North Wellington ITF Taekwon-Do

"These techniques are not only the most interesting in Taekwon-Do but also the most advanced." General Choi

Timeless lessons from Grand Master Willie Lim: learn practical applications of pattern movements from one of New Zealand’s earliest Taekwon-Do pioneers. 🔽

More of this please....

Timeless lessons from Grand Master Willie Lim: learn practical applications of pattern movements from one of New Zealand’s earliest Taekwon-Do pioneers. 🔽

Nationals Results
Well Done Wellington Team, Management, Officials & Supporters!
&
Well Done North Wellington competitors!
Full Results:

ringmarshall.nz

Movement matters...
Initially we train hard to a destination point, but then realise the magic happens in the journey that doesn't end!

(Approx 2 minute 25 second read)

As a follow-up to yesterday’s article, I thought I would share a couple of comments I received.

Now and then, I get odd messages from people - especially since I’m an advocate for using kata as a kind of practical Swiss Army knife.

Here’s one that shows how far kata has drifted from its original purpose in some people’s minds:

“Kushanku’s opening traces the wings of a dove before striking with left then right shuto. Naihanchi opens the same, with left and right movement. It is said to symbolize a back against the hull of a ship.”

Others have stated that the ‘fist-in-hand gesture’ is a “moment of pause before the storm” or to “gather energy.” Another said it’s to show an attacker that “you are unarmed.” One more, referring to Kusanku’s opening sequence, said it was meant to “frame the sun or moon.”

It sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? But there are those who actually believe this!

Just for a moment, forget the modern interpretations - the performance, the aesthetics, the woefully inadequate applications involving several attackers politely waiting in the wings - and consider why kata were created.

If kata were made for a combative purpose, wouldn’t it be logical - wouldn’t it be common sense - to ensure each move or technique within the kata had a function to protect you from harm?

If we were creating kata today as a self-defense template for the modern world, would we include empty or symbolic gestures? It would be foolhardy, at the least, wouldn’t it?

“There are no ‘salutation’, religious or empty movements in kata. All movements in the kata have meaning.” - Toguchi Seikichi (1917–1998), 10th dan Goju Ryu

My common-sense position is that a combative kata is made up of combative motions and principles - not empty gestures.

When people don’t understand something, they often find it easier to create their own explanations. We see this all the time, in every part of society.

To psychologists, this behavior is known as ‘rationalization’: if something doesn’t make sense, then make it make sense. Karate is no exception.

Many people believe you can hang a label on anything if you look hard enough. They attach labels to concepts which then become fact… and that is a problem with much of karate today. I’ve written about this extensively.

Prior to karate’s modernization and its shift to mainland Japan, there were no labels for anything. It is said that through the Dai Nippon Butoku Kai (DNBK) desire for named styles and order, the labeling of techniques was born.

For me, when we give something a label, our interest can end in exploring any connection beyond that label. Labels convey something absolute. That’s difficult to navigate away from once it’s decided.

I believe, you have to challenge the labels: What do they mean? Why? How did circumstances lead to that label? At a fundamental level, labels are incredibly simplistic - and they hold us back.

Labels give the illusion of fixed meaning, but as one commentator said, ‘Techniques are verbs, not nouns, trajectories, not end positions.’ - Movement is dynamic, not a static label.

Maybe it’s time we stop framing the ‘sun and the moon’. Kata was never meant to be theatre - it was meant to keep you alive.

Anything less does a disservice to those who trained before us - surely?


Written by Adam Carter - Shuri Dojo

Wise words and impressive movement...

This Silat Master Blew My Mind #silat #martialarts #karate #selfdefense

Knowing the history coded into the DNA of our movements is the key to unlocking their martial intent.

(Approx 2 minute 25 second read)

Today, there are many types of karate. But it’s worth saying what often gets left out: it didn’t used to be this way.

Originally, karate was a method of self-protection - pragmatic and rooted in application. The shift to having ‘many types’ of karate is not something that just happened.

As early as 1908, Anko Itosu, a hugely influential figure in karate’s development, wrote a letter to the Okinawan education department advocating for karate to be introduced into schools.

He spoke of karate as a way to build strong bodies and good character - and while his letter also acknowledged its combative value, it signaled a major step toward institutionalizing the art for different purposes.

This movement gathered pace in 1936, when several of the most respected Okinawan masters met in Naha to discuss karate’s future.

From that meeting came further support for using the characters for 'empty hand' (空手), instead of the older 'China hand' (唐手) - a change already gaining momentum. The push toward alignment with Japanese budo continued, along with a clearer shift toward performance, form, and character development over combative function.

From there, karate began to fragment. We now have karate as sport, karate as tradition, karate as art, and karate for health. That’s fine. People are free to choose what suits them.

But let’s not forget: it didn’t begin that way.

Saying “I train karate for fitness or culture” is fair. But so is saying, “This isn’t the karate that was originally practiced”. Both can be true - and acknowledging that is just being honest.

If we’re going to talk about types of karate, then we also have to talk about context. What is being trained? For what purpose? And how closely does it reflect the original intent - if at all?

Acknowledging karate’s evolution isn’t about claiming ownership or telling others what they should or shouldn’t do. It’s not about saying one group is more legitimate than another. It’s about clarity. Without that, people end up training for one thing while believing it’s for something else.

Context matters.

Take sparring as an example. What kind are we talking about? Point sparring, knockdown, full contact, or something rooted in reality-based scenarios?

Each has a different goal and different rules - and if you train in one while expecting it to prepare you for another, you’re setting yourself up for failure.

It’s the same when people say they teach “self-defense”. But is it really? Or are they just saying the karate they practice includes techniques that could be used in self-defense - while ignoring the parts that truly make it self-protection: the pre-conflict dialogue, de-escalation, avoidance, escape, the presence of witnesses, concern for family members, the potential for weapons, and the legal consequences.

Without these, it’s not self-defense - it’s just fighting techniques.

Context gives your training purpose. Without it, you're just going through the motions. So before you call it self-defense, ask yourself: are you really covering what needs to be covered?

That’s why context matters - because karate wasn’t created for sport, for belts, or even for health. Its original purpose was survival. The old masters understood this, and when you read their words - like Itosu’s 1908 letter - you see a clear intent: to give people something of real value. Not just movements, but principles for dealing with violence.

Karate has changed over time, often for understandable reasons - changes that shifted it toward education, sport, and national identity. But as we adapt it for modern needs, let’s not forget what it was.

Because many already have.


Written by Adam Carter - Shuri Dojo - Inspired by Iain Abernethy


Photo: The meeting of the masters in Naha.


*toryu

Taekwon-Do martial movement concepts and drills 70 years on.

TKD70: Session 12 - Sbn Roy Rolstad Disclaimer: Unfortunately, we missed a few minutes of the session and apologize for any inconvenience. We hope you enjoy it anyways.-------------------------...

ITF Taekwon-Do pattern movements share Shotokan and Okinawan DNA.
Just as many in the Karate community are now coming to understand we in the ITF community need to study and reference the historical roots of our pattern movements if we are to 'close the circle' of our composition of training and unlock the full martial self defence potential inherent in our movements.

(Approx 2 minute 45 second read)

In a recent article, I wrote about how a single movement from a kata could be so much more than just a punch - a grab, a push, a setup for a throw and much more.

I explored the idea that kata isn’t just a rigid performance, but a living system of self-defense. However, you have to look beyond a single technique.

The truth lies in the very purpose of kata. For the pioneers of karate, kata wasn’t a choreographed fight sequence to be performed from start to finish.

Instead, the initial need was for practical two-person drills, born from common assaults. These drills taught effective responses. Kata then emerged as a mnemonic device - a reminder of those responses that could be practiced when alone.

This leads us to the idea that movements in kata often have multiple applications. What might look like a simple ‘block’, for instance, was rarely just a block.

That same movement could be taught as a strike, a grab, a joint lock, or even a setup for a throw. This wasn’t guesswork - it was rooted in the versatile combat needed at the time.

Instructors would often teach multiple interpretations for the same movement, showing its adaptability. A prime example is Motobu Choki, a legendary Okinawan fighter. He consistently demonstrated how seemingly defensive movements could instantly transition into powerful offensive techniques, proving their multi-purpose nature.

People who dismiss kata need to look at its history and understand why we have it in the first place.

The comment section on my Page reveals how misunderstood kata still is. Here are a couple of recent examples.

Someone said, “I’m not here to learn anything”, then went on a tirade about what karate is - and basically described everything that’s wrong with karate as self-defense, which he practiced and defended doggedly.

Another said, “Kata is choreography. Hours upon hours of repetitive technique is good for a competition but in my opinion that’s about it. Spend time with your family, take your wife to dinner - memorable things like that. I’m from the old school: train as you fight, so if you’re going to train to fight then get in the ring/on the mat.”

These comments tell me one thing - many people still see kata as a relic for sport or tradition, rather than a living archive of how to survive when things turn ugly. They confuse the repetitive solo practice with the purpose of that practice.

One person put it plainly: “One of the major issues is that black belt instructors in many cases don’t know the deeper meanings, hence cannot teach them.” And they’re right.

It’s true: endless repetition of a kata, without any clue what the movements are for, is a waste of time if you care about real self-defense. But that’s not kata’s fault - that’s poor teaching, or worse, lazy thinking.

‘Train as you fight’, is a good principle, but you can’t fight your partner full-force every day without breaking them or yourself. That’s why the pioneers built kata - to capture the lessons of violent encounters safely, so you could repeat and refine them alone. The goal wasn’t performance, it was preservation.

If you really want to “train as you fight”, then understand what you’re fighting against. Real violence is messy, close, and often begins when you’re off-guard.

Kata movements, properly understood, address these realities - grabs, sudden strikes, holds, throws, surprise angles. The key is to unlock them, not dismiss them.

It comes back to this: kata is not the answer by itself. It’s the notebook. You still need a good teacher to help you read it, test it, and make it yours. Without that, it’s just pages of words you never learned to use.

So next time someone tells you kata is dead or useless, remember - the real problem isn’t the kata. It’s the people who can’t be bothered to understand it.


Written by Adam Carter - Shuri Dojo


*toryu

Train form for function...

(Approx 2 minute 20 second read)

Lately, I’ve had a lot of comments about how a particular technique is done in this or that style, with this or that detail. Some of these comments are thoughtful… but many miss the point.

If everything goes wrong and you have to fight, you don’t have the luxury of choosing from hundreds of techniques. You’d freeze trying to recall the right one.

That’s not how real combat works - and I don’t believe it’s how the two-person drills in kata were ever meant to work.

This is why I firmly believe: the terminology, the Japanese names we use, can sometimes get in the way. The more you label a movement, the more fixed it becomes in your mind. You stop exploring what else the movement can do.

Let me give you an example.

Bill “Superfoot” Wallace - one of the great kickboxers - had an injury that meant he couldn’t fight like everyone else. So he developed a way of using three different kicks from the same starting position. His opponents couldn’t predict what was coming, because the beginning of each kick looked exactly the same. He had mastered adaptability.

What’s that got to do with us? Everything.

Many of our techniques start from the same place. They just end differently. But instead of seeing that as one adaptable movement, we treat each one as a separate technique - with its own name, rules, and applications. That creates clutter in the mind.

Here’s another example. Someone said that oi-zuki isn’t in older kata. Let’s go with that for a moment - perhaps not as a stepping punch in the way it’s usually taught - but here’s the point: the movement existed long before it got its rigid name or became formalized. That 'chasing' forward action is definitely present in older kata, even if it wasn't called oi-zuki. It’s the function that matters - not the specific term.

If you stop naming every variation, something changes. A simple oi-zuki - let’s use this as the example - no longer means just one thing. It could be a grab, a push, a barge, a chasing strike, a set-up for a throw.

If you open your hand, now it could be an eye gouge, a throat grab, a hair pull. All of it - same start, different outcome.

This is what the karate pioneers understood. Simplicity. Adaptability. Principle over pattern.

That’s why in my own dojo, we still use the Japanese terms - because they provide a shared language. If my students visit another dojo, I want them to understand what’s being asked of them. But those names are just the starting point. What matters more is understanding the principle behind the movement.

When you train that way, the technique becomes adaptable - and the name doesn’t limit what it can do.

I understand the value of naming techniques - it’s part of karate, and it helps with teaching and creating conformity. But in my mind, it can also be too limiting. A technique is far richer when we focus on what it does, not just what it’s called. That’s where true adaptability begins.

In a real confrontation, you won’t have time to sift through a mental catalogue of named techniques. You’ll only have what you’ve trained with intention. That’s why principles matter more than labels.


Written by Adam Carter


*toryu

The martial journey......

Follow @themotivereels for more relatable content . #brucelee #bruceleequotes #emotionalcontent