The Way of Least Resistance

Introduction I've titled this article provocatively for a good reason.  No, it's not just another "polemic".  Well it is... but for a good reason!  As you'll see, I'm not dismissing karate.  I am simply challenging one aspect of the way it is generally practised today (specifically in kata and frequently in bunkai). Basically, I'm going to propose (I'm certain, controversially) that there is a "fundamental flaw" with this practise. I'm also going to propose that it is principally this one flaw that has given rise to the dismissive (and arguably well-deserved) attitude sport fighters have towards karate and "like" arts (taekwondo, kenpo, many gong fu systems etc.) - at least in their traditional, kata/form/pattern expression. 1 I'm going to propose that this "fundamental flaw" is precisely what has fueled (albeit indirectly) an entire industry of "practical karate" books, videos and seminar serie...

Introduction My recent article about Ed Parker's basics in 1963 provoked a storm of protest and understandably so: he is the "senior grandmaster" of practically all kenpo lineages in America.  It seems sacrilegious to call his technique into doubt - even in 1963. Well in fairness to Ed Parker, I did find some footage of him kicking in his later years - it looks like the '80s - and I have to say the kick is perfectly functional. In fact, he breaks some boards (something Parker seems to have done quite well) and the kicks and punches were well up to the task. So I post the video by way of "atonement" for my comment that I doubted his technique would have improved in later years.  It clearly did.  Whatever one might say of Ed Parker, he was not one to rest on his laurels as I had so dismissively (as well as rashly and unfairly) assumed. But if there is any "silver lining" in this whole debate it is this: a discussion has ensued about the ...

Introduction When I was in my instructor's dojo back in the '80s, we trained annually with the head of our parent organisation at his geiko and gashuku (intensive training courses and camps).  During these our "headmaster" would often speak about the need to "transcend the physical" at some point in our martial journey.  But he never really explained exactly what he meant by this. After a few years, and a few more gashuku, it became clear that he was speaking of some kind of "metaphysics": ie. something "supernatural" or "beyond our current scientific understanding". Yet whenever I observed our headmaster during training, there seemed nothing remotely "transcendent" about him: he did the same stuff we did, namely basics, kata, applications, weapons - just with the odd parlour trick thrown in (like the " unbendable arm "). It's now quite clear to me that many, many other schools' headmasters s...

Following my last article " The woo way of taijiquan " I have received a lot of feedback in various places (Facebook, forums, etc.) .  Most of it has been overwhelmingly supportive and positive.  This is heartening. Some of it has been very negative.  I suppose that is to be expected when your write polemics as I do.  In relation to the latter, I've had a number of consistent questions and I thought I'd address them here: "How can you say you're being 'scientific' when you haven't done any kind of proper study?" This argument suggests that I haven't really done enough to claim that "science backs me up". Well it's true that I haven't done a scientific study.  What I have done is point out that basic physics doesn't support the woo merchants - ie. that their claims are  extraordinary . And, despite any initial sophist protestations, I think they would have to agree: If basic physics  did  support thei...