical. It gives a little more 'dig' into the target for me and allows for the angle of the strike to shift. Once I'm head level it's thumb to the side/horizontal for the punch. I've never had an issue catching the ring/pinky knuckles on the punch or getting back behind the ear with the target unless I meant to. A lot of it comes down to personal preference I suppose.

This, exactly this. I even got asked about something some what related as we were closing up tonight. They asked what happened when a 'punk' out to prove how tough they were showed up and if it had been something we'd dealt with before. I told them that a good, hard sweat usually was the end of those interested in being tough. GS, just keep teaching solid stuff and you'll get plenty of interest. Heck, tell your steady folks to invite a friend for a couple of free classes if you're looking for more good folks. You'll get a few how come in and stick after a while. People coming in and out of ma classes is just a matter of course. Turn over happens in any thing you do, in something that's life long, once you're an addict like most of us are, you'll see more go because you're around longer.

Lesnar is coaching on TUF and Machida is lined up to fight Couture at UFC 129 up in the great white north.

What competition rules and formats determine who's good or bad? Who certifies judges? What political body gets to set schedules, rules, divisions, fees and formats for the competitions? How do you judge the kick boxer's skill and worth at the point tournament, the point fighter at a mixed venue competition that allows hard contact, or the kyokushin man when you put on gloves and allow face contact? Any competition put together can favor one style, format, school over another. That's before you get into judging quality and favoritism. It's no different than the question of who determines what makes an "objective" martial arts exam. It does not encourage diversity, exploration. It will encourage ridged adherence to a worn path. To vary is to parish. If you want to compare ASE mechanics to martial artists, I can find you a dozen mechanics locally who aren't ASE certified. They've worked for a decade, or more, and are trusted in the community to do any repair on any auto brought to them. Does a piece of paper from a test administered by others who passed the test make them more skilled, or more trust worthy? Once a governing body is in place it has rules, a bureaucracy up and running, it's going to get gamed by someone. And in short order, a lot of people. Career rank seekers are still going to be there, the political movers are going to be right with them. Now you've given them a vehicle to have more power and control. You've handed them the keys to the kingdom. The only way you can deal with fake/pretend black belts is through good teaching and educating the public when you get the chance. Don't preach, but get out the word on what's good and don't be afraid to point potential students toward other instructors who are offering what they need or want if you can't honestly do it.

Is the kid talented? Sure he is. Is he motivated? Surely. Talent and motivation don't give you the ability to move as smoothly and hit the moves he was using, that takes lots of hard work. I think the hard work and training should be acknowledged. Just because the kid is young you shouldn't discount the effort.

MMA gyms aren't a homogenized, centrally controlled group. So, something local, where someone has put in a belt system of some form is entirely possible. All they have to do is establish a set of requirements, based on skills and competition etc and you're set. Or "mixed martial arts" may be the term the gym is using to refer to a blending of styles and not the competition format. More digging for information is what you need to know the difference.

And therein lies the biggest challange. So many karate schools and styles, 90% of which are family and mcdojos. But I am searching. You may be surprised if you look deeper into some schools. You may find an inner element that is very serious about their training. Pick the one with the best training get in. Just don't get hooked into long term contracts.

If it's allowed at your dojo, have someone coaching from the outside. Set a goal, throwing a certain combination or technique etc. Let that person know and then have them try to keep you on task while you spar. Verbally reminding you to go for that goal. When you're getting caught up in not getting hit, hitting, they are watching you do/not do what you should be aiming for. Helps bring your brain back to what it's supposed to be thinking about.

This is an interesting breakdown. You make some good, valid points here. A few things to keep in mind when looking at the history of karate and how it has influenced the grappling found in karate. Firstly, despite how karate was once told to be the art of farmers training in secret to resist the Japanese, that's not really the story. Research and accounts of the people who trained with the earliest master put it as a fighting art of body guards to a king, who often served as local constabulary. If you are seeking to protect one individual, or possibly facing more than one, you cannot afford to be tangled up with a single assailant. Early Okinawan martial influences tended to come from China, not Japan. As such, when an upper class Okinawan with good martial talent was finishing his training, he often traveled to China to broaden his horizons as it were. It was seen as a sort of finishing school for Okinawan martial artists. The cultural exchange among the Okinawan elites would have a large number of Chinese diplomats in court as well and they often brought martial training with them. With that Chinese influence, you will see their grappling styles as well. It tended to be more about standing and manipulating than getting on the ground and being tied up. Chinese thought on ground grappling seems, from what research I've seen, and what I've seen of grappling styles out of China focuses on staying standing and putting the other person on the ground or manipulating their body into a better position to strike. Very much what is seen in karate grappling. Lastly, the Okinawan people had a completely separate native grappling art. Much like the difference in western Boxing and Wrestling. With that grappling system in place, karate practitioners had, or at least saw, little need to emphasize the grappling in their systems. Especially putting people on the ground and following them down. Not saying what you've stated is completely wrong. Just that there are historical and cultural differences that are different based on the place and time from which an art originates. The frame work we have now may not really fit with one from 300 years ago and half way around the world. It wouldn't even fit that well for 300 years ago and just down the street. That though, may just be the history geek in me.

And your hands up!

There's a political angle to rank as well. There are plenty of good instructors who've been around for years and have the rank and backing of an organization who will look for the stripes of rank to judge you at a glance. It's something that comes up after a number of years, especially if you're traveling in some circle, both traditional and modern. You won't get the chance to show you're skill. You'll be side lined to the "kiddie" table, as it were, while the real adults talk shop. I've run face first into it a few times where I've trained for years with credible instructors and not gone after advanced rankings during that time. I mixed with some traditionalist who wouldn't take serious what I said due to the lack of stripes. Same with more modern martial artists as well. If you're not going to teach, or travel within certain martial circles, ranking isn't that important. If you plan to do either of those things, it begins to become important. High ideals are nice and we may hold them in our hearts, but the modern world, East or West, recognizes achievement and it's hall marks. The question becomes what ranking body do you respect and can work with along the way? Do you care about "legitimate" rank, or would putting stripes on your own belt bother you if you think you have sufficient skill to claim them? What constitutes legitimate in you're eyes and those you train with?

A very true thing. A lack of love on both sides when all any one wants is to train. Get over that and there are more good people to train with.

MastPain hit it Tallgeese. It isn't the attitude that the MMA guys have. It's the stance of the old hard line traditionalists that believe only thugs and punks are fighters. I spoke with a jj instructor I know up the road from my parent's home tonight. He talked about having some "MMA guys" with bad attitudes who tried to train at his last gym. I mentioned that it tends to be the 'would be' fighters and not the real fighters who I've mostly encountered with attitudes. I'm out of traditional roots, not as deep as some others, but it was what you would expect from a Okinawan Karate class. White gi, ordered line drills, kata, very controlled kumite, partner drills etc. And I find myself sticking up for the MMA guys. Once those traditional guys ease up and realize that MMA guys are as much martial artists as anyone else that crossing over will happen.

You see a lot of wrestlers not because it's the "quickest route", but for a couple of other reasons. A wrestler good enough to compete at a college level has 3 options. Coach, if you're that good and a spot is open, go to the Olympics, if you're that good and lucky, stop competing with no professional outlet for your spot. Now, MMA offers a sport with an income that rewards very strong, conditioned and disciplined athletes. I just wonder, and I think this from seeing different schools over the years, why doesn't karate attract the gifted athletes in numbers like other martial arts with competitive venues does? During the early days of karate in America, 60s-70s and the very early 80s(pure opinion here), there seemed to be more naturally talented athletes in the art. Solve that riddle and you will see more people with a karate base, that you can readily see, entering into karate. Something else that will help is when older attitudes change. That MMA is not a worthy pursuit and only those with bad attitude need compete. When that changes the best instructors will point their best students toward MMA without shame or hesitation.

I hate using long quotes, but in this case I wanted to extend on Bushido_man96's post. I hope not to offend sir. I will go back to the cultural emphasis and direction that Western warfare and martial training has taken over the course of the last 1000 years+. While the martial culture of the West may not be well documented and preserved as that of Eastern cultures. This is primarily due to cultural forces and the outlook taken by the war fighters who lived within them. While tradition is alluring, in some fashion, to most people who have taken up martial pursuits the pieces of tradition that are valued can vary greatly. Western martial traditions have tended to value the ceremony of martial life more than techniques, weapons or formations. In Eastern cultures the techniques and materials of warfare were held in much higher regard. Eastern culture values tradition, adherence to a structured form much more highly than Western cultures have tended to. Western martial tradition has valued effectiveness, the results, more than traditions. Massed musket fire replaced the bow and crossbow, the pike and polearms. Massed cavalry charges fell away when the cost and time involved in training a mounted warrior was out stripped by training and equipping formations on foot became a better way to fight the battle, and when training the same elite mounted warrior to fight afoot made him more effective through flexibility. The Western tradition is to abandon what has been for what works better to meet the need of now. While there may not be an over abundance of written sources of martial tradition, the physical evidence of weapon and armor evolution seems to support this. Eastern traditions of war had tended, until the late 19th Century, to force warfare to conform to the mode of fighting that tradition said was best. My readings of history places within the Western paradigm of martial arts a high importance on questioning and evolution of training. The thought process to ask questions and to toss away that which doesn't work, without thought to tradition, has less to do with modern society than what is often thought. At least in this context. So the idea of questioning what works, what is effective, is long and storied in Western martial practice. It's not new in the least. Jarring as it may be to those steeped in Eastern methodologies and tradition, it's been around since Plato debated the use and utility of training a man to fight not in formation, but as single men fighting other single men.

Time to steal shamelessly. Ian Abernathy had his pod cast on pressure points this month. In it he said, after denying and divorcing any mysticsm from the art and down to pure medical science, knowing where to hit is no substitute for knowing how to hit(As in hard). Knowing a particular location to hit helps, but it isn't a cure all. You don't blast a Tiger tank in the frontal armor. You don't punch people in the forehead. However, you don't blast that Tiger tank anywhere with a .30 cal rifle. You use a British 17 pounder. Knowing how to hit means hitting hard. So, just like in muscle cars how there is no substitute for square inches except more square inches, there is no substitute for blunt trauma in a fight except more blunt trauma. Forget secret methods and arcane text on how to kill with a touch. Build sound technique and be always able to apply them. If you want one shot kills, up grade to firearms of a sufficient caliber.

When rolling I try to pick a couple of things to focus on, like say using a particular pass we just learned/worked on, or transitioning to butter fly from half and then going from there. Getting pummeled and submitted don't bother me much. There are days, but they are far fewer than they used to be. I hear what you're saying and I'll try to keep it in mind when rolling. The advice is much appreciated. Makes me think I need to go see the JJ instructor up the road from us about taking my guys up for a visit this winter to work out. I've known the guy for more than 10 years and visited his school when he opened(It's literally up the road from my parents place). fresh eyes, experience and not worrying about having to be the instructor for a ground lesson might help too.

Care if a grappling light weight (experience wise!) shares some views? Guard play is something I don't claim to be great at. Offensively I feel best from the bottom, but I look at closed guard as more offensive than say, half guard. Half is the "Oh spit, I screwed up" position for me. Unless I'm looking to move to the back, it's all about getting back to full guard, maybe sweeping. Now, I don't really mentally categorize guards as offensive/defensive. Just kind of where my hips end up or need to be for how I need to move someone. For example, I end up using butterfly to neutralize some of the guys with more active hips. I can keep up with them better that way. Now, maybe you more experienced guys can see the trouble with this. Lack of foundation I suppose. But, I come at things from a wrestling perspective. Making scrambles happen is where you land in good positions and if you're in a bad one, get scrambling. I can be patient, but man, at times it's hard. I'm better on defensive patients than offensive patients. What little I do teach for the ground, I don't teach how I do things. I know, do as I say not as I do comes up a lot. I teach closed guard as a defensive control of the hips and posture. But, also as a way to get to the offensive side of things or to get to the top and up. So, now that I've laid out my faulty bits, care to point me in the right direction? A general change in philosophy called for in guard use. Do you really need to categorize them into an offensive/defensive mind set (at least in the beginning), to help you build your base?

That's it right there Jay. You're already facing a big obstacle. If you're used to that, you'll not be shaken by facing big guys. In the end your technique will be fine tuned. Facing physically advantaged people will up the level of skill you'll possess in the end.

You're giving up 80lbs+? Like tallgeese said, you're in a tough spot. It's a hard lesson, but best to get it out of the way early. Size matters. On your feet, grappling, size matters in personal combat. Unless you have a large skill gap, things are very hard when facing someone with physical advantages. In stand up when you're giving up 6 inches of reach and 40lbs+ you're in a world of hurt when trying to deal with those advantages. With only 3-4 months of training you don't have enough skill to deal with the trouble you'll have just yet. You'll be starting to get some of it, but not enough. Now, suck as that does, again reference tallgeese here. You have to stay relaxed, focus on getting the technique down. Look for those who have been training longer than you and ask for some help. If they've been training for a while they should be letting you get to certain positions, giving you tips as you roll etc. Sure, you're still going to get tapped, but guys who are more skilled aren't going to feel as much pressure to be competitive(or they shouldn't) as they guys with the same time in. Once you get a competitive mindset out of the way, relaxed rolling without the urge to muscle things when it's close seems to come up less often. Something else to think about too is that the guys with that much size on you may not think they are muscling technique. What to you is full bore power and it feels like they are just beating you on nothing but strength, is to a much larger person average effort. They aren't forcing things, just moving with normal levels of strength. Not saying they won't put a little extra effort into finishing or escaping when it's needed, but when you first start training, that's a normal reaction. Just a little more effort doesn't seem like a bad thing to them. Shoot, talk to them about rolling "just to polish the technique", might cause them to relax a little more. Now, the down side is they'll get better too.