COMO Karate

Contrary to what even some higher ranking yudansha may say, kata DOES NOT and was NEVER INTENDED to teach you to fight from 8 directions or multiple opponents before you and behind you.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗡𝗕𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗡 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗘𝗣𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡
One of the most widespread, yet erroneous, interpretations in Karate practice concerns the meaning of directions in kata. It is often stated that moving along the eight directions symbolizes fighting against multiple opponents surrounding us. However, the great masters of the past agree in defining this view as nonsensical and technically limiting.

MABUNI'S CRITIQUE
Kenwa Mabuni, the founder of Sh*tō-ryū, addressed this issue with extreme clarity in his 1938 book, Kōbō jizai goshin kenpō Karate-Dō Nyūmon. He harshly criticized the idea that a kata developed along eight directions served to fight eight opponents, defining such an interpretation as highly unreasonable.
Analyzing the Pinan/Heian kata, Mabuni warns that their literal interpretation (e.g., "I turn left because the enemy is on the left," "I turn back because there is an enemy behind") would render the art 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴. For Mabuni, there is only one plausible meaning: the directions of the kata do not indicate where the enemy is, but teach how to get out of the frontal line of attack by moving sideways to gain an advantageous position.

MIYAGI'S WARNING
Mabuni was not alone in this analysis. Miyagi Chōjun, founder of Gōjū-ryū, also warned practitioners in his Kaisai no genri ("Theory for deciphering [kata]"):

"Do not be deceived by the enbusen, i.e., the line/direction of ex*****on along which the various techniques of the kata are developed."

"There is only one opponent, and he is in front of us. In kata, we turn in many directions along the lines of the enbusen, so we tend to believe that kata is a situation where a karateka fights against multiple opponents simultaneously: this is not so. In principle, we should consider the imaginary opponent to always be in front."

Master Motobu Chōki, known for his pragmatic approach to kumite, was entirely aligned with this perspective. He reiterated the same concept regarding the Naihanchi/Tekki kata: despite the lateral movement, there are no enemies to our side.

CONCLUSION
In light of these indisputable sources, insisting on explaining kata as a simulated fight against a circle of attackers is not just a technical error. It is an 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 and 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 view, which ends up ridiculing kata itself, transforming what should be a sophisticated manual of tactics and strategy into a fanciful choreography devoid of any real martial logic.

PS: The photo shows the original page from Mabuni's book, in relation to the cited passage.

*toryu

Some good information about Shogo titles from our friends at Shorin Ryu Club

As one continues on their journey in Karate they will undoubtedly come across a plethora of titles. Unfortunately most people are not actually taught how such titles should be used.

We have talked about high ranking, title belts such as the Kohaku-Obi, Akai-Obi, as well as the Title Stripes system. We have also talked about different words for instructors, such as Shidoin (指導員) and Shihan (師範).

Of course the rest of the titles hold an important place in the hearts of many karateka. But what are those titles?

Renshi 錬士
Kyoshi 教士
Hanshi 範士

Here’s the problem with such titles, they are what we in the west call, Written Titles. They are written listing of credentials. In Okinawa and Japan these titles are backed by the Japanese government and there are strict regulations for such. However, these strict regulations are not extended to foreign students, nor are many of these foreign students taught how to properly utilize such titles.

For starters, none of these are verbal forms of address. The proper verbal honorific for a title holder is simply, “Sensei.” Only someone who is uneducated about such titles, and perhaps more than wee bit egotistical, would expect to be verbally referred to by one of these titles.

A simple way to think of this is the difference between Ph.D and Doctor. While many college professors hold a Ph.D, we call them Doctor. Same goes in Japan. In the USA they may be “Dr. Tanaka,” but in Japan they’d be “Tanaka Sensei.” Never would we call them “Ph.D Tanaka.” It would be inappropriate to refer to someone in such a manner. This is also how things work in Karate?

“Good morning, Kyoshi Smith,” would be incorrect and extremely inappropriate.

While, “Have you met Smith Sensei? He’s a Kyoshi, 7th dan in Shorin Ryu,” would be perfectly acceptable.

It would also be perfectly acceptable for such an individual to list said title when writing a book, on the official advertisements for a seminar, or when signing a formal written address (thus Written Title). It would not be appropriate to use it in an informal manner (such as here on FaceBook). Furthermore, like all Japanese honorifics and titles, they should be listed after the name in both Japanese and English:

John Smith, Renshi, 6th dan

It is a huge red flag to come across the holder of cultural titles, that lacks this basic cultural knowledge. Be careful who you put your trust in, because that, “Highly respected Kyoshi,” that you believe to be humble and knowledgeable, might actually be an ignorant, egomaniac chasing false glory. Or hers. Women are just as deserving of titles as men, and just as prone to vices.

PS. I am by no means saying the “general ranks” in the table is what we do, they are simply generally used ranks. Not sure why that needed specified.