|
Post by jimlukelkc on Apr 29, 2013 13:02:01 GMT
The key is to understand "why" the techniques work. Try to get beyond the simple memorising of individual techniques and endeavour to fully understand the principles of combat upon which the kata are based. Principles are far more important than techniques. Principles can be applied in an infinite number of ways, but techniques are very specific and hence limited. Endeavour to fully understand the principles of kata and learn how to fight in accordance with them. Whilst initially this understanding will be on an intellectual level, you should aim to integrate these principles into your subconscious. I. Abernethy....
Saw this and wondered if anyone had any thoughts.?
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Apr 29, 2013 20:34:05 GMT
I dont really agree with the whole "learn the principle and the techniques dont matter" view.
For one, the techniques and principles are linked and inseprable. If you talk about principles with out techniques to me its like talking about the gas with out the automobile. Both are linked, yes you can use the "Gas" (Principles) with other "equipment" but you still need something to use to affect them!
My take on some of this is that it is on some level just kicking and punching. The art can actually be removed from the practice and used in other things, but principles and techniques...they are not something that can exist with out each other.
Studying principles means you are studying techniques, and studying technques means you are taking up the study of principles.
Just my two cents worth.
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Apr 29, 2013 22:01:38 GMT
Hi James I don't think Jim (or infact Iain) is saying techniques aren't important. Infact the whole point of drilling is to develop your skills in applying the techniques. If you can't perform your go-to techniques to the best of your ability.. then you need to practice more (which for all us non-ego-manic-self-delusionists is why we never stop practicing) I think the problem with the quote Jim published is that it is slightly taken out of context as it relates to the common problem for new karateka (or to those older practitioners who originally ignored its practice as having no martial merit) who only focus on the techniques in kata when considering bunkai. If you do that you are missing 1/2 the picture. For example understanding the principle behind hikite elevates it from a traditional learning aid for developing hip-rotation, to one of the most effective fighting tools you have. Why would you not want to be able to control limbs, remove obstacles or unbalance you opponent or setup a knock out blow... No one seriously learning karate would want to miss out on that surely? and yet 10 years ago the common response was that we do hikite because it inceases the power of our strikes by ensuring we can fully apply our hip into the punch (or something similar). People only know what they know, which means if you are not looking for it you will never see it. This is what kata principles are all about. Understanding the context enables the kata practitioner to spot the otherwise non-obvious techniques. Kata Principles also help to ground the practitioner. By focussing their interpretation around more realistic fighting senarios this can help to prevent the creation of unrealistic bunkai ( a common problem often seen if you spend anytime on youtube). Also if you just focus on techniques in kata without understanding the underlying principles you can end up with the TKD interpretations of the shotokan kata's...which are just horrible from a pragmatic fighting perspective (really high kicks, weird timing and breathing etc). or worse case scenario, as General Choi did, decide to jumble them up to create your own unique sets....or as he claimed; 3000 year old forms secretly passed down from the ancient masters - honestly he did say that, (ok I am paraphrasing somewhat )
|
|
|
Post by jimlukelkc on Apr 30, 2013 8:25:52 GMT
Thats right Tom I think the point is that understanding the principle augments the the technique, they are indeed inseparable but the principle makes the choice of technique much more instinctive. Instead of making a choice from a wide arsenal of techniques and then having to to select the most appropriate for a given scenario, the principle selects the techniques.
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Apr 30, 2013 11:59:33 GMT
Hey Guys, What I am saying is more like the principle is the technique and the technique is the principle! To often we see long teaching "lectures" on principles and the instructor fogets that Hikite is a technique and the use of hip and opposing forces is NOT a principle, its a technique! Their is a grand misunderstanding regarding Techniques and principles when teaching and I see it when I go to courses, talk to others and read blogs on line. a principle by definition is a rule or belief goverining ones behavior or a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as a foundation for a system of belief or behavior or a chain of reasoning........Not "Pull your opposing hand back to add power to/create better hip use ext"...that is explaining a technique and not a law or rule! if we are going to talk principles then we have to start using more Physics in the class and laws fo biology ext and so on....but most instructors get so wrapped up in using "Sciency sounding" terms that they mis use them all the time. Hikite and its use is not unto itself a principle! Throwing a punch with proper hip use is NOT a principle, hell pushing into the floor when doing all this with your back leg and adding power is still not a principle.....symantics?....absolutely! The point being is that we tend to listen to those that use terms like "lines of force"..."principles"...."Application of Newtons laws"...."Core theories"....."Kinematics" ...."dynamics of motion" ext and so forth...and most of the time they are talking out their arse...or worse yet.....they are fancying up a good lesson and "whoring" it up a bit to make them sound smarter. What the heck is wrong with "hey if you pull back your hikete hand and use your hip like this its better"? Point also being that Techniques and principles are inseprable and we do a physical art....so its not required and most of the time not wanted that we give a university level class to those that want to simply get a great work out and have some fun!
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Apr 30, 2013 16:09:17 GMT
Hi James He he... clearly touched a raw nerve... Certainly I apologise if my words are coming across a bit pseudo-high-brow (that is just poor word-craft on my behalf). However I don't agree with your interpretation of the term "principles" (as I think Jim and I are using it in the discussion on Kata Bunkai). Firstly using sciencey words to sound smart or more knowledgeable is as bad as using pseudo-sciency words to fool the unwary and hide a lack of substance. (shampoo ads for example). However there is a fine line here, technical terms exist to facilitate conversations on specialist subjects between knowledgeable participants (10p to all those who spotted the deliberate irony). If your understanding of the word principle is different from mine then only confusion will reign... as I think has happened with my example of Hikite. My understanding of the Principle behind hikite is; In a real fight (or to be precise, at the range a real fight occurs, i.e. not sparring) use both your hands! Use your non-striking hand to gain advantage (through grabbing, pulling, twisting etc) to facilitate your striking technique (by creating an opening or opportunity ) and provide a datum (or target that does not require line of sight) that will significantly improve your aim.My understanding of the Technique of Hikite is; grab your opponent (arm, hair, sleeve etc) twist sharply and simultaneously pull your fist to your hip... So the Principle is like a strategy (it provides the reason, the objectives and the circumstance to which it should be applied), whilst the technique describes the actions you perform and the expected outcomes as a direct result of applying the technique. Obviously there is a bit of overlap here between principles and Techniques - but all of us agree on this point I think. Only using Hikite to aid your punching form just demonstrates a lack of understanding of the applications demonstrated in the kata. I would agree however (and I am guilty of this) that when you come to train the last thing you want is your instructor talking at length about theory whilst not actually doing or practicing it. My final point is that I would suspect that when you take a class James you are flavouring your lesson with little snippets of "principles" without realising your doing it. Such as when correcting someones form you might say something along the lines of "pull the leg back at the same speed to prevent it being caught" or "shift more with the block to move to his blind side" These are principles with which you could apply to a range of techniques, not just the one you happen to be correcting. ....and anyway who says science isn't fun?
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Apr 30, 2013 19:12:05 GMT
Hi James He he... clearly touched a raw nerve... Why is it that when I go off suddenly everyone thinks they struck a raw nerve? Im getting old, like old dynamite I tend to go off (on tangents) for no reason sometimes, just takes a nudge! Not offended at all as long as you are not offended by my diatribe! ;D Well, its not “my interpretation of the word” whenever I run into a question mark like that I verify with the dictionary…..you know…that word book thingy that we have replaced with modern web based technology…..I only laugh because my friends kid saw me using mine and said “Sensei you know you can use your phone for that and “google” it!” Yup…getting old! I think its kind of a situation where by you are using a term to illustrate a particular “thing” and as always frustrates me…..the more suitable descriptive term eludes the situation! I hate when that happens! Or maybe we just have different ideas and the verbiage is getting in the way. Using your example of the Hikite, and then grabbing and pulling the partner when you do hikite for various given reasons this is my assessment of the terms “I would use” for this. The Technique is the Hikite that you are discussing, the Application is the pulling of your partners arem, the Implication of the technique is that you are clearing the arm out of the way so you can land the punching technique and the principles that you are using would be things like balance (yours), off balance (your partners), Power and speed, Concentration of muscle power (both pulling and pushing), opposing forces to generate power (pulling the arm and pushing out the punch), Timing, distance ext and so forth. The act of grabbing, pulling and twisting with the Hikite then becomes both technique and application/implication, but the forces at work to allow this, or the principles would be those that allow the movement to be successful. The techniques thus describe an action and the principles the elements that allow the techniques to be completed properly in the first place. I do have to admit that my definition of principles of motion and principles of Karat tend to come from my back ground in biomechanics and physics however, and often annoy as they sound a tad bit stuffy! I would agree however (and I am guilty of this) that when you come to train the last thing you want is your instructor talking at length about theory whilst not actually doing or practicing it. I have had instructors that “Chat” or “lecture away” while we cool down and begin to boar! I dislike this a lot and when I teach I don’t do a lot of talking, I tend to play drill sergeant more than professor of lectures. What it boils down to form me is that we kind of “get each other” when it comes to what we are saying. Does my terminology jive with everything you are saying and how you say it…probably not, but I understand what you are talking about. My final point is that I would suspect that when you take a class James you are flavouring your lesson with little snippets of "principles" without realising your doing it. Such as when correcting someones form you might say something along the lines of "pull the leg back at the same speed to prevent it being caught" or "shift more with the block to move to his blind side" These are principles with which you could apply to a range of techniques, not just the one you happen to be correcting. ....and anyway who says science isn't fun? I do flavor the classes with my own terminology and I think that is natural. I also think that it helps some people relax, like “oh, Sensei knows what he is talking about….he said X again”….but the truth is that showing someone a minor change in the way they perform a technique is not altering principles in anyway shape or form for that matter, its altering a “structural placement” or at best “Adjusting alignment” which does lead to changes in some principles….like lines of force, Balance… and others. Science is fun to think about….but damn if it does not give you a head ache and get you off track…by just a bit!
|
|
|
Post by jimlukelkc on May 1, 2013 6:44:24 GMT
I don't think the quote is suggesting they are separate, just that the principle is the key to applying techniques freely. The principle is the part that becomes instinctive and allow the appropriate technique that fits the principle to be utilised. This approach affords if anything a deeper understanding of technique . Technique is vital but without the prin
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on May 2, 2013 18:13:13 GMT
Yes you are right, we are using the term "principle" to mean different things... or to be more accurate we are applying the term to different fundamentals. which explains your previous comment
If we go back to the quote that Jim posted at the start of this thread, the principles to which Iain Abernethy is referring are focused on understanding the context or situation to which the kata is applied and therefore the tactics or fighting strategies best suited for the situation, rather than the bio-mechanical principles necessary to perform good technique.
I firmly believe that until you understand the context of a kata, a practitioner will only take out the most obvious application lessons and miss the real value that lies within.
For clear examples of where a practitioner has not grasped the situational context of a kata, all you need to do is just look at some of the extremely dubious kata interpretations on you tube... (long range karate attacks, over reliance on the attacker performing very specific actions in combination, over-focus on reactive block-strike combinations...)
|
|
|
Post by kensei on May 3, 2013 11:50:22 GMT
Hey Tom, I agree...but one caviet, the context is subjective. I have seen "applications" for the same move done 1,000 different ways from different instructors. As an example, the simple first move of Heian shodan....Can be a block to a kick, block to a punch, blocking a grab, a throw, a "prep" movement for the punch attack, a strike to the groin if someone grabs your shoulder...a ....well you get the point. The context changes so much....ergo...the "principles" must change as well neh? I think that the lovely thing about Karate is that the diversity in ideas, uses, applications, principles and everything else makes it dynamic and exciting. One should not discourage debate (of which I love because it helps me grow) they should embrace the differences...so thank you for arguing and debating with me! Understanding the context of a Kata is very much subjective as well. You will note that Goju stylists tend to do the whole grab and pull thing while Shotokan stylists tend to think of the Hikite as just adding power to the strike. I find it interesting that you aserted that it was a pulling move. Your context is very interesting!
|
|
|
Post by makoto on May 3, 2013 15:59:53 GMT
My beef here in Japan, is that there are so many insturctors who get upset if your draw hand is not in the right position. Yet, they have no idea of why to do the motion in that particular way in the first place. Concepts, theories, applications, principles, etc, I really do not care how it is worded. Does it work? Does it aid in make me more effective? I can also say that if do it one way in kihon but you bunkai version is totally different, then maybe something needs to be changed, especially when the main muscle groups involed in the bunkai is different from those used in the kihon. It sends a totally wrong message.
|
|
|
Post by Rob S on May 3, 2013 18:22:53 GMT
My beef here in Japan, is that there are so many insturctors who get upset if your draw hand is not in the right position. Yet, they have no idea of why to do the motion in that particular way in the first place.... John , this is often, sadly, the case in Sunny Nippon. Questions never, or rarely, get asked. It is the culture. Students, emulate, imitate, copy, whatever we want to address it as! But they do not get lectures, they rarely get explanations, and almost always, just 'do'. That is their culture. I was there just 2 weeks ago (sorry I did not look you up - even I was in Ichikawa, but I was in Chiba for only a very very short time!). I went to dojos in Niigata, Tokyo, Kamakura, Chiba, Hokkaido and Mimasaka. Not once was any explanation offered. Not once was an application given. Only correction on technicalities! Oc course that is why their karate is so technically correct. Because that is what they do, technicality. Perhaps westerners cannot accept or understand. The issue, to me, is simple. Japan just 'do', westerners want to know 'why'. Perhaps Okinawa is more akin to the western mentality. Perhaps that is why certain western sensei are making such a name for themselves in the 'bunkai' or 'applied theories'. Perhaps that is why one former member of these boards made his name in karate for implications and other 'reality based concepts'. But, and I will always support Japan, how many of these westerners can out perform their Japanese counterparts? How correct are we? Do we sacriifice technicality? Are we a function over form society, or form over function .. .like our compatriots in Nippon?
|
|