I would first like to give a big thank you to Chris Parker. I am very impressed with the depth your knowledge and I am humbled by it. Thank you for taking so much of your time to clarify the issues here. Frankly, I did not know what I did not know. This is one reason why I always say I am sometimes the teacher but always the student. I have forwarded your comments to Jeff Hall for his review. I agree with you that the packaging of Hojutsu is unconventional and I have discussed this with Jeff Hall in the past. Regarding the Soke issue. I now understand the issue much better. In the case of Soke Kubota, nothing will change as it is not my place to correct him. It would be highly disrespectful. I can tell you though as the successor of Gosoku Ryu and Hojutsu Ryu systems, I will not be using these titles after the passing of the respective masters. What would be a more appropriate title for Jeff Hall and Soke Kubota? Warm regards and thank you again, Rod Kuratomi
well, in the modern context of 'soke' as "grandmaster", it can be administered by peers. however, usage of the title grandmaster implies one thing: SUPREMACY. chess, golf, go, etc. all these field have in common in grandmastership is that they bested their peers. THEY DEFEATED THE COMPETITION. question now is did mr.hall defeat the people of the US MA hall of fame? or did mr. hall bested people within the same field (hojutsu aka firearms)? it CAN be a ryu. the thing is, it will be answered in the next generation. if it is not properly transmitted to the next generation as a solid and distinct (from other systems) body of knowledge and skills, then it is a failure as a ryu. mind you, it can be a GOOD system, but 'ryu'-wise, if it is not transmitted to the next generation distinctly, it failed. because the ryu has one purpose: TRANSMISSION. if you are trying to be a school of shooting, better to be a 'kan' than a ryu. :hat:
Hi Torao (and all), I have a slightly different viewpoint... (Not a surprise to anyone who knows me) Start - Police officers are people - some great, some good, some average and (sadly) some bad. Next - Whatever the officer is, and wherever in the world they are, they always face risks that the vast majority of civilians (including me) can't comprehend let alone will ever have to face. So - Anything that teaches them how to be safer is OK BY ME - and you can call yourself Soke or Dai Soke or Grand Poobah or ANYTHING as long as you are teaching people how to be safe. Also, It needs to be said that I live in England and speak 'English' English... English is a language full of nuance and it CONTINUALLY changes - words have meanings added and so if 'SOKE' means to me what happens when I go out in the rain without an umbrella... As long as my friends and their friends and their friends friends all start using that word to mean that thing then it is completely legit.
I wanted to address a couple questions brought up by Chris. Your question regarding the "bizzare and incongruent" aspects of the kata. I think you are referring to the transitions from using the handgun to karate techniques. In the kata there is a part with an elbow strike and a knee attack. What is happening in the bunkai is someone is grabbing your holstered handgun. You trap the hand on the gun, deliver an elbow hyper extending strike, an elbow strike to the face, and a final knee strike to the head. As a police officer, someone reaching for your weapon is a very real threat. Your main goal is to prevent the suspect from grabbing your gun and shooting you. You only have time to respond with your empty hands as it happens so quickly. The kata has many real world applications and Kuma as an officer immediately recognized many of the techniques from previous officer training. The transitions are due to the changing nature of the threat in law-enforcement and self-defense. Just because you have a gun, does not mean you have the right to shoot somebody. Law enforcement has an escalation of force continuum that needs to be followed. There are times when you are not justified in using your firearm. The kata represents the dynamic change of the threat. Some threats you do not have time to draw your weapon and shoot even though you are justified like when the suspect reached for my holstered weapon. Other times, the threat level encountered does not justify the use of deadly force as a counter. You would have to have a full understanding of the bunkai and of firearms defense tactics to fully understand the kata. I admit, there are a few questionable instances in the kata of the use of karate but then again, it is not perfect. Then again, many of the traditional katas we practice today have moves that we would not actually use in self-defense, it is done for training of movement, timing, and balance. Regarding the difference of unholstering a firearm and drawing a sword. Though the weapons are different, the concept is very similar. This becomes more evident if one has formal firearms and iaido training. - The draw of the sword and the draw of the handgun looks simple. It is not. It takes a lifetime to master both. For instance, the draw of the handgun is broken into five steps. Each step is difficult to master. Improvement in each step makes the draw more efficient, faster, and more effective in combat. The same can be said about the sword. - One application of the draw of the sword can also be a cut at the same time. Same holds true for the draw of the gun. The gun can be fired from step 3 of the draw, delivering an offensive strike during the draw stroke. - Both take a great deal of repetition to be proficient and effective - Both take a great deal of focus and concentration to perform at optimum levels -Both employ the use of deadly force -Both to the untrained eye look relatively simple The excuse that we are Americans is legitimate. We are not Japanese so we do not have a complete understanding of the Japanese language and the terminology. In fact, most Japanese people in Japan today have no idea of the historical background and usage of the term “Soke” and “Ryu”. We also do not have the knowledge of being a technical historical scholar like yourself. If so few people know of the actual historical application of the term “Soke” then it is not a “gross mistake and error in judgment and respect”. It is a mistake and I have forwarded your post to Jeff Hall to see if we can correct these errors as we do wish to be respectful. Without the Japanese flavor, Westerners would not understand that is a martial art. It would be like any other shooting school where they only teach you how to shoot. They do not teach “the way” or the “do” (as in karate-do). They only teach technique without addressing the mental aspects that makes a martial art an art. The discipline. The respect. The use of the training as a vehicle to attain spiritual improvement. The founders of the martial systems knew this. It is our aim to bring the effectiveness of firearms training to a much higher level by applying the Eastern philosophy to a Western fighting system. Respectfully Submitted...
Boxing is a martial art, it's western (correct me if I'm wrong) and a fair amount of North Americans consider it a martial art, though others consider it a combat sport, which works too.
I would disagree with this. I have not done or taught kata for years (I consider it archaic and inefficient, but that is only IMO) and from an LEO perspective it is ineffectual for training. Just because it has "bells and whistles" does not make it a martial art any more than not having it invalidates the applications. In todays society and environment there is far more of a move towards pragamtism in training and in expectations, and many would actually be put off by the "Eastern Spice" (me for one). I can appreciate the skill and the sentiment behind founding the system, and it looks like something that could be rewarding if pursued long term. However IMO it is also a drawn out and overly formalised method for imparting skills that can be done far quicker and more efficiently
I agree with you that only training in kata is inefficient for fighting but the real benifits are for developing mental concentration and focus and improving efficient movement and balance through repetition of technique. I agree with you that if all you want to do is teach skills, then the use of kata is not as efficient as just teaching movement and technique. If you only want to learn how to shoot, go to gun school. But again, that is not the purpose of the kata. Practice of kata will improve movement, technique, speed, and balance through practice. It is just a tool to be utilized but is not the answer to efficient fighting, but rather a tool that can be used to make a fighter better physically and mentally by improving basic skills and concentration. Regards
Somewhat relevant to this discussion: http://www.karatebyjesse.com/?p=10759 Apparently even calling yourself "sensei" is a bit eyebrow-raising in Japan. A few key quotes here: And here is the key of the article here: That last key sentence is the most applicable. Arguing semantics is all fine and dandy, but what really matters is training, sweat, more training, and more sweat.
One thing I would like to point out too in regards to the kata (and kata in general when you break it down). I'm a really busy guy most of the time, yet I don't work nearly as many hours as some of my coworkers. My good friend typically works 72 hours minimum every week, and often more when he can pick up some overtime, as he's single, has lots of toys, and buys real estate on the side. Often guys don't have a lot of time to keep up their training, or when they do they only have a short time before they have to do something else. This is where the beauty of kata comes handy. By performing this Hojutsu Ryu kata, not only does a practitioner get to practice his draw, footwork, intent, and some basic DT a few times but it's also structured, giving them a down and dirty skills session all in one. If you have only say 15-20 minutes to spare, you could do this kata multiple times and get a fairly decent workout out of it. I've had to do that myself plenty of times, and during my last deployment to Iraq, sometimes the only workout I could fit in between missions was a few reps of Sanchin kata. By having a structured approach to the techniques and tactics in the Hojutsu Ryu kata, it's now a training resource that can be used when there's no time for anything else.
Er, this'll be a long one. Sorry. Thanks, Rod. When it comes to Kubota Sensei, the most appropriate title would not likely be Hanshi (範士), which refers to the most senior instructor in a particular system. Another term that would be appropriate would be Ryuso, which is the actual Japanese term for a founder (translated basically as "source of the flow/stream of knowledge"). The term "Soke" is only ever applied to a founder retrospectively, really, once the system is established and has been passed a few generations. For example Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu refer to their first Soke Iizasa Choisai Ienao simply as "the Founder", as that is his title and position in the Ryu, and is more than simply being a Soke. Then again, he may choose the title Kansho, or Kaisho (Hall Chief, or Club Chief, both being pretty much equivalent of "President"), although that title refers more to the position in an organisation, rather than the art the organisation promotes. Honestly, I'd choose Hanshi, as it is highly respectful of his position within the art, places him above all others there, and is far more appropriate. For the record, the Soke of a particular line isn't necessarily even a practitioner, let alone a teacher, or the most senior teacher at that. Schools such as Katori, or Kashima Shinryu, have their Soke lines (the lines that hold the legal ownership, passed along family lines), as well as the Shihanke (the line that looks after the teaching and passing of the art itself). In that regard, Hanshi implies the fullness of Kubota Sensei's position in a way that Soke doesn't. As far as Mr Hall, personally I'd remove the Japanese trappings entirely. I'd change the name to something along the lines of Hall's Method of Tactical Shooting, or Defensive Firearms, or similar, and give him the position of Founder, Chief Instructor, Director (of the organisation), or something along those lines. Again, this is a more accurate usage of terminology and honorific that truly reflects his position and importance in the methods being taught. It's a Western system, in a Western environment, using Western weaponry, to be used in a Western combative situation, taught by Westerners to Westerners. Using Japanese terminology, especially so incorrectly, simply removes credibility from Mr Hall and his methods, probably unfairly. So to limit that negative impact, I'd remove the incorrect and inappropriate terminology first off. In regards to the name, I am suggesting the change as no part of the current name reflects anything that it is intended to. Referring to something by a Japanese name when it isn't a Japanese art, or derived from a Japanese art (I'd also take out almost all of the karate aspects, or at the very least highly modify them... but we'll get there) makes no sense. What should be remembered is that, to a Japanese ear, calling what you do Jujutsu, or Karate, or Kendo sounds as exotic as us saying we are training in Wrestling, Boxing, or Fencing. The words just aren't magical or mysterious in that way. Add to that the odd grammar used in the structure of the current name (Hojutsu Ryu), and it gets worse. Hojutsu is a skill set, not the name of a Ryu. It really is like asking someone what High School they go to, and they answer "Chemistry 101 High School". If he is desperate to keep the Japanese feel, then simply Hall Ryu Hojutsu would, at least, make sense. But it still isn't Hojutsu when it really comes down to it, it must be said, as that is a specific skill set referring to older style muskets and similar. Tell you what, here's an example of what Hojutsu actually refers to. This is the Morishige Ryu, dating from the mid 19th Century, although based on older systems, with the musket used not having changed design since the 16th Century. This really looks nothing like the modern methods used in your system, it must be said: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-yk5_LaFO8"]Morishige Ryu Hojutsu 5-4-2010 at Shimogamo Jinja - YouTube[/ame] Soke has never meant "Grandmaster", though. It has been misused as such, mistranslated as such, and twisted into that, but it doesn't and has never meant that. It cannot be administered by peers, and there really isn't a "modern" context in this way. It is a traditional title and term, and therefore isn't "modern" nor possessing any "modern" context. From all reports, Mr Hall has indeed outperformed pretty much all others in the use of modern combative firearms, in live situations as well as training drills and skill tests. But that has nothing to do with the use of the term Soke at all. As I said, the Soke doesn't necessarily even need to have ever trained in the art they hold the ownership to, let alone be a "supreme Grandmaster" in any sense. This could be the big point of contention where the issue is coming from. Again, to use Katori as an example, you would not go to the Soke (Iizasa Shurinosuke) to learn from, you would go to the Shihan (Otake Risuke), although your licencing and authority would come from the Soke, as you are being licenced in an art he possesses. Yep, that was pretty much my point. With regard to the Gosoku Ryu of Kubota Sensei, that is filling the checklist, as far as Mr Hall's system, time will tell. But if it isn't Japanese, what makes it a Ryu (Japanese martial system)? Not sure I'd agree there, though.... A Kan refers to a "Hall", and is a term used to denote an organisation, not a system. Shotokan (Hall of Shoto, Funakoshi Sensei's pen-name) was not set up as a system, really. It was an organisation for Karate in Japan, after Funakoshi brought it over from Okinawa. It later developed into a distinct system itself, but realistically it was an organisation for the promotion of Karate (generic, really). Same with Kodokan Judo, the Kodokan is the organisation (club) for the promotion of Judo, Bujinkan is not a martial art, but is the organisation for the promotion and promulgation of Hatsumi Sensei's Budo Taijutsu martial art, and so on. If it's a modern, Western school of shooting, it's better if it's referred to as a "school". In English. Cool. Let's go! No, I got the Bunkai pretty easily. My background includes both TKD and Karate, so I'm familiar with the teaching methods, the approach, the applications, the methodology, and more. And I'm fine with adding in unarmed aspects to handle situations such as weapon retention, in fact I'd encourage it if it was missing. No, what I meant was that the karate portions and the firearm portions were contradictory, almost completely, to the point that it comes across as simply cutting bits out of karate kata and trying to wedge them into the firearm kata without any consideration as to whether or not they form a complete package, or even teach the same concepts and ideas. Again, I agree that putting unarmed aspects into the kata is a good idea, for just such situations as you are describing here. However the karate section and the firearm sections feature completely different movement concepts, postural concepts, use of hips, power source, mechanical structure, distancing concepts, angling concepts, striking concepts, and more. That is what I mean by "incongruent", and what I mean by "bizarre" is that all that does is makes it look like modern violence is not understood at all. It's the same as if, in the middle of a traditional karate kata you suddenly stopped and did some boxing, ducking and weaving, throwing more Western strikes, then went back to the longer, deeper stances and Eastern strikes of the karate form. It doesn't fit, it doesn't work, and lessens the impact and potential draw of the real strength of the system, which is the very real firearm drill. All it does is give the entire system a "mongrel" feel, made up of bits and pieces of not entirely understood established systems, which does it, and those such as Mr Hall and yourself, a disservice from my side of things. I'm going to be frank here and say that these are the superficial similarities I was referring to earlier. But I feel that we'd be simply coming from differences in experiences and understandings there, and can agree to disagree quite happily and easily (I often get involved in discussions with someone on another board about the myriad differences between sword systems, with him saying that they're all the same, and me disagreeing... and honestly, we're both right!). Oh, but for the record, I have trained in both firearms and Iai. Hmm, perhaps you missed why I questioned "but we are American" as an excuse. My point was that, if you are Americans, developing an American art, and are unfamiliar with the correct or historical usage of the Japanese terminology, why use them at all? Surely being American, and stating that all respect is wanted to be paid to the Japanese martial arts and artists, then pleading ignorance of the terms really isn't an excuse. No, again that is no excuse. Western martial arts are actually rather plentiful, including boxing, wrestling (catch-as-catch-can wrestling, Greco-Roman wrestling, freestyle wrestling), fencing, archery, competitive shooting, Jogo de Pau, Savate, La Canne Francais, Baritsu, the various HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) groups, even MMA in many ways, and more. What you're actually saying is that you associate the term "martial arts" with a certain specific "look" to it, and you're assuming that everyone has the same idea. For the record, if you feel that mental training is not present in these Western approaches, then maybe you're getting caught up in the "mystique" of Eastern martial arts, as I see it as an essential aspect of each of those as well. It just may not be given the same lip service... and let's face it, in many Eastern martial art schools, lip service is all that is paid to these aspects as well, with only the techniques really being taught. Realistically, there is no "Eastern" philosophy in that sense, and all of those aspects are very important to the Western systems as well. Do you really think you can learn something like Greco-Roman Wrestling without discipline and respect (for yourself, your coach, your opponents, and so on)? Agreed with this, really. Personally, I am a huge fan of kata training... but then again, I am thinking of kata training in a very different way.... This may be me coming from my background, but I personally feel that the actual strength and purpose, the meaning behind kata training, is being missed completely. Not just here, but in all descriptions I've come across it as it is taught today. While all of the above are part of it, they are secondary, really. And that gets us toward why the karate aspects in the initial kata (and one or two other things) are so out of place to me. Many times when I see kata being discussed, the fans of it point to people such as Iain Abernethy and his approach of "practical application/bunkai", which focuses on finding practical applications of the movements found in the kata themselves. This includes interpretations changing things from being seen as "blocks" to make them seen as throws, joint locks, chokes, or something else entirely. Now, while that's certainly a valid approach, and is highly successful, personally I think it misses the essential matter by focusing on the movements themselves. And that's not the important part of kata. Funakoshi Sensei wrote that the secret to karate lies in the kata. And I agree completely. But that has been taken by many as meaning that the secrets (hidden aspects) are there, in other words, what you may think is "missing" (such as grappling applications) are actually all there, if you change or re-interpret the way things are done. This is typically by people who want their art to be the answer to everything, and contain every possibility. Unfortunately, that is not realistic, as no martial art actually does have everything, or the answers to every situation. Personally, I feel that what Funakoshi Sensei was getting at was that the core strategies, tactics, methods, timings, distancing, angling, and so forth, are contained in the kata. And to see those, you can't look at each individual movement separately, you need to see how they work together. You need to see how distancing changes from this blocking action to this counter strike or kick. What is the timing between them. How does one set up the next. In this regard, the kata are actually teaching you how to fight incredibly well, it's just that most don't recognise that that is what they are teaching, let alone how they are teaching it. Kata should be approached as lessons in tactical approaches, not necessarily mechanical or even technical methods, as that really is the point of kata in the first place. Of course, the issue arises when the kata is not internally congruent with itself, teaching contradicting strategies and tactics, or even deliberately teaching you to make mistakes. And that is what we get in the kata in the first post in this thread. When watching it for the first time, my immediate take was that it was developed by someone who has no idea how kata work, what they are designed to do, how they are designed to do it, and the power with which they transmit such things. And honestly, I'd stand by that. One example is at 3:53 in the video in the first post, where you (Rod) "forget" to look behind yourself. In essence, you've just trained, as a powerful strategy and tactic, forgetting to look behind yourself. I understand why it's out there, it's there as a "here's what happens if you do forget", and a way to enter into the unarmed karate portion of the kata (starting with a defence of the gun as you turn), but it's teaching you to make a potentially fatal mistake. Get rid of that part immediately. You're also drilling (learning on an unconscious level) stepping back into a Yoi ready stance each time after holstering the gun. Again, I get why it's there, it's there as part of the "formal, martial art" approach that Mr Hall is trying to put into his approach to teaching firearm methods, but that posture has no place in firearm training. It's an open posture, but at the same time it's too rooted in the ground, making immediate movement difficult. Ideally, I'd use a relaxed, alert posture, with one foot in front, knees slightly bent (for stability), and close together (for mobility). It's these karate aspects, and this type of attempt at forcing them into a modern training exercise that makes the kata fail, frankly. See above. If the term is self-applied, yep. Agreed, but to a point only. The misuse of terminology shows a lack of understanding and grounding in the area that is being taught. As a result, it can be a huge red flag for systems to be avoided. Sometimes it's true ignorance of what message such mistakes send out, but it is also an indication of other areas that can be similarly flawed. After all, if the training is hard, and you sweat a lot, but the teacher can't even spell the name of the art correctly, wouldn't that make you wonder where they got it from? And how well tested or valid the information is?
Nothing in the martial arts can be totally unquestionable. No offense, but coming from a school that claims "ninjutsu" as their system, you should be aware of this. The name implication alone is questionable. However, that's only an observation and opinion, and not an attack on you or an attempt to derail the thread. It's merely to point out that anything can be scrutizined and found with fault. I know a fellow who's been a student of Shigeru Oyama for many many years now who can't spell or speak Japanese worth a dang. (He's a poor speller in English too actually...) He uses plain English to describe all the techniques he teaches. He says he teaches in English because he's not Japanese. Doesn't mean he can't pass on his knowledge or is a poor teacher because of it.
Ha, yeah. I realise that (although, not to add to any further derailment, that's not entirely an accurate assessment either... out of the various systems, only two actually claim to be "ninjutsu" themselves, with others being related in some way, or purely "samurai" systems. We [in my organisation] use the term as a generic overarching concept, as we don't teach the "samurai" ones, and only have systems that claim a connection to those we would refer to as "ninja", even though the systems themselves are not "ninjutsu" systems. Yeah, it gets complicated...), but I will also point out that there are a range of other systems that I train in that are not related to the one in my signature, which are Koryu through and through. And I will also point out that, even in the Ninjutsu side of things, I apply the same scrutiny, and if incongruence is found, then I would treat it the same way. But the fact remains that the terminology used there is consistent and accurate, the systems themselves are internally congruent as well as being consistent with other contemporary approaches for the most part (leaving aside the natural variation that all systems exhibit), so it's not actually a truly fair comparison. When it comes to your friend teachings Kyokushinkai, he seems to be avoiding using the Japanese terminology as he is unsure of it, which is very different to using it when you don't understand it. Not using it isn't necessarily a sign of problems, but it being used incorrectly or inconsistently (within the context) is.
To run with that for a bit - From what I've read of Wayne Roy's approach to your ninjutsu training, he is not so different than Mr. Hall. Mr. Roy states that "By combining the traditional strategies and tactics of Ninjutsu, and adapting it to deal with todays fighting styles, Sensei Roy has developed a comprehensive martial arts program based on the concepts of movement, with less emphasis on perfecting technique." Mr. Roy recognized that the traditional approach to Ninjutsu was not well suited to the modern age, thus adapted it. Mr. Hall took the approach of hojutsu and adapted it for modern methods as well. Because of those changes, he can't claim it is traditional hojutsu, no more than you can claim your system is traditional ninjutsu. Does that mean you are now no longer doing the system, or did it adapt for survival like many martial systems before? EDIT: Sorry, missed your previous post. When you get right down to it though, it's all semantics. You can pick anything apart given enough time and information.
Heck, look at me. I'm learning what was originally an Okinawan art, that became a Japanese art, which was taught to a Korean guy, who taught it to an African-American guy, who's teaching it to me. If that isn't a jumble I don't know what is.
Ah, that's going to get a little complex... Yeah, I can see how you'd see similarities there, at least in the outset. But really, the two approaches are opposite (in very real ways). I'll see if I can simplify how we approach things, and see where we are then. Our classes are split into a few basic areas. We teach the traditional techniques (taken from the specific Ryu that we teach, Togakure Ryu, Gyokko Ryu, Koto Ryu and Kukishinden Ryu primarily, as well as the Ten Chi Jin Ryaku no Maki), as that informs the modern approach to the art (by providing the strategic and tactical approach of the art, teaching power generation, angling, timing, distancing, and so on), as well as being for historical and interest's sake. Next, we teach a range of weaponry skills, both traditional and modern for a range of reasons from practical self defence (such as knife skills) through to mindset and fine-tuning timing and angling (sword). Finally, we also teach a modernized approach to the needs of todays practitioners in regard to self defence. This area is simply referred to as "Modern Self Defence", though, not Ninjutsu itself. It is, however, based on the traditional aspects as mentioned above. With Mr Hall's approach, he is trying to artificially put a "traditional" aspect into a modern approach, and missed the way both work. Does that help? When it comes to the path that your art has taken to come to you, yeah, it's a little convoluted, but the consistency has been there all the way.
See, that's something that's hard to accept at 100% truth, at least for me. Morio Higaonna once was quoted with saying the reason why he prefers to speak in the language of Okinawa rather than Japanese is because there are many concepts that do not translate over well to Japanese. Compound that by translating it into another language and there is a risk of losing something. An old sensei of mine translates Chinese works into Japanese. He once told me it's amazing how one little error can dramatically change something, and that's why he strives to be so meticulous. If you think of all the English words that sound identical but mean different things, it seems pretty reasonable. It always reminds me of the foreign traveler who mispronounced a word to her chef and, rather than getting the cake like she requested, she instead got a cooked cat.
I've followed this whole thread and i have a few comments. Like Kuma, my concern is primarily with practicalities, does the 'gun kata' work ( i agree with a lot of Chris Parker's comments but can't really get that worked up about them)? Practicality wise i question the whole 'string of opponents' idea as revealed by the commentary. I think of Kata as a kind of textbook/mnemonic, it allows me to remember and practice good form in a concise way, the bunkai/applications revealed by the study and drilling of the kata (particularly as combinations of techniques) is a seperate activity. I would therefore question if the practice of combined gun and empty hand in this way is not likely to do more harm than good, reinforcing strings of actions and reactions likely to be damaging under pressure. I presume a lot of the parts of the kata, particularly the gun 'play', is also drilled seperately anyway. Secondly, i agree with Chris, and it was my main 'huh?' moment watching the video, training a deliberate mistake, that's just crazy! Much respect to Mr. Hall and Torao and i wish them all the best with this work.
I don't think they're training it to be deliberate, more of a "stuff happens, let's train for the worst" approach. It's like a fighting combination in which the first technique doesn't do what you intended for the follow ups, so you have to adapt to the situation.
No, it's a kata. It's a series of repeated movements in sequence designed to imprint behaviours and actions. By having a "mistake" (forgetting to check behind yourself) as a part of the kata, you are repeating, training, practicing, empowering, and imprinting on your behavioural neural pathways that mistake. You are literally training yourself to make that mistake. That's the way kata works. Hence, I'd remove that part immediately, if I was reviewing the system from a developmental point of view. In essence, training to handle failure is one thing, deliberately training that failure to ensure it happens is quite another. Surely you're familiar with the cases of police officers found at shootouts with their pockets full of shells... because they had trained on the range to pick up the shells when they expended a clip, rather than later (to save time). This is the same idea.
