ShoriKid

I've been meaning to post for a while, but life has conspired against me. Sparring and self defense are not the same thing, but here is an example of who things change when you change the range. The first is me and one of our brown belts sparring lightly at long range. Now, range is shortened with the use of the belt. Notice that the belt gets progressively shorter. The main man here is the same brown belt from the first video. Tallest guy with the longest reach in the dojo. Have a bit of a pity on him now, it was his birthday. Which by tradition means he was the center of attention for all of the drills for that night. The biggest thing to see is the change in tactics and techniques change with the range shortening up. And lastly I think I miss our little (less than 300 ft/sq area) main street dojo.

I don't know about the origin of martial arts, but I do think I can name the first claim of "McDojo-ism". Ancient Greece, Plato...or was it Socrates, mocks those teaching individual dueling techniques. The summery of his critique was that it had nothing to do with real fighting (ie. warfare). Thus it wasn't effective for the field..err, street.

Okay, I guess I'm going to come out as the controversial one here. No, sparring at typically seen, long Shotokan range, does not prepare you to be a good close range infighter. I will concede it prepares you better than not sparring at all, but only marginally. You have to prepare for what you are going to be doing. The dynamics, speed, timing and techniques all change at close range. If you want to see how much different, try sparring at a close range. Circle up your dojo mates leaving about a 4x4' square free, put two people in the center and let them spar there. Or, as we've done in the past, grab a spare belt and tie them together at about arms reach from one another. A very, very different game. Now, it's just a game and that's important to remember. Working for self defense is different than stop and go sparring, or even mma sparring. Forearms, elbows, knees, locks, sweeps and throws, head butts are part of the self defense arsenal that aren't legal in Shotokan's typical sparring. It isn't just a matter of knowing the techniques, it's something you have to actually practice applying. The point being you will be good at what you train for. There may be some fringe benefits that carry over to other formats and applications for skills, but it is low percentage. Drag racing doesn't make me a better road course racer. I may under stand throttle control and clutch use better, but I won't get better unless I'm on those road courses. If you want to be better at close range engagements, get in close and engage. Break down what you think works at that range and test it out.

Sport Jujitsu competitions used to have a "self defense" section. You were paired with a competitor in your division and faced a number of random attacks. And I do mean random. The only indication of what was coming was a predetermined signal for a grab/hold and other than that, you didn't really know what was coming. It wasn't a full on, do or die attack, but it had enough on it that standing still or getting caught wouldn't have been pleasant. It was a fun section of the competition that I don't know if they are still doing or not. It's been a lot of years since I competed with them.

Again, too much time is spent in the typical class on "learning" the kata. I can teach you to walk through Kanku Dai, considered a very advanced kata in many styles, in an hour or two. Then 10-15 minutes to tweak it to get improvements as long as you are spending time on your own practicing and get massive improvements in a month or so. Alternately, I can get you walking through a short section in 5-10 minutes and then spend the next 2 hours teaching the application with a partner. And then add another section the next time in the same fashion. And in a couple of months you have the full kata and hours and hours of partner drill under your belt and with them solid fighting/self defense techniques. It's the teaching format that is wrong, in my opinion, not the kata. The change in teaching format had a lot to do with this I think, and you hinted at it as well. Once karate was taken into schools (and I mean middle/high and university), in my opinion, you had to change the teaching format. Larger classes demand a different teaching format and style than small groups. When you make that shift you can't spend the time to break kata into small chunks and teach the applications. It's teach line basics and kata predominantly. And you keep the emphasis on the appearance, the look, of what's being done instead of the bones of it and functionality. Lots of time on kata in the class because you can teach and observe it to a larger group than watching lots of pairs work application. A couple of generations of that teaching format and you have a karate culture that is divorced from it's roots as a hands on, practical self defense system. It had then become one that produces students who are judged on how it looks, not how it works, are concerned with preserving the appearance of kata and not it's content. But again bushido_man, I'm the guy I've voted most likely to be kicked out of traditional karate for my beliefs and practices in pursuit of traditional karate. Heck, I shocked our handful of students last night by telling them that if it were up to me we would do 4, maybe 5 kata total. Not just to black belt, but total.

One of these days I'm going to be told that I'm not a real karate guy for the sorts of answers I give in threads like these! Rory Miller stated that every drill we do in the martial arts to learn combative techniques has at least one flaw introduced for safety. Kata, he observed, had the flow of not having a partner. The advantages that offered were that you could perform techniques at full speed and power. If you can identify the flaw, you can figure out how to make the rest of your training work in conjunction with it. Now, where I get into trouble is the following. Kata in most dojo's occupies way, way too much of the training time. Additionally, there are way too many taught to every be "learned" in the fashion which will lead to practical fighting skill. People like to preach the three Ks of karate. And they will teach and train them as completely separate things with very little cross over. And what is called "traditional" by most today, was an invention of the late 40's, early 50's in the karate world. My "traditional" training model involves small group training, some kata practice, a lot of partner work and some impact and resistance training. Now, to address bushidoman's original post. Kata training is, in a sense conceptual training. Done correctly, it should have plenty of partner work. You get a bit of kata, are given some partner work along with it and sent on your way to practice until the next time you got together with the instructor. It wasn't kata, kata, kata, kata. Individual kata were fighting methods, whole styles. Which means they contained concepts, strategies and tactics. Concepts are the driving force behind the methods used, strategies the "how" of your approach to fighting and the tactics are the particulars of what you do. Kata is the tool for developing your techniques when you don't have a partner. When you have a partner, that is what you work with. So, a concept might be "maintain mobility while fighting". It is trained with footwork, opening close range with a partner for the "concept" guys. Kata teaches the same lesson through attack and defense at various angles and transitioning from stance to stance, and should be then drilled with a partner as small sections are learned. Both are teaching the same concept, from differing approaches. Kata takes a little longer because of the separate step. However, it allows for solo work without a lot of alteration whereas the "concept" work requires either the partner, or a lot of modification for solo training. People doing this are out there who are rejecting "traditional" karate and working on applying what is taught, lots of partner work, countering practical attacks and teaching kata on a conceptual level. Kata is not a binary set up. It can be both.

http://www.breachbangclear.com/site/10-blog/584-10-important-things-to-know-about-violence.html There is some length to this article, but I think the read is well worth it for the thought provoking nature of what it has to say. There are a lot of terms thrown around in self-defense training right now, three that come to mind right off, and targeted in the article, are OODA loop, Hicks Law, and awareness levels, are poorly understood. There is plenty of terminology that makes one sound knowledgeable, obfuscates what is at the heart of effective self-defense, and covers a lot of territory without getting any work done. Mr. Cowan's point about the sanitation or the language around violence and self-defense and the change that creeps into mindset because of it, I feel are valid. So, I'll pose this question. How mindful of terms and language that you use when teaching/training for self-defense are you? Do you think the words you use while training really matter? Have you contemplated how a change of language might change the atmosphere of your training and the approach you or your students take each night? There is a mind set/enabling aspect that I won't go into yet, but I'll expand on later that is addressed as well.

In your defense Pittbull, I did call for it and you got the tap. We had to tell you about it, but you got the tap. If there isn't money on the line or my life, I'm bailing on the lock when they start to stand up. Aside from breaking their posture, which I'm for because, PBJ says it's a good thing, and I need the extra time, I like being able to secure a leg. Just a little safety that lets me stop the pick ups before they really begin.

Honestly, I doubt they will see it at all. MMA, for all it's growth is still limited in the scope of it's reach and influence in the general public and even the general audience for sports. Reading the article I would say the writer has an axe to grind with MMA. Silva's injury doesn't hurt the UFC/MMA at all. Fans understand what happened better, that it's very unusual. I'm sure that I could find similar injuries in the NFL, NBA, FILA etc. if I tried.

Good catch Waste lander. I tend to miss things like that. I do spend my spare time getting punched in the head after all.

There's no denying this (excellent facts), however they weren't 10th Dans plus they knew their stuff. No, they were a notch past a 10th dan. They had the nerve to found their own styles. In which they would be 10th dan, or whatever the highest rank was. My examples are just there to point out the hypocrisy of folks complaining about "young" people obtaining high rank. All of these men in effect granted themselves high rank by forming their own style. Without the first care for a persons training or ability, we would all scream to high heavens if people did that now. See up thread where the worry over people under 30 making 5th dan. Now imagine a local cop, a guy in his middle to late 30's, in your neighborhood who's trained in karate for say 20 years and coaches the local police force through an MMA event forms his own style. What would your reaction be?

I'm of two minds. I'll give you the rebel side for the fun of it. Nagamine Shoshin founded Matsubayashi Ryu at 40. Kanryo Higashionna started teaching his own martial art in Okinawa at 29 years of age that most credit with being the formation of Goju Ryu, Miyagi Chojun of Goju, 45 when Japan recognized the art offically.. Mabuni Kenwa of Shito Ryu was 40. Tatsuo Shimabuku names his style Isshin Ryu at age 48, the old man of the group. None of these men, founders and legends of "traditional" martial arts, are 50 when they found a style. No one dismisses what they've done or the fact that they founded a style because of their age. Some high dans are just shodans who have one year of experience many times over. They are not shodans with thirty years of growth. However, they've done their time and can preform technique, but their understanding and direction, drive and ability haven't really advanced. Isn't it, as Sensei8 says, the proof on the floor?

Most of what martial artist teach is what you do when self defense goes wrong. Or the last thing you will do within the realm of self defense. Miller has said several times that karate contains some of the best body mechanics he's seen for infighting. And that they then on and test it at sparring range which it is totally wrong for.

Just to speak from the outside looking in (dirty karate hippie that I am) as a blazingly awesome no stripe white belt (I'm PittbullJudoka's grappling dummy). So, large grain of salt, but a non-BJJ perspective none the less. The divide you two, PS1 and Tallgeese, are talking about seems very much like the standards, or at least expectations, of some depend on their training status. I mean that there are recreational, though serious, students. Then there are the "professional" competitors who are doing two a days five or six days a week. Those are the guys winning Pans at Blue/Purple/Brown etc. I think a lot of people look at the level of the game those guys posses and expect everyone has to be there too. Funny thing about this topic coming up a few days after I started to wonder about the red vs white bar on black belts. I think that may be a tradition slowly disappearing from BJJ academies.

That sounds really cool. I like the student competitions and recognition. Our students were already crazy after the early dismissal from school yesterday. Something about them knowing they don't have to go back to school makes them nuts. That and a few parties at school with all the candy and goodies they could possibly hold...

Do you have a dojo/training hall holiday party? Do you take time off, train extra during the holidays? Meetings, dinners or gathering of instructors? For our tiny band it is a tradition of a few nights of "shugyo" training. Not in a typically traditional sense I suppose. We train a good bit harder for those nights. More reps of techniques, very intense cardo/drilling and more rounds of more intense sparring and grappling. These are done the last two nights before the Christmas break. I've carried that tradition forward since taking over as head instructor at our small dojo. We've had years where the build up was enough that any two of us in a room together a week before the training were giddy in anticipation. Tonight we finished up with a few dents and dings for the adults. The kids who made it to class tonight after school dismissed early got tiny stockings with a few pieces of candy and a belt tab/key chain that matched their rank. So, what do you do this time of year? This time of celebration and reflection for many. Does it lead to something special in your training?

Survey completed. I'm not sure that my information and input will be over helpful, but it's yours to use. Best of luck in your research. Do you have any theories concerning the nature or frequency of injury in the martial artists population that you care to share at this time? I have always attributed many of the injuries to the dynamic nature of martial arts, the continued training past the physical prime where most athletes would have retired and the fact that martial arts were derived from activities meant to cause harm to other humans (in general) as being large contributing factors. I have no proof or real research to back this up, just personal observation, which I realize is not data.

For us that would turn into the spare GI jacket drill. If we loved you it would even be clean. Relatively.

I've seen the box drill in the context of military training, never done that one though. A circle of attackers that get to come at you we called bull in the ring. The instructor indicated the attacker from the blind side of a center person and they defend. It starts with predetermined attacks, single attackers at a time. Progresses from there to free attacks, more than one attacker at a time and so on. If, near your home, there are mostly sport oriented martial artists there is still hope. Look for smaller schools, those not as commercially popular as others. They may be lower quality, but they might just be out of the sport mainstream. Many self defense schools will be smaller as what your seeking isn't as popular as getting trophies. Secondly, look in the bigger schools and see if there is a smaller group within who are interested in self defense training. Many times there are those training within a sports oriented school who are interested in self defense training. They will very likely be trying to pull together a small group of like minded training partners. They will be as hard, maybe more so, to find that smaller schools. For what you are interested in you are going to have to do some leg work. Be ready to build up your own circle of like minded martial artists. I will bet you they are out there. Now, what Tallgeese says about anger is correct. When asked how I could hit someone when I wasn't angry, I told them it wasn't part of the equation. And it shouldn't be, even though a lot of people tend to think it has to be. You don't need Jedi like calm. I agree with tallgeese in that a "workman like" attitude is best. Ending the encounter, escaping the situation, getting home safe are the goals. That has to be a primary focus. Getting angry can get you caught up in the monkey dance of punishing the attacker. That isn't your job. When you train and drill make sure that there is a goal with each drill. Put the attacker on the ground. Break away and escape(have a safe zone you have to make it to or a point you must pass). Stall for 2 minutes while someone else escapes. Talk someone down, verbally de-escalate etc. Verbal skills, awareness, physical skills and mind set. All are important training aspects for self defense. The physical side are what we train when the other aspects have failed. It doesn't make them unimportant, but it does mean they aren't the only thing to consider.

Great article and the truth. I played baseball for years, and loved it. But, I never played for the high school team. Too much politics and too much blame being tossed about for a loss. When the wrestling team started, I joined right away and loved every minute of it. In hind sight. Practice was brutal, weight management and cutting sucked in ways you have to experience to understand. Going from practice to the dojo was...rough. I miss it. I wish the team had been established years earlier, but I'm thankful for the couple of years I got in. If more schools had wrestling programs I can't see it being a bad thing. One minute you are trying to break their will and tear down their bodies. The next you are collapsed in the bleachers together sucking down water and passing out oranges and peanut butter sandwiches from the team stash.

Congratulations to the winners and those nominated as well! I think it's a sign of a good community when the worst thing about an award is that it's really hard to vote for just one person in each group.

I meant to get back to this a couple of days ago, but life around the holidays can be a little crazy. Now, as a second part to what McCarthy presented, as there doesn't seem to be too much objection to his hypothesis. If Muay Boran could be considered a sister art to the striking skills of karate, how does this change what you teach? Does it aim your research for application and understanding of karate in a different direction? Do you tell your student's your thoughts? Do they care? What, if any, changes take place in your own training? In your teaching methods? How does a link to a culturally different art alert your view of karate? Or will nothing change for you? For my own part I doesn't alter what I teach. For now. I would/does point my research for application of the striking part of karate in a different direction. I'll likely share this with my students when I have a firmer grasp on it all. I don't know if any of our students are far enough along to realize what it means, so it's likely they won't care. I don't think things will change in my training or teaching methods. At least not yet. Looking into this for myself is part of my martial journey and the evolution of my training. Until I have enough information to form my own views on this, I don't want to give it a ton of weight. Finding that without the ability to read closer translations makes something like this harder, as do limited resources to do the research with. However, men like mister McCarthy aren't generally the types to put something that "radical" out in the karate world without plenty of evidence to back up the claim. The cultural shift for the close sister to karate shifting to South East Asia, does change a few things in my mind. I strips a little of the polish from the surface of karate. Breaking some of the connection to China doesn't lessen the art, but it does put it back in a more rough and tumble area. For me, that seems more suited to karate as it was before the refinement it received in Japan. Thoughts and ideas folks?

Silva is a very good MMA fighter, with good body/head movement and footwork for the sport and good power. However, he is light years behind Jones in all aspects of boxing. And, despite his skills in areas that would serve him well against lesser boxers, Silva is so over matched in footwork and defensive skills, his advantages in size won't do much for him. I'd love to see it, but i can't see this do the sport of MMA much good. I don't see Jones' age as much of a factor, he's compensated for that against younger and faster fighters. I'm with sensei8 here though. With the price of pay-per-views these days, I'll check it on a later replay. I can't justify $50+ for a show, no mater how good it is.

http://irkrs.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/siamese-boxing-original-source-of.html Now, the above is a bit of a read. But, as with a lot of things from Patrick McCarthy, it is worth the time. He posits a different origin than many others for the base striking art that formed the core of Okinawan karate. He also looks at the development of the art as it crossed to Japan and how that move changed the art of karate. Mr. McCarthy can appear to be a bit of a radical in some people's eyes. Siamese boxing forming the base of karate's striking, the 3 Ks of karate being a Japanese adaptation/invention that were not related to the art's roots etc? Madness. However, it is hard to deny that he has spent more researching karate's origins, history, and formation in an unflinching fashion. He isn't so tied to "style" that he is afraid to question what his instructors have told him. And, he doesn't claim to know it all, but he will lay out his evidence clearly and let others step up and decide. Now personally, I would love to have the language skills and time to commit to the research he is doing. The points he lays out are sound on the surface. And, I admit to being a bit biased when approaching some of the things that he talks about changing when Karate was taken from the back yards of Okinawa to the budo halls of Japan's main land. You've seen me express the desire to cut the number of kata taught and trained to a handful from the dozen plus that is so common at this point in order to have some actual understanding of them in a fighting context. That the majority of time in the dojo should be in partnered drilling and application work. Very little should be given over to the actual practice of kata. You should be taught the kata, have it checked for ability later on, but it shouldn't eat up large chunks of time in the dojo. That, like physical conditioning, can and should be done mostly outside of class. I also favor stealing techniques and methods from outside of karate as long as they fit into the strategic frame work of what we are doing and the method is sound. This is something that used to happen all the time in karate, but became a terrible thing later on. I have more crazy views (for a "traditional karate-ka"), and I'll share them when anyone willing to stand still and listen. I'll even nail your boots to the floor given a chance. I suppose I don't have a problem accepting mister McCarthy's views since they aren't all that far from some of my own. Or am I open minded enough to not dismiss them out of hand if they don't conform with what I was taught or perhaps believe? I don't know for sure, and that is a matter that might be worthy of discussion all on it's own. So, is mister McCarthy's opinion a radical one? Does Okinawan Karate have a stronger tie, in it's fighting origins, to Siam than China? The 3 Ks of Karate, are they really "traditional" or an addition/alteration made to karate when it crossed into Japanese budo culture? Do we even consider the changes made to karate when it's cultural purpose changed, or have those been so ingrained that everyone consider's the karate of the 1930/40s to be traditional, instead of what pre-dated that period? Never mind the changes that we think of after the early US invasion in the 1950/60s. Weren't those just as much cultural in nature and not a "watering down" by westerners who didn't "get" karate?

There is a quote I've seen floating around here: "Only warriors can choose pacifism." Beat me to it sir.Karate contains the tools to fight. The person who has the tools has to be willing to use them. Without that, you can train all you want and you're still not a "fighter". There has to be a switch there that you can flip when violence is called for. Some people just don't have that capability no matter what they physically know.