Shiro Kuma

First of all: Yes, this question was prompted by me getting my hands on the new Total War: Shogun 2 video game. But I'm also interested in just how historically accurate these kind of games are.

For those of you not familiar with the series, the first Shogun: TW game featured samurai and ashigaru armed mainly with spears (yari), pole-arms (naginata), and bows (yumi.) Now, my understanding is that during the Sengoku era, weapons like those constituted the primary armament of soldiers, while swords were more of a sidearm. However, in Shogun 2: TW, there are now infantry and cavalry units armed exclusively with katana.

So, my question is: During the Sengoku jidai, what are were the primary armaments carried by soldiers on the battlefield? (Links to in-depth references would also be highly appreciated.)

Kata "catalogues" a range of techniques in the form of a sequence. But if you remove the sequence format and ONLY practice each technique individually, do you miss out on anything?

In karate, kata takes the form of a series or sequence of techniques; same thing with arts such as taekwondo, kenpo, silat, etc. Meanwhile in styles such as judo and aikido, formal kata (or the closest equivalent of it) usually consists of a single technique, and rarely performed solo.

My question is: what is the reasoning behind teaching techniques as part of a sequence instead of individually?

Part of an answer by one of this board's senior members awhile back, reminded me of two instructors I respect the most.

The first one, a relative newcomer to aikido but with extensive experience in hapkido and judo once said that when confronted by a criminal he would either simply surrender his wallet or try to escape, unless he was with his wife, because "when you're with somebody you love, you stand and fight."

The second one is a no-nonsense shihan in Yoshinkan aikido whose fifth dan came from Gozo Shioda himself; an extremely gentle man whose skills are, IMO, scary. Also scary is when once, during a seminar, he talked about how if somebody challenged or taunted him on the street, he would simply walk away, but he suddenly added "but if he touches my daughter, I would kill him." He said in with such conviction that every single attendee, including members of the freaking Kopassus (Indonesia's infamous special forces) who were invited to the event, were silent for quite some time.

The general thread seems to be: avoid conflict when it's about self defense, but when your loved ones are involved, you meet the threat in order to defend them at all costs.

Now, this is a resolve I respect, and to be honest, I aspire to be able to do the same. But I do wonder whether this is a "proper" or "correct" mindset for martial artists in general, and if this is the sort of value that an instructor needs to impress upon his/her students. So, any thoughts on this one?

I get this a lot since I started training in the martial arts with aikido; mainly from practitioners of other arts. Not the close-minded, my-style-is-better-than-you types, mind you, but senior martial artists with decades of training under their belts. The thinking seems to be "train first in a hard style, then refine it with a soft one."

Actually I get this from many senior aikidoka as well. Mainly because practically all of Ueshiba Morihei's students were already prominent martial artists in their own right before taking up aikido, primarily in judo, aikido, kenjutsu, and classical jujutsu. So, early aikido assumed a certain degree of martial skill.

Also, in a traditional Daito-ryu school - this being the root of aikido - young beginners would first receive instruction in Daito-ryu jujutsu (the emphasis here being grappling and hard, linear striking), before progressing to Daito-ryu aiki-jujutsu (a bit like a "harsher" version of aikido with extra atemi), and eventually Daito-ryu aiki-no-jutsu (which looks like an extra-soft version of aikido.)

I've been fortunate enough to have trained under many instructors with backgrounds in various other arts, so I've been exposed to various concepts that are not usually included in mainstream aikido curriculum (everything from throwing a proper punch to ground fighting to knife techniques); I've also tried taking up kendo and judo (both on hold due to time constraints); so, I like to believe that I am not exactly unfamiliar with the harder and more external concepts of martial arts. (Feel free to replace " ... like to believe ... " with " ... like pretend ... ").

Still, I'm still wondering whether or not my training is, for lack of a better word, complete. So that's why I wanted to know other people's opinion on this matter: If somebody wants to train in a martial art, is an internal and/or soft art a valid starting point? Or should he/she consider training first in an external and/or hard style first?

Somebody pointed out these two videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rAWIqRbda4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9tNw-KSzVI

basically showing Lyoto Machida and Anderson Silva training with Steven Seagal.

Interestingly, while the majority of aikidoka who has seen the videos agree that these fighters might be interested in looking at the possibility of adding something new to their arsenal, most of them also agree that these videos reminded them of the annoying uncle during family reunions who simply don't know when to shut up.

So, any thoughts about these?

Some technique names are pretty straightforward; mae-geri and de-ashi-barai, for instance, literally describe what the technique primarily consists of. But of course the martial art world, even outside of fiction, has its share of fancy names: tenchi-nage (heaven and earth throw), yama-arashi (mountain storm), ganseki-otoshi (boulder drop), unsū (cloud hands), etc., etc.

Now, many practitioners simply treat these as an exotic string of hard-to-pronounce syllables. In your opinion, should understanding what a form's/technique's name really means (especially the less-straightforward ones) be part of training?

I've just moved to a new location with my wife and three dogs (two basset hounds and one shih-tzu), and while most of my new neighbors also keep dogs, I've been hearing stories of dogs being stolen in broad daylight and poisoned (food laced with poison - supposedly rat poison or insecticides is used - is thrown into people's yards.)

I keep my dogs indoors most of the time, and make sure that they are supervised when they go outside. Now, I can handle somebody jumping over my fence and trying to grab my dog. But if any one of my dogs inadvertently grabs a poisoned treat, what can I do? Of course I'd try to get her to the vet as quickly as possible, but are there any first aid treatments for cases like these?

Thanks before...

I've often heard how 'Hagakure' is supposedly the ultimate guide to understanding the way of the samurai; but I've also heard how it is written based on commentaries of somebody who is essentially a "samurai wannabe" and thus biased.

So, is Hagakure an accurate depiction of the samurai's way of life?

One of the supposed benefits of training in a martial art - classical or modern - is that it builds or instills character traits such as: discipline, respect, integrity, etc. But I was wondering if it's the other way around: that martial arts training reveals the practitioner's character.

So, could it be that a long time martial artist does not become disciplined, but he/she sticks around for a long time because he/she is essentially a disciplined person, and can therefore better fit in - and even enjoy - the structured training regimen of the art? (Same thing for being honorable, respectful, etc.)

What do you think?

When performing tomoe-nage, are you supposed to throw your uke away (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dlVsq827-A ) or is it more correct to roll with your uke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUbNZH5QRBk from 1:02 till 1:11)?

When it comes to the tradition of colored belts to indicate ranks in a martial art, I know of two different reasoning behind the color choices:

1. It shows the age of the fabric (yellowing), and the accumulated dirt and grime (and I suspect mold and fungi is where blue and green comes from) from years of training; thus darker colors indicate experience and proficiency (or that you're training in an non-air-conditioned dojo in South East Asia, where your whole keiko-gi can turn several shades darker as well as become incredibly sticky after a single training session.)

2. In pre-modern Japan, replacing a perfectly good belt after only several months of use is costly. So, martial artists would dye their belts when they go up a rank. Of course, dyeing a piece of fabric is easier if you go from a light to a darker color; thus the white to black progression.

So, which one is true? Or is it both (i.e., a commonsensical tradition given a deeper meaning)?

When it comes to the more modern or newer approaches to martial arts, the formula is a bit simpler. Whether it's for those with a major focus on competition (e.g. MMA), for the military (e.g. MCMAP), or personal self defense (e.g. Krav Maga), the basic premise is that they borrow/adopt techniques, concepts, and tactics from older arts, emphasizing those that are more obviously useful. Training methods and duration are also simplified in order to allow students to become proficient in a shorter amount of time.

But when it comes to "traditional" martial arts; things get a bit more complicated. I (think I) know a traditional martial art when I see it, but I can't really put my finger on what makes an art, traditional...

If it's the age of the style, then both aikido and shorinji kempo - both regarded as very traditional - are just a bit over 50 yeats old...

If it's how the style focuses more on its origins as true combat arts, the what about judo and muay thai? Both are usually regarded as traditional martial arts, but are derived from older styles (judo from jujutsu by Jigoro Kano, and Muay Thai from Muay Boran by order of King Rama V), and made simpler and safer in order to accommodate widespread competition...

And if we use definitions found in most dictionaries (i.e. something along the lines of "any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defense or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination without weapons, as karate, aikido, judo, or kung fu, often practiced as sport") then what about armed styles and those not from the Orient such as savate?

So, in your opinion, what causes a martial art to be considered a "traditional" martial art?

I once attended an aikido seminar where one session dealt with techniques for security personnel; in one of them you worked together with another person to restrain a third person and carry them away. It was a simple series of joint locks, but coordinating with a partner added a whole new dimension to it.

On another occasion, during randori practice, I had to defend against two of my seniors; and instead of simply rushing me, they took their time, carefully circled around me, and simultaneously pounced. Aside from entertaining the whole class and proving how I sucked, I think it also highlighted the effectiveness of a coordinated attack and teamwork.

Now, a lot of martial arts teach you how to deal with multiple opponents. But how about working along a partner or partners in dealing with one or more opponents? Is and should it be part of martial arts training?

In arts like aikido and judo, formal kata is a paired exercise where a specific attack is countered with a specific technique/waza. But in other arts like karate, wushu, taekwondo, kenjutsu, etc. (including the various weapon kata in aikido), a formal kata is a sequence of movement and techniques. I do understand that it represents a sequence of attack and defense; but what I want to know is how a certain sequence is chosen/picked/formalized into a kata. I mean, it's not just a random set of moves, right? So, historically, how were the various kata/patterns formed into what we have today?

And if what little I know about kata is wrong, please correct me.

So, I was really bored, and tried to Googling my own nick name. Among the top results was a blog from a bujinkan practitioner, and a link to a wikipedia article on karateka Motobu Chōki, since he is supposed to have created his own kata called Shiro Kuma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motobu_Ch%C5%8Dki#Tra... )

Now, I'm not a karateka, and I don't think I have what it takes to fully appreciate what a karate kata entails, but I am curious. Does anybody have more information about the Shiro Kuma kata?

What are you supposed to do if when walking your dog, another dog attacks, unprovoked? Specifically what if you have a small-medium sized dog (say, a beagle or a basset), and the attacking dog is larger, heavier, typically (or perhaps stereotypically) aggressive (such as pit bulls or rottweilers), and it doesn't "fight" your dog, and instead goes directly for your dog's throat/neck area, and clamps down?

While any suggestions on prevention and follow-up actions are also welcome, I would really appreciate it if you could point out specifically what I could do during the immediate attack. Thanks before...

Every martial art we have today are based on styles that are 'complete'; else they wouldn't have survived until now. But most - if not all - styles today, have become rather specialized, especially when it comes to the competitive forms of each art. Mainstream karate only allows punches and kicks (again, in competition), taekwondo focuses almost exclusively in kicks, judo and bjj allows only grappling and throws, etc.

So, how did each martial art become so specialized?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/1013...

Would you also give chase? Or if you are an instructor, would you tell your students to go after them?

Before martial arts, I used to be on a swimming team. Aside from endurance and strength training, our coaches would also add resistance-training where we would sprint while wearing t-shirts. The rationale was that if you could swim fast with added resistance, you'd do even better when it was removed. But then I came upon an article about the 1996 Olympics in an old National Geographic magazine, mentioning how the US swimming team used a new training method where swimmers were actually pulled by a mechanism so their muscles would become used to faster speeds. Some claim that this method is far more effective than adding extra drag.

So, I was thinking, in martial arts, should "resistance" (uncooperative training partners esp. when practicing throws and locks, more varied attacks when training basic defenses, etc.) outside of sparring/randori/kumite be introduced earlier or later?

Now, my main art is aikido. Ideally, aikidoka are supposed to learn first with no-resisting partners to get a feel of a particular technique's flow; and then gradually resistance against the technique, attack variations, etc. should be added. But in practice, a lot of aikidoka simply stop at the non-resisting-partner phase. On the other hand, one of my old instructors, who likes more liveliness in training, introduces resisting techniques as early as possible. This in turn puts off newer students who didn't have the time to get a feel of how a technique is supposed to go.

So what do you think?

Should resistance be put in early in a martial artists training, or should students be allowed to feel ideal conditions first and then gradually taught how to overcome resistance towards ideal technique?