Wado Heretic

That would be useful information to have to hand, Camotheman. Mark Bishop and Patrick McCarthy both write quite confidently about a Shuri tradition of Seisan, but their sources rely on anecdotal, verbal histories they have uncovered through interviews. It would be interesting to hear what you can trace back. I do have some updates to make to my prior entry. I have posted them elsewhere, but with this topic being revived, I will share them here. Unfortunately, I attributed far too much to Arakaki No Seisan. I have now become aware that the Aragaki No Seisan I am familiar with, and is the one probably practiced by the most people, likely has little to no connection to Arakaki Seisho. Rather it was a kata passed down to McCarthy from Richard Kim, and Mr McCarthy has acknowledged the potentially erroneous attribution, and openly stated that his current Arakaki Seisan is a personal development built upon the original. Plausibly, it came from Arakaki Sadou, a student of Yabu Kentsu, whom Richard Kim studied with in Hawaii. If so, Richard Kim probably called it Arakaki Seisan to say that is who he got it from. Either way, I am forced to discard it as informative of a historical seisan. An interesting side note is that in my research I can find nothing definitive about the Arakaki mentioned at the famous 24 March 1867 demonstration, who performed seisan, as being Arakaki Seisho. Nor can Graham Noble, a much more accomplished researcher than myself. However, it is clear Arakaki Seisho did teach Seisan as pretty much all his students did. Also, I have begun to doubt both the Ryuei-Ryu and Uechi-Ryu origin stories as to how they came from China to Okinawa. Ryuei-Ryu's seisan is suspiciously similar to Goju-Ryu's (Which I believe Miyagi modified based on his experiences in China), and Uechi-Ryu's to To'on-Ryu's. And although Uechi-Ryu's Sanrinryu/Sanseiryu is distinct, it shares many similarities with Niseishi when one studies the content. In short, much of their characteristics and content do not require the respective founders to have ever left Okinawa. It is also very telling that a Chinese form of Kempo has never been discovered that can be mapped convincingly to either style. Nor have researchers ever been able to find Ryu Ryu Ko, Kingai Roshin (Which brings the Matayoshi-Ryu origin story into doubt), or Shu Shabu with convincing evidence to any claim made. Thus, I am sceptical in using them as points of reference for my originally posited Chinese Pattern Seisan. Ultimately though, with regards to a Shuri Seisan I have yet to be able to trace back before Kyan Chotoku and the Tomari Tradition. Thus, the Matsumura branch, which I speculated to be an older Okinawan Pattern, is still bottlenecked at a Kyan origin point. And my Chinese Pattern hypothesis rests on speculation which relied on the Ryuei-Ryu, Kingai-Ryu, and Uechi-Ryu origin stories to be true. I am still moderately confident in my hypothesis that there is an older Okinawan Pattern that likely dates back to earlier Chinese immigration to Okinawa, and a later more modern Chinese Pattern brought back by Aragaki, Higoannna, and Miyagi, but the evidence I have access to is flimsy.

I have limited experience. It is something I have researched in an effort to find the proclaimed White Crane Heritage of Karate. Meaning I can only offer what I know on Fukien White Crane. Shaolin and Fuzhou fall outside my area of study. I will say I have been forced to conclude, based on the evidence I can find, that the only real concreate connection is the Nipaipo/Naipai kata introduced by Go Kenki. It may be a family set or an abridgement of Er Shi Ba, but that is based on a side-by-side comparison of the forms and not historical written or recorded verbal statements. Also, neither version of Nipaipo/Naipai feature the characteristic shaking power of most forms of White Crane. Though, I have seen footage of a Sanzhan Taolu which bears a resemblance to Higoanna Seisan (To'on-Ryu) and Shu Shabu Seisan (Uechi-Ryu), there is no documented proof to make a concrete connection. That aside, the following are usually where the systems differ: Shaking Power - This is characteristics of most modern forms of White Crane., Why I am not sure but I suspect the influence of the centralisation and characterisation of Quen Fa in modern China. However, the different lineages, and different teaches, emphasise it in different ways. Some will only display it with some techniques, and will otherwise flow smoothly from movement to movement. Others will expect some fixture between each technique with some display of power. Another factor is the maturity of the individual student, and the level of their technique. Breathing - Some schools emphasise the stylised and controlled breathing known as Ibuki in Goju-Ryu, and is likely the origin of said breathing in Goju-Ryu. Others focus on natural breathing though with the posture designed to promote breathing without impeding the diaphragm. The latter is my preferred approach, and I liked the logic I was given by the teacher, which is that we do not want our opponent to be able to read our breathing easily. Monkey Steals Peach has some great footage of training with various White Crane teachers. In regards to English Language Source most are quite poor, and some of the easier to find are by people with questionable credentials. Sorry I cannot be of more direct help

With regards to kobudo I would be more inclined to suggest that most differences are superficial. When handling a weapon it will give you a lot of feed back on the best way to handle it. Whether that is swinging it about to figure out how to generate speed and power, or working with a partner and testing structure and leverage. Thus, stylistic differences usually are just that: a matter of style. If one looks at kata you tend to see the same sequences repeat, just in a different order. The best way to handle the weapon usually shines through when tested against reality. In contrast, the human body is individual to each person, however similar the general shape and frame of the human body is to us all. It is also the most fundamental weapon everyone possesses. Thus, unarmed fighting styles have evolved in all cultures, and they are very much framed by the egoism of the teacher. Which is to say that whatever that teacher has learnt, has retained, and has determined works through experience, is what becomes their system. As a collection of levers and pullies built around a bendable structure, how we shape a technique also affects what it can do. As a result, how we choose to perform the technique dictates its tactical utility. Camtotheman and Aurik have already touched on the essential differences between a front kick with the toe forward and one with the ball of the foot forward. Each has a different tactical purpose. One is kicking into the body and the other through the body, and this is an important distinction. One is a tool for maintaining space and distance, and the other for doing damage on impact. Thus, even what looks like a superficial difference on the surface (The part of the foot being used to strike) it changes the techniques purpose entirely. And if a system is built logically, the nature of the techniques of the system will inform you of a system's general strategy and tactics very quickly. Even the hip thrust Wastelander mentioned can exist in many different ways. I will give two broad approaches. It can be used to try and catapult the limb which can lead to a quicker and more percussive strike. The double hip twist being a useful example of this approach's utility. However, it can be easier to see and if the timing is off the power diffuses before delivery. The other is to allow the weapon, in one example the fist, to lead and driving the hip in time with impact. The final structure, if tested is often stronger, and it can be harder to see coming. Michael Jai White's "Invisible Jab" is an example of this principle at work. However, because of the timing it can have reduced power and can lead to the target being pushed rather than hit with percussive force. Jodan Uke is another example where even a small difference changes the utility of the technique. If I bring the elbow up I may cover my head better, however, it is more poorly connected to my body. It opens the ribs up, and twists my trunk in a way that pulls my structure apart and weakens it. If I keep the elbow down only one side of my head is well covered, but my body structure is aligned better aligned for me to have power in the technique. Thus, it has more utility as a potential forearm strike or clearing technique in a clinch, or even a block against something I have seen at the last minute and just want to get something in the way of. And so on and so forth. When we examine deeply how the mechanics affect the final technique, we begin to recognise in what situations a technique is useful. Then the techniques we have in tool box determine our tactics when confronted with violence. Thus, there is no such thing as a superficial difference. There are differences a person has not thought about and so the thinking is superficial, but the results never are.

This is also true. Though, I think this is almost the domain of senior practitioners, coaches, and teachers. Which is to say it is a part of the process of Shu-Ha-Ri. Testing what one has been taught, finding out what works against pressure, and perhaps what must be discarded. For students, I would say the maturing part is gaining confidence in one's ability by seeing the proof one can make the technique work. That said, I agree that this is a key element of the intent of resistant training.

I tend to view the Naihanchi series as a progression in how to generate and deliver power. Shodan introduces us to the fundamental matters of posture and structure, and the turning of the waist to generate power. Nidan introduces power generated by moving up and down, and by bending at the waist. Sandan tests our ability to generate power with small, and flowing movement. Furthermore, Nidan contains the key parts of Shodan, and Sandan contains the key components of Shodan and Nidan. In that sense, I do think they are better practiced separately. However, I have found a benefit of practicing them as one as it highlights their different and shared qualities. Also, when running through them as one I usually do them different orders. Starting at Sandan and going in reverse, or starting at Nidan and then working back to Shodan then onto Sandan or vice versa. I have found it more beneficial, personally, to experiment with Motobu Choki's advice to practice Naihanchi by going forward and back to see the applications. I got to learn a version of Naihanchi Sandan called Motobu Naihanchi which did just that. It came from Steve Cattle, and I suspect he got it from Motobu Ha Shito-Ryu but I am not 100% sure of its origins. I have given Shodan and Nidan the same treatment and it has been interesting. Sometimes I run through them in a manner similar to Sanchin, with a focus on proper structure and breathing. Other times I run through them in a flowing manner, and go through stances which feel natural in the moment. I look forward to the video. There is definite value in the exercise because Naihanchi is a treasure trove, and coming to it from a different angle always brings something new to the fore.

First, Welcome to Karate Forums A brief pre-amble. I did Judo throughout University until a knee injury where I tore my LCL in my left knee. Thus, I have some knowledge, and I would not call myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination. These days my focus is karate, which is application focused, but when I dabble in Judo it is to study the Kata and Principles therein. Please take what I say with a grain of salt Would people able to pull them off in a self-defence situation? To answer your question there are three straight forward answers. The shortest is No. The longer is man falling from a cliff: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! The longest is that it is complex and often comes down to context. In my experience, there is no such thing as practicing throwing techniques with complete compliance (outside of worked pro-wrestling moves). In the sense of two factors: 1. You must physically put in the effort to throw someone, and if your structure is off a throw will not work. Although a good training partner is giving you their body, everyone is going to give it to you differently, and you need to learn to work around body types and different weights. 2. Unless someone is a supreme and well-rehearsed Uke and they have deep trust in the equipment and yourself, your average training partner is not going to like to be thrown. Whether consciously or unconsciously they will resist your technique out of a sense of self-preservation, which is they may unintentionally dead-weight you, or pre-empt your throw attempt with their intended break-fall by moving a certain way. Thus, even in a compliant model you already have several factors to deal with relevant to making them work with active resistance. The physicality of the move, and how shapes and sizes change each performance. This is why it is important to practice with compliance to learn how the technique should work. If one does not practice making the technique work successfully, one can never make it work under duress, because you will not know how the technique should feel. In the same sense, to learn how to win, you must practice winning and have in your mind a vision of winning. If you only spar people stronger than you and lose constantly, you will never gain the tools to win. Therefore, there is an innate benefit in training with a partner letting you try to throw them. With regards to fighting on the ground: a little knowledge goes a long way. Most people have absolutely no knowledge or acumen when it comes to moving effectively on the ground, never mind grappling someone else. Having knowledge of locks, chokes, and pins will be of benefit even if practiced with compliance. If it is against someone wholly ignorant that is. Also, some degree of martial arts training will condition you in comparison to a wholly untrained person. Again, it is also important to practice with compliance to learn to make the techniques work. If I roll, and even if I catch someone in a control position, if have never practiced finishing a technique I am going to find myself in deep water quickly. Thus far, it does sound as though I am contradicting the “No” statement I started with. To an extent I am and I am not. My point is it is important to train with compliance on times, and that some knowledge and conditioning will go further than you might expect against an untrained, aggressive individual. However, we fight how we train, and fighting involves an extreme level of stress that most people are not used to. It involves a level of physicality most people underestimate. Three minutes can feel like six hours against someone stronger, faster, and more skilled than you. Resistance training is about two things: 1. Coping with the mental stress of fighting 2. Conditioning for the physical demand of fighting It is not about learning techniques. It is about developing the ability to perform techniques under duress. It does not require randoori to learn to do techniques under duress. And very often, trying to gain that ability through free sparring is a long and painful road, which often fails. Which is to say, whoever has better natural inclinations will dominate those with worse nervous control. Under the fight or flight response we also have freeze and fawn. The latter two are not a good or effective response when violence has begun. And that is why resistance training is important. Learning to harness our stress response under duress. Now a person who is good at handling stress under duress naturally, or through experience, and has athleticism, can often make what they have learnt, even if through compliant drills, work to some extent against someone in theory equally skilled or strong. These people, however, are few and far between. And natural inclination will only take you so far. The only true talent is perseverance. We also need to understand that sparring as a training tool is only as useful as the learning experience. If a person’s only take away from a sparring session is that they were defeated, then they did not learn anything. I use a ladder of drills which introduce what I call doses of chaos as one moves up the rungs. For example, when practicing a hip-toss, we will start with compliance and then add different types of resistance. For self-defence It might be having the partner shouting at you as you try to perform the technique or having to work around or against a wall. If just drilling repeating the technique but each time, they give you their body a different or awkward way. For example, if working on our throws from judogi grips, coming at you in a mirrored stance, so you must change feet on the fly to make the throw work. Stuff where we isolate aspects of violent encounters, or competition problems, and work on them in isolation. Building that familiarity with the stressors we encounter, so when we do finally practice randoori we are familiar with said stressors. In this way, when we have a good or a poor sparring session, we can analyse and see where our opponent was better than us, where our own technique let us down and how to improve, and whether we were too much in our own head due to the stress. In conclusion Compliant practice is useful if it is for learning techniques and you keep in mind what you need to be analysing Randoori alone will not make you able to perform techniques under duress. It is a training tool but only part of a tool kit Studying and understanding factors of duress and stress, that impact performance, and drilling with resistance to develop fortitude and knowledge before moving to free sparring is how to make sparring useful I hope this is of help

Elements of this were touched upon in the Hikite Topic. There are some peculiar ideas about how to generate power with the human body which are in fact at best poorly informed, and at worst, entirely disconnected from actual ergonomic and sport science. Thus, I would hypothesise some of what is being seen as poor structure are attempts to achieve a communicated idea which has not been properly transmitted or was misinformed in the first place. The worst example I personally notice is the idea of the back being straight, and what happens is people tend to push their chest and hips forward, rather than straightening the spine by raising the head through the crown. The prior causes the leaning back affect as mentioned in the opening post. My inclination would be to blame the instructors in most instances. They either do not care to make the corrections (Whether they are more lax at junior levels, or they do not consider them essential), or and I fear this to be just as likely, they do not know how to make these corrections. Once you know the benefits of good structure in fighting arts it is impossible not to care. Especially, if the fighting arts are a passion to you. Another factor at play is what I call middle of the road karate. Where the training has not settled on a paradigm: Sport, Budo, Practical, or Neo-Classical. By those terms I mean the following – Sport: Training to compete in one of the various models of competition available, with a focus on game theory, sport specific conditioning, and competition preparation. Budo: What emerged in Japanese Karate in the 1930s and reached its final form in the 50s/60s. May better be called Traditional or Three K Karate. Training through repetition of Kihon, Kata and Yakusoku Kumite (Pre-Arranged kumite which may or may not be based on Kata movements). With the results of training tested through Jiyu Kumite. Practical: Self-Defence orientated with an emphasis on conditioning for physical self-defence through pad-work, resistance-based drills, and Jissen Kumite. Can be bunkai led but if there is kata analysis it is focused on whether the fighting skills being practiced are effective for modern concerns. Congruence with the original context of the kata, or being informed by investigating traditional and historical methods, is secondary (Or possibly unimportant) to whether the techniques work under resistance when tested. Neo-Classical: Shares much in common with the practical paradigm. It is bunkai and kata led, informed by investigation and experimentation with traditional and historical methods, and seeks to be congruent with both the realities of physical violence (The human body has not changed significantly in hundreds of thousands of years) and with the historical context of Kata and Karate Principles. Kobudo practice is also important in this paradigm as the weapons of Okinawan Martial arts ultimately inform the assumptions, conceits, and ideas that historically shaped Okinawa Te and Ryukyu Kempo. Middle of the Road Karate is when people have taken some things from an emerging paradigm but have not fundamentally altered their practice. I have seen a lot of Budo or Traditional karate systems, which were the mainstream until the 90s, adopt elements from practical karate but only the framework with none of the substance. For example, doing Bunkai but it is essentially Yakusoku Kumite. It is pre-arranged, one step sparring where the defence comes a kata movement but without contextualisation through other drills that consider the kata sequentially. Another would be incorporating striking pads, but in a manner similar to boxercise where it is striking for the sake of fitness, and not as a coaching tool to get better to striking. The result of this Middle of the Road approach is that rather than improving on what was already there it is just fed even further into the “trying to get good at several sports under one umbrella” dilemma of the Three K Approach. What I mean by this is that the Three K approach often has significant disconnection between the three. Kihon waza are practiced in a way that differs from how they are used during Jiyu Kumite, and Yakusoku kumite is done at a miai which is again different from that of Jiyu Kumite. Thus, practice is built around trying to get better at three different things. By adding pad work and bunkai without adding what makes padwork and bunkai valuable it is just trying to do more with the same amount of time and getting poorer results. Confused training will produce confused results. I suspect this may be the root cause of these slipping standards. In regard to my own experience each of my instructors has somewhat had different foci when it comes to structure. However, all of them did consider structure important, and it was usually where I would find myself pulled up on during gradings and directed on where to improve. My first instructors were very much focused on hand and foot alignment. Aragaki Sensei could tear anyone’s posture apart and find ways to make it better. I honestly thought I had wasted my teenage and young adult years when I first underwent his corrections. My current instructor is very much about principles and structure following on from Aragaki Sensei’s example. As I have got older (I am 36 so still young by average life expectancy but passed my prime athletically) the only thing that I have found I am able to consistently improve are: 1. Structure through postural training 2. Sensitivity – Proprioception of my own body to improve the timing of my techniques, and my ability perceive my opponent’s intent through touch As such, I would say I spend most of my time coaching giving feedback on structure over anything else. It is what I am always considering when grading people. My system of advancement is not knowledge based but competency based. Which is to say I do not rank people on if they know XYZ kata, but rather when they perform the kata are they displaying the quality of karate I expect

To the opening post, I think the ideas look fine. It sounds like you have identified what you want to see people achieve, and it reads as though you have consider how to so in a reasonable manner. I consider it wise to keep in mind the old proverb regarding throwing the baby out with the bath water. Which is to not do so. In simple English terms, it means to avoid throwing out something valuable while getting rid of something no longer needed. When considering my own curriculum I started with the question: “What in my training got me to where I am?” Now my answer will always be biased towards what I am able to identify as useful. What I can identify as useful is going to be what provided most immediate benefits to effort put in. Thus, some of what I worked on that was longitudinal in benefit, as in it took a lot of time to see a benefit, is going to potentially appear superfluous but could have in fact been the foundation of a lot of what I do well now. This is why I find it useful to be a part of an organisation, and to have a sensei, because it helps balance my perspective. It forces me to consider what I might otherwise abandon. Alternatively, it also forces me to take the initiative in innovating, because I have answers to questions, and questions to answer, which I would otherwise not encounter. In taking this approach, I feel it has helped me build a syllabus that can be useful to most people engaging in training. It is a safety net against my own egoism and just doing what I enjoy. The other thing I have asked is what do I want belts to represent. Personally, for me, they need to represent meaningful improvements in the fighting skills being worked on. Thus, I use fewer belts than found in most systems, because I think it takes a while to objectively improve from one level to the other, and just knowing more without getting better is easily done. Knowing more kata or more drills without getting better at them to me is not what I am looking for. Hence, building competency expectations into the grading system. I want to see someone has got better at the goal of the partner exercise, rather than just show me another drill they have learnt and do it poorly. Anyway, here is my colour belt syllabus (Though it is always subject to change) as posted in the flow drills topic: In terms of what has been “dictated” to me is the kata and the rolling bunkai. I follow the Kata syllabus of the Kodokan, as it was run by the late Aragaki Isamu Sensei, up until Nidan level. Which is the level I reached while he was alive, and the level to which I can technically grade people. After that, I take the direction of my current teacher, Derek Ridgway Sensei. The Rolling Bunkai are his creation and are used for Brown Belt and Senior Grades so my students need to know them to grade in the organisation. I find them very effective anyway, so I do not begrudge it, and they have been a solid base around which to build the rest of the partner exercises around. In my limited experience in Okinawa I would say that the syllabus approach is much less structured, and far more individualised. In training with other people that trained far more extensively, or even much less, with Aragaki Sensei we were all taught subtly different ways to do things and the principles were consistent. It seemed to be very much targeted to the individual. That said, I think that was the very old way to do things. As a person, Sensei did not need money, and taught for the love and passion of Karate. I cannot speak to schools which may be more commercial where the teacher lives from teaching.

I think the only point I have to add, when it comes to the power angle, is that the hand is just the end of the arm. Which is to say, when we focus on the hand, it is easy to neglect what we are doing with the rest of the arm, and its connection to the body. For me, from the perspective of power and structure, hikite is not so much about the hands but the shoulders. To add to Wastelander's point: drawing the arm back dramatically on one side, and often pulling the hand to somewhere ineffective martially (Such as to the hip), often over-rotates the body and moves force away from the intended target. For me, hikite is the most basic way of learning to get the hands to work together, and part of that is to learn to have the shoulders work to deliver force forward. Which is to say, have them rounded and both activated, allowing for the compressing of the body to allow through movement of the waist, and ensuring the arm is connected to the body as it makes impact. Otherwise, yes, I view hikite as effectively practicing to pull or to draw the hand for other purposes such as deflection or loading up a strike.

Congratulations. Well deserved.

With regards to Shōtōkai-ryū (karate as taught by Funakoshi Gichin), and its different modern permeations, if we look to older photos from what Funakoshi was teaching in the 1920s he was already using longer and deeper stances than his contemporaries. Not significantly at first glance, however, his stance in Naihanchi is wider than his shoulders, his kukatsudachi has his back leg behind rather than under him, and his cat stance features an already more pronounced lift of the heel off the floor than many Okinawan styles. My current hypothesis is that this is the influence of his other key teacher aside from Itosu, Asato Ankō. Funakoshi, who is the primary source of much of what we know of Asato, claimed that Asato was also a student and expert in Jigen-ryū Kenjutsu (Sword Method). Funakoshi’s wider, more bladed, and deeper stances, make sense if we consider the influence of swordsmanship on their formulation. Which is to say they make holding a relatively heavy object easier, which Funakoshi would likely have appreciated also being an expert in Kobudo, and they facilitate north-south movement. Funakoshi may have also seen a benefit in the challenge they present in creating the martial body for karate. There are many excellent videos of Jigen-Ryu on Youtube thanks to channels such as Seido Budo. If one finds the time to watch and compare the stances they use and Funakoshi’ 1920s Tode Jutsu, one will hopefully grasp where my hypothesis has come from. Funakoshi Yoshitaka, better known as Gigo, also had a degree of influence due to taking on many teaching responsibilities during the 30s. He has been credited with introducing deeper stances, dynamic kicking, and the focuses on sequential striking techniques with have come to be characterised by modern Shotokan. I am going to quote myself from another time this topic came up regarding the the influence of Funakoshi Yoshitaka: Keep this aside in mind for a later point I wish to make. Moving back to Funakoshi Gichin’s direct teachings, I think that there has also been a fundamental misunderstanding of Funakoshi’s precepts 17 and 18: Kamae wa shoshinsha ni ato wa shizentai - Fixed positions are for beginners: later, one moves naturally. Kata wa tadashiku jissen wa betsu mono - Kata is practised perfectly, real fighting is another thing. Japanese being a tricky language, one can also view 17 as implying that fixed positions are for the youthful and relaxed stances for the less youthful. With Shotokan largely becoming the domain of young men during the war years, and post-war years in the Universities, and then being spread by young men to the world, it was an inevitability that more athletically demanding, and arguably more aesthetically appealing, stances would become normalised. Then these students, as they became teachers, would teach what they were taught. As a teacher you must show what you want from your students to your students. This affects your own growth if you do not find time to train yourself or find someone to take over as the model for you while you evolve your personal practice. Thus, many got locked into repeating what they were taught when young, and this became the model for practice. If we then consider the idea that there is a right and wrong way to do a kata, reinforced by the idea of practicing perfectly, then there becomes a proscribed way to perform kata. Which is going to either be directed by a force of personality, or by democratic means of following what everyone is doing. For Shōtōkan the forces of personalities were Nakayama Masatoshi who formulated the curriculum, and Kase Taiji who held responsibility for teaching aspiring instructors kumite. Kase Taiji’s most influential teacher was the aforementioned Genshin Hironishi, and this is likely where Yoshitaka’s influence truly comes from. Hironishi would have also set the character of the Dojo that Nakayama and others returned to after the war, and they probably had to go with the flow to an extent, rather than try and claw back the practices to what they were doing before they left for the war. Thus, if deeper stances, and dynamic movement had become normal practice, they likely adapted to it and evolved it in their own manner afterwards. Which leads me to what I think is the final ingredient and cause of Shōtōkan’s dramatic stances: Yakusoku Kumite. The Ippon through to Gohon Kumite forms essentially amount to an Oi-Tsuki stopped by a powerful Uke-Waza. If I am trying to stop you hitting me, and you are trying to hit me, but we are moving back and forwards in a line, my only realistic choice to maximise my chances is to move my feet more than you. Which stepping backwards and forwards means long and deeper stances. This is inevitably going to bleed into the performance of Kihon Waza as people aim to develop an edge in kumite. And the forward moving nature of line drills lends itself to people just trying to move forward as dynamically as possible, and longer and deeper stances help this. This may also be why we see more dramatic preparation of uke-waza in Shōtōkan, because when you know what attack is coming you can prepare and deflect with power. Zenkutsu Dachi thus fulfils a very specific tactical role in the practice of Shōtōkan exercise, thus taking on its current character. And when one stance, which is your most basic stance, takes on a deeper and longer nature it is only natural for all other stances to follow along. There is probably a story common to all styles which explain the length of their stances. They will have evolved to meet the tactical needs of the drills being practiced. If those drills become disconnected from actual fighting then we may seem them evolve out of practicality for actual fighting, but exceptionally good at the drills they are used for. And this is not a critique of Shōtōkan explicitly, it is an implicit critique of all styles that we need to remain aware we are training to get good at our Ryuha, and sometimes we may have lost sight of the nature of fighting unwittingly. As long as we remain honest to what we are doing that is fine to an extent, but it should raise a question about whether we are practicing Fighting Arts. But beyond individual dojos, rather than monolithic organisations, I doubt individual characters would have that much impact. My immediate speculation would be that one is Higoanna’s and the other is Miyagi’s. Which is to say Miyagi seems to have tried to make his kata symmetrical. That includes those he learnt from Higoanna If we compare them to the versions found in Toon-Ryu and Shito-Ryu. The only kata he does not appear to have given this treatment is Sanseiryu, which likely contributes to the idea that he did not particularly like it as a kata. Depends on the kata which contextualises the stance. However, the basic idea is that we should be rooted with regards to which hand is in contact with the attacker/opponent for strength. When I was recovering from my knee surgery, which was a two-year period in total, I did use to do some variations to protect. But now it has healed I no longer do so. But that is one of the few reasons I allow variations, or show variations, which is to work around injury to get as close to desired outcome as possible. I explain through showing and adjusting through testing. If the goal is to have strength against front pressure, then we test against front pressure until the compromise we have settled generally works as well as we can get it to. But this is a process I use with everyone anyway to make sure their stances are working as intended. Everyone is different so golden rules are at best useful guides, but pressure testing is the only real way forward.

Apologies for being late to this. I will inevitably parrot some thoughts in my answer that have already been presented, so apologies for a lack of obvious originality, but I will try and introduce some nuances from my own perspective. To parrot the earlier posts to an extent: The perspective of those in the governing body who are responsible for the syllabus, and where they feel kata ought to be placed. In reviewing syllabi, I would say I have observed several factors which seem to have dominated the thinking of the syllabus architects: 1. The length of the Kata 2. The athletic challenges of the Kata 3. The number of novel movements present (Hence novel applications) 4. Relevance to other core exercises (Pre-Arranged Exercises/Drills) 5. Does it introduce knowledge or build upon/challenge existing ability To demonstrate this observation I am going to break down the nine core kata of the Wado-Ryu Syllabus. These, in my experience, are the most adjusted from their Shotokai/Shito-Ryu equivalents which are the origins of Otsuka’s kata. Plus, I only earned a Shodan in Wado-Ryu, and I belonged to a multi-style organisation, so I never really learnt the kata beyond the core nine as my teacher felt the Shito-Ryu or Shorin-Ryu versions were better, and we changed over to a shorin-ryu club at the start of 2013 which was only a few months after I got my Wado-Ryu black belt. Anyway, onto my analysis: Pinangata – Built around Kihon, but contain novel sequences, though they are largely variations on fundamental techniques. They also introduce the primordial shapes of the system (Stances and Postures) in a sequential manner and the kata also very brief. Does include the use of two hands at once, but also predominantly involves hikite. A lot of the movements are also found in the Kihon Kumite of Wado-Ryu. Kushanku – The longest kata in the system. Hironori Otsuka appears, in my eyes, to have made it align much more closely to the previous Pinangata movements that are borrowed from this kata. In the Shito-Ryu and Shorin-Ryu, the Pinangata and Kusanku Dai, have a lot of very similar movements but there are subtle differences. That, however, is an aside point. As a kata it is more athletically demanding because of its length, and it has a couple of athletically demanding moves such as a drop and rise from the floor, and a jumping front kick, but it largely reinforces elements from the preceding kata. Naihanchi – Builds upon Meotode (Hands working together) as introduced in some of the Pinangata. To perform the kata well also requires proper use of posture and the waist because you cannot rely on momentum to give an impression of speed and power. It also has a rooted stance, while the previous kata largely impress light-footedness upon the karateka. Seishan – The first part of this kata largely builds on the lessons of Naihanchi. It works from a rooted stance and features a lot of movement on the spot requiring good use of posture and the waist. One novel element though is the focus on controlled breathing. It also uses a combination of fast and slow movements, where in comparison all the earlier kata focus on sharp and graceful movement. The second half features some challenging movements for someone with poor balance, such as the knee lifts to a step behind, a front kick from a cross step, and a cycle kick near the end. Thus making it more athletically demanding. Chinto – On the surface, Chinto is quite alien to the preceding kata. It contains few examples of kihon waza, unlike the pinangata and kushanku, nor does it have a focus on rooting like Naihanchi and Seishan. However, when one looks closely we can see the points it is building on. There is significant use of the hands working together, as in Naihanchi and Seishan, and it has athletically challenging movements like Kushanku, and a number of the sequences can be seen as variations on novel movements from the Pinangata and Kushanku. Plus, the single leg stance introduces and demands the ability to root, have good posture, and use the waist, to be effective. Chinto, should, in theory challenge you to get better at all the previous lessons. It is also a relatively long kata. I think, based on my observations, I would argue that you can identify the Pinangata and Naihanchi as beginner kata, Kushanku and Seishan as intermediate kata, and Chinto as an advanced kata. They increase in length, athletic challenge, and introduce novel concepts in a progressive manner, before culminating in Chinto where all the prior lessons are needed to perform it well. This can also be seen in the Goju-Ryu core syllabus of 12 kata. Gekisai Ichi and No contain all the core techniques but done in a hard manner, with a focus on forward momentum, north south-movement, and the use of a lead hand. Saifa (Which I believe may be Miyagi’s reorganising and interpretation of Naihanchi) introduces the uses of angles, the blend of soft and hard movement, meotode, and movements on the spot requiring use of the waist and proper posture. Along with Sanchin and Tensho these are Kihongata/Heishugata/Tanrengata which are intended for physically conceptualising principles and developing a martial body. These are all core to progressing to the Kaishugata which focus on applications, and the Kaishugata generally progress in length, athletic challenge, and number of novel techniques, and each generally builds upon the theme of the last. In both examples, the earlier kata are preparatory for the latter kata. They introduce principles relevant to the following kata, and which are needed to perform the following kata properly, and to understand the new principles the later kata are introducing. They prepare the body for the evolving challenges of the later kata. Anyway, in short, and to give a more direct answer to each query To repeat myself - 1. The length of the Kata 2. The athletic challenges of the Kata 3. The number of novel movements present (Hence novel applications) 4. Relevance to other core exercises (Pre-Arranged Exercises/Drills) 5. Does it introduce knowledge or build upon/challenge existing ability Yes, the first kata teaches the process of learning kata. Thus, it should introduce the most essential components to build the learning process on. A poorly chosen initial kata can derail the learning process before it begins. Yes, but different people will determine difficulty in different ways. Depends on the system. Some focus the training of principles through Kihongata/Heishugata/Tanrengata designed specifically for physically conceptualising principles, and isolating them for practice. The later kata should then be performed with these principles while focusing on the novel possibilities for applications. Others will introduce the principles as they become relevant to the applications of the kata. Depends on if the syllabus was built around an understanding of the concept of Bunseki, of which Bunkai is only one element. Without that knowledge a kata syllabus could be purely built around obvious athletic challenges. To give a more personal answer. I do not believe there are innately beginner and advanced kata. There are kata that have been designed for beginners and novices as mentioned about, however, I agree with Wastelander that kata are as complex as what you put into them. As you gain greater understanding, and you revisit kata you learnt earlier, you should be pulling back and applying later lessons to them. To give an example from my teaching approach. With the Pinangata my focus is on Koshi, the use of the waist, as a foundation for the development of Muchimi, Gamaku, and Chikuchi. Pinan Nidan – Use of the Waist with techniques off the front hand Pinan Shodan – Use of the Waist with techniques off the back hand Pindan Sandan – Use of the Waist when using hands in tandem Pinan Yondan – Use of the waist in quick succession Pinan Godan – Using the waist in foot work As the student progresses, they should then, and I do guide them in this, take the lesson backwards as well as forward. I also introduce Naihanchi Shodan early with a focus on Muchimi, and Sanchin with a focus on Chikuchi. As students advance, they should then bring all the lessons together in all their kata. Thus, as they progress their performance of the kata should become more advanced, turning them into advanced kata as they find more innate challenges within the kata to overcome. With that said, another angle to consider is what I call “Flavours” in kata performance. Each system has its own core which is reflected in its kata performance. Shorin-Ryu is often quite staccato, with deliberate breaks between techniques to generate and perform techniques explosively. Goju-Ryu often has a strict divide between hard and soft techniques, giving their kata a fast and slow rhythm. Many systems influenced by the WKF Competition circuit have a more dynamic appearance focusing on kata being done in sequences, and motions being sharp and powerful, or slow and graceful, which give them a percussive flow done well, or lead to looking rushed done badly. Many systems influenced more recently by Chinese sources often have a flowing appearance with the moments of fixture being brief, and the stances often being less defined and more mobile. My point being that, over time, all the kata in your own system might become “beginner” like in difficulty to you. However, were you to try a kata from a system with a different “flavour” their beginner or intermediate kata may feel advanced to you. Because it demands a different kind of martial body, or it places emphasis on different elements of motion you have not trained for. To be lazy, and not make this post any longer than need be, here is a link to a post on a topic on seisan: https://karateforums.com/topic/51847-seisan-kata/page/2/#findComment-574610 Most versions of Matsumura Seisan can be traced back to Kyan Chotoku, and other versions traced back to Ryu Ryu Ko. Personally, Chito-Ryu’s Seisan looks closer to a version of Matsumura Seisan than it does Goju-Ryu’s. And Kyan Chotoku was Chitose’s first teacher. However, I do believe that it is an amalgamation or is Aragaki’s version as Chitose seemed to favour Aragaki’s teachings in his creation of Chito-Ryu. Furthermore, Funakoshi’s Hangetsu looks like Matsumura Seisan, and he got his Seisan from Aragaki. A counter point to this is that Miyagi, the founder of Goju-Ryu, purportedly got his from Higoanna, who reportedly received it from Ryu Ryu Ko. Aragaki Seisho was a senior student of Ryu Ryu Ko to Higoanna. If they both got their versions from Ryu Ryu Ko, then Chitose is plausibly doing Kyan’s versions due to the differences. Alternatively, Miyagi changed his Seisan, which would not have been out of character for Miyagi. Either way, nothing definitive. The following is speculation, and I have little to no evidence. I have been told by a handful of old Okinawan Karateka that kata in old Okinawan Martial Arts, and to an extent Chinese Martial Arts, that most forms have two or three versions. Either a Sho and Dai, or a Sho, Dai, and Gwa set. As in modern karate some of these were taught sequentially. But under some teachers you would abandon the less complex version as you learnt the more sophisticated and comprehensive version. Alternatively, you would be taught the version that the teacher thought suited your level of ability, or the version they were still confident performing if age and injury were a factor. The differences could be because they received different versions from the same teacher, or as you have speculated, the students chose to keep the version they preferred. It is a kata that is both rudimentary and complex. It can be used to introduce effective fundamentals including rooting, breathing, and generation of power through the waste. However, it can present some athletic challenges, if one wants to put them in there. It is easy to break into sections for easier learning, and it contains the majority of the most fundamental techniques. I can see many arguments for it being the first kata of a system Now, I will add some brief thoughts on things I have learnt since in my research which are relevant to the linked post. Patrick McCarthy appears to have been the primary populariser of Aragaki Seisan, and he originally learned the Kata from Richard Kim. Due to Mr McCarthy’s reputation as a historical researcher, I somewhat naively assumed he labelled the kata Aragaki Seisan because of a high degree of confidence it was related to Aragki Seisho. However, two points have since come to my attention: 1. The label of Aragaki Seisan was given by Richard Kim. It could have been arbitrary as there is no evidence this kata is connected to Aragaki Seisho. 2. The current Aragaki Seisan kata promoted by the IRKRS is Patrick McCarthy’s own personal interpretation of the kata based on lengthy study of many versions. Thus, I must discount it as evidence in my original hypothesis. Arguably, Richard Kim may have received the kata from Arakaki Ankichi, hence the choice of kata name, who apparently joined Yabu Kentsu in his brief excursion to Hawaii in 1926, but that is a hypothesis based on very slim documented evidence. I am doubtful the credited Arakaki Ankichi is the famous one, as both the surname and forname are relatively common Okinawan names, and there is no documented evidence of the famous Arakaki visiting Hawaii that I can find. Plus, even were it the famous Arakaki Ankichi, there is no documented connection of him to Aragaki Seisho. Either way, it leaves that trail cold for now. Furthermore, with additional research I have conducted since, I have become sceptical of the claims of Nakaima regarding Ryuei-Ryu’s origins. Again, I have detailed those reasons for doubts in another post: https://karateforums.com/topic/51859-okinawan-ryuei-ryu-karate/#findComment-574680 If Chito-Ryu’s Seisan, which may come from either Aragaki or Kyan, does come from Aragaki it could be considered the “true” Aragaki Seisan. Then my standing theory still holds water but this loss of two key point of evidence has made it leaky. I plan to revisit it in time. I know Seishan, Naha Seisan (Goju-Ryu), Aragaki Seisan, Higoanna Seisan, and Miyahira Seisan. Through all those versions the key point is to have a forward focusing (Not necessarily square) stance, flexibility in the knees, and the hara lowered through the hips. You should be able to bend yourself forward at the hips without losing balance. Sanchin artificially forces this by having the bladed fleet. If you try to stand completely upright with your feet in sanchin position you will immediately feel off balance, and the only way to correct it is to sink. But yes, you are essentially trying to adopt a stance adapted for wrestling. Naihanchi Shodan – the more you learn about karate, the less you feel the need to change it. It, on the surface, contains all the fundamentals needed to make all of your kata better, but the more I study it the more find principles hidden in plain sight, but I didn’t have the vision to see them previously. I have previously created three kata, however, I do not teach them. For various reasons, but I created them when they had a purpose, and then the purpose faded. Kimarite I created for competition training purposes. I based it on 12 combinations/fighting manoeuvres I identified as functionally the same from many different sources. The kata could be performed in a line, or with turns designed to imply throws. Each sequence had a pad-work drill, and application drills. The application drills were based on using the sequence as an offence, as a counter set up or, to use fencing terminology, as part of a counter riposte. I also created variations to adapt to different rule sets and Miai: thus, a variation for sundome, a variation for full-contact striking, and a set which included clinches and the takedowns. I used to teach it to my students interested in competition, or used it as a tool when I did guest coaching. But I have not taught a competition session since before Covid, and I havve subsequently developed shadow work exercises connected to the Pinangata and my organisations basic bunkai, along with pad work drills, which keeps everyone grounded in the traditional karate, but gives flexibility for competition training. I also developed a kata called Shirokuma. A nickname I was given when I was in Okinawa because I was white, but hairier and bigger than a native member nicknamed Kuma. But also I built it around a Kata my Shorei Kempo teacher taught me simply called Bear Kata. I designed it to focus on body-to-body grappling techniques, as at the time I felt traditional kata only really dealt with arm length grappling and striking. Subsequently, as I have learnt more about bunseki, and more about the principles behind kata performance, I have had this erroneous view corrected, and I find plenty of body-to-body techniques in almost any kata now I know what to look for. To repeat myself: the more you learn about karate, the less you feel the need to change it. But I do feel there was a benefit in creating the kata, as they led me to a deep appreciation and knowledge of the old kata. Lastly, I created a kata which became a tribute to a friend called Tsukai. I based in on Wado-Ryu’s Jitte, his favourite Kata, but I incorporated the five fighting combinations of the Kempo Karate system he taught. At the time we were trying to build a club together, and we were going to ground it in the Kempo Karate he taught as he was bringing along the student base, but we were going to introduce exercises and Kata from Wado-Ryu, which we both knew and where we knew each other from. Thus, I was trying to create a unique kata which blended the two traditions, and also sneak in some principles from Shorin-ryu. Sadly, he died during the covid crises, but I completed the kata as a tribute. I taught it to his students, but whether they still practice it I do not know. I try to run through it on his birthday as a private tribute, but it is not part of my regular practice.

Masutatsu Ōyama demonstrates a similar posture in his book he identifies as Maeba. Although, his is more upright with weight off the front foot, and the overall posture slightly bladed rather than square. Motobu Choki also shows a similar posture in his books, although, he tends to have one hand low and the other high. One can argue the posture is somewhat implied in many Goju-Ryu Kata. The opening repeated moves are often done with both arms in front of the self, sometimes closed as in Miyagi's Sanchin Kata, and sometimes open. If you relax the arms, open the stance, close the chest and round the back as done at the end of a couple of Goju-Ryu kata, Sanseiryu springs to mind, then you can argue that is the actual "fighting posture". Many Chinese Martial Arts from the South such as Xingyiquan, Taijiquan, and Baguazhang all have postures involving bringing the hands up in front of the self in a similar manner as described in the opening post. Most importantly so does White Crane which had a significant influence on Karate in the late 19th/early 20th century. I cannot speak for other branches of Shorin-Ryu, but our Kakei Kumite as I was introduced to it in Okinawa basically uses that posture as one of its starting points, along with the wrist-to-wrist pushing hand position. Were I to hypothesise as to why it is not so apparent these days is because of the influence of Jiyu Kumite and Sport Competition. It is not very efficient for point fighting, and has limitations in competitive, full-contact fighting against a trained opponent. It is excellent for intercepting an attempted attack if the attacker commits, and can be great at fending off grabs and wild, swinging attacks. These do not tend to happen in point fighting, or even full-contact karate, where people move in and out very quickly for fear of giving away a point, or are making methodical attacks involving feints and set ups for combinations. When people became more focused on Jiyu Kumite from the 30s onwards, and Yakusoku Kumite against the fundamental techniques of their own systems of Karate, a practical self-defence posture gave way to what worked in sports and what worked best when you know what attack is coming. And bladed stances where you keep one hand back, or a closed stance where you keep the hands in and close, works quite well in both those circumstances. Both work well for moving off line, and getting good explosive power out of the limbs. But they do make it difficult to intercept attacks, do not offer as much protection against strikes you do not see coming, and do little to prevent the collapse of distance. Most, if not all, systems of Karate practice Seisan which implies this posture. Thus, I would not have been surprised if it were more ubiquitous in the past. Plus, it is a fairly natural stance to start Kakedameshi exercises and bouts from. With regards to its presence in Kata, in the Shorin Cannon of Kata as I have learnt it the only fighting posture that readily presents itself in any kata is what Masutatsu identified as Enshin and Motobu as Kaishō Kamae. A bladed stance with the hips pointed no more than 45 Degrees, with both hands in presence, but with back hand held a little back with the hand hovering around the elbow of the lead arm, and the posture offers good protection to the head and body and allows for fairly good north-south and lateral movement. One can argue all of the kata postures can offer primordial fighting shapes you could use as a fighting pose if the context and circumstance allowed. After all, Motobu supposedly used the opening posture of Pinan Yondan in his famed bout with a boxer. Although, I suspect it was his usual open hand stance, but he brought both hands up to head height to account for the boxer's punching, and it bore a resemblance to Pinan Yondan and the journalist had no better idea. But my current operational theory is that the kata often represent a situation where the fight is already under way - there is no time or point of getting in a "fighting stance". Hence, we do not see fighting stances in Okinawan kata very much or at all. An alternative hypothesis that has just struck me is that the karateka of the past already knew the fighting stances and saw no need to put them in kata. And as time has gone by and the basic and fundamental teachings have changed, the stances no one had a use for have gone extinct.

Thank you all. This is quite the honour to have been awarded this five times. It is humbling. Again, thank you all.

When I first started my club, I did not bother with a Dojo Kun, as I was largely teaching adults who had already formed a world view. I saw the dojo kun as largely an educational device. As time has gone by, I have taken on youth students for whom such teachings are invaluable, but I have also realised that they are a statement of intent. They explain to a prospective student what the dojo environment is intended to embody, and they help manage expectations. It means a student knows what I expect out of them more clearly. My choice of five, which has been parsed down from seven in the past, are: Karate wa gi no tasuke - Karate is an assistance to justice Saki Sei Sono Kokoro – Take the Previous Rule to Heart Kazokushugi - Family-Centrism Makoto – Sincerity and Truth Hito no te ashi wo ken to omo - Think of hands and feet as swords Below are my explanations and intended meaning behind each: Karate wa gi no tasuke - Karate is an assistance to justice. I did once have Karate Mu Sente, which I did replace for Karate ni sente nashi, but neither really encompassed what I wanted to transmit. Both being phrases for their being no first attack in karate, it just led to pedantic discussions. What I wanted it to transmit was the idea of not initiating problems. Which is to say the attitude you take to things is a part of the reaction you receive. If you head into situations with an attack first mentality, whether literal or metaphorical, you are going to invite problems. You invite people to be defensive, and then the situation is at once antagonistic. When re-reading Funakoshi’s 20 precepts I was reminded of Karate wa gi no tasuke – Karate is an assistance to justice. I felt it worked on several levels. Someone going and starting fights is not being at all lawful, but it also spoke to a deeper level of the consequences of gaining personal strength: you can use or misuse that strength. Thus, this precept being first. I feel one should use our strength to pursue a better world. Also, my view that as autocratic as the dojo is, it should still be a place of fairness. Plus, I feel the idea of justice also includes values of courtesy and integrity. Saki Sei Sono Kokoro – Take the Previous Rule to Heart Long story short, I had a couple of banners I made years ago which were copies of the banners in the Miyagi Family Dojo in the Karate Kid: Part 2. When I found a regular venue for my current club, I used to take them and hang them to give the place some atmosphere as it wasother wise a rather characterless function room. Someone did recognise them once, and quoted to me the meaning given by Mr Miyagi, and I had to point out the actual meanings: There is no first move in Karate, and senseigoshin: First, have a sound mind. After that, I went and got a banner with Karate ni sente nashi made by a professional to replace my tired, amateur attempt at Karate mu sente, and I retired the second banner. However, when I sat down to figure out my dojo kun I decided to include this seemingly throw away joke for a few reasons. To keep myself humble and take the dojo space seriously: I should not decorate it with things thinking they have no consequence. Everything in the dojo should have a purpose towards training. Secondly, it is a thought device to remind people to consider all the precepts interconnected. None of them exist separately. Lastly, to emphasise how seriously I take the first rule, and that it is the first rule for a reason. Kazokushugi – Can be roughly translated as Family-Centrism. My teacher named his organisation on the concept at the heart of his approach: of members all being part of a family. That it is important that members feel part of the association they have joined, and don’t just feel like a number on a membership list. Thus, I have this as one of my dojo precepts as a reminder to embody this in my dojo too. Plus, to remind people of their other obligations in life beyond the dojo, the association, and karate: their friends and family. Makoto – Sincerity and Truth Depending on context it can be translated either way. However, what I intend in Makoto is sincerity towards one’s training, and to honesty to oneself. Having a clear vision of the intent of your training, being honest with oneself about one’s progress, or lack of, and having a realistic understanding of one’s ability and the purpose and limits of one’s karate. Hito no te ashi wo ken to omo - Think of hands and feet as swords. This is another of Funakoshi’s precepts, but I chose it due to an oft quoted statement for Chibana Chosin: “Your fingers and the tips of your toes must be like arrows, your arms must be like iron. You have to think that if you kick, you try to kick the enemy dead. If you punch, you must thrust to kill. If you strike, then you strike to kill the enemy” Thus, I have this precept as a reminder of the need to train the body effectively. A sword is forged though hard work, the use of the right materials, and expert knowledge. But the quality of the sword produced lies in the efforts of the craftsman. Plus, a sword must be maintained: polished and sharpened regularly. Lastly, to carry on with this metaphor, a sword is only as dangerous as its wielder. A karateka must always be aware that their limbs are their weapons and treat them as such. Similarly, they must remain aware that these are the weapons of everyone else. We must practice awareness of the dangers others pose. And when we train with each other, we must take mistakes in our defences seriously. An error in the dojo should be treated in the same manner an error in a real fight must be treated: potentially lethal. An error should be taken to heart and learnt from.