|
Post by th0mas on Oct 31, 2012 15:10:42 GMT
I often think that Bunkai is like fitting a round peg in a square hole when some people get "out of the box" on them. What? do you mean you have to hammer them in? ...or is that a square peg in a round hole?
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Nov 1, 2012 7:15:09 GMT
Thomas, I completely get the point of studying kata for principle over prearranged sequences. It's actually at the core of how I work kata and nice to meet someone who sees it the same way. The point though was why try to fit a choke in that point when there is a perfectly effective simple and obvious percussive application available. There are definitely chokes in the kata and their positioning in the forms tells us much about applying them, I just think this one is a stretch.
To each his own I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Nov 1, 2012 12:53:57 GMT
I often think that Bunkai is like fitting a round peg in a square hole when some people get "out of the box" on them. What? do you mean you have to hammer them in? ...or is that a square peg in a round hole? Must be done differently here in the New world....we use a jack hammer! ;D I think that some people approach Bunkai by having an idea about what they want to do and then deconstruct the Kata to figure out were it fits. Like they know they want to introduce a technique, lets say a take down...they look at a particular kata randomly and see were they can fit the foot sweep take down in....does not matter if the Kata is not really built for it or better yet they look at a shoulder throw and in stead of going through the Kata to find out what one actualy has one they Force it into a kata that obviusly is not built for one. By that standard we dont need Kata...we only need Waza Keiko and move on! I would much rather look at a Kata and what the techniques are suggesting and teach the Kata in its fullness with all the possible Bunkai that FITS into the norm of the Kata. Round peg...quare hole!
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Dec 30, 2012 13:27:43 GMT
He spends a great deal of time suggesting the first move as a wrist lock of some sort, but you have to switch it from a Kamae a great deal to accomplish this, Now I know that some will say that you need to expand your thinking to see this...but I simply dont think its worth making that huge change to accommodate that move, it changes the very nature of the original move. The way Empi was taught to me by the masters I trained with was that this was a ready stance that was used to start the kata by sucking the attacker in close for the true first move. I see how if you change the movement to a wrist lock that the first "real" move makes sense, I do...but I am a bit of a purist at heart and dont like to change Kata to suite a application, I prefer to see what the actual move could be suggesting and a few of his were stretches. Hi Kensei I realize that I am a bit late, but I thought it was relevant that a lot of karateka, through Mich study and research, have çome to the conclusion that wherever you see any stacked hands position in kata you are seeing a grappling technique. Now I personally think that this is often an excuse for extravagant joint locking where two hands grabbing a forearm will do, but as you yourself point out, it makes sense; far more so than trying to dictate an opponent's actions by how you stand. Those ideas çome from ken jutsu, and holding a sword, warrior vs trained warrior they make sense, but not in empty handed fighting and less so if you consider karate for civilian self defence alone. Lastly, while I am the first to step on fallacious arguments about the inauthenticity of Shotokan kata, forms have no purpose without application and it has always been the teacher who shaped the form once his knowledge allowed it. That aside, it is my opinion that playing with, varying and expanding on the dead movements of kata is vital to both understanding their applications and actually using them in live encounters. Exploring the same technique via variations in movement and emphasis of force helps us çome unshackled from the form and go into the fight while still being guided by the strategy and tactics of a given kata.
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Dec 31, 2012 13:38:12 GMT
Hi Kensei I realize that I am a bit late, but I thought it was relevant that a lot of karateka, through Mich study and research, have çome to the conclusion that wherever you see any stacked hands position in kata you are seeing a grappling technique. Now I personally think that this is often an excuse for extravagant joint locking where two hands grabbing a forearm will do, but as you yourself point out, it makes sense; First off let me say, with out any intended insult, that when you get "a lot of Karateka" to sit in a room...you NEVER get a solid agreement if said Karate people are peers! Now if a senior says "this is how it is" then you get a hut full of OUS! and thats about it. I happen to see it different, Stacked hands dont always mean Grappling, they can be augmenting a techniuqe or they can be grappling...but when you look at a Kata and want to see the applicable techniques...you have to take a "whole picture" kind of view, look at the Katas intent and...yes I know some hate this...Charactor or feel of the Kata to be more clear. if a Kata like Jutte suddenly has a movement like Yama Kamae with the Fumikomi some moron will say something like "Hey, he is doing that holding a 240 pound man over his head" and every Sheep out their will not only try and teach it that way...but some poor gits going to have a 240 pound dude over his head while doing that......dont generally just agree with what others say, I research it and listen...but then I make my own mind up if it works for me. Besides, get 10 Karate Peers in a room to chat about Bunkai and if they are not all students of the same guy, or if they are not all from the same club and you have Chaos that will lead to a bloody battle and bickering! far more so than trying to dictate an opponent's actions by how you stand. Those ideas çome from ken jutsu, and holding a sword, warrior vs trained warrior they make sense, but not in empty handed fighting and less so if you consider karate for civilian self defence alone. If you have never suckered a partner into attacking you when you want or at the target you have picked out for them, then you aint trying hard enough Kamae can be used to "sucker in" opponents to attack you on your terms to get a good counter. Its free style fighting 101! Lastly, while I am the first to step on fallacious arguments about the inauthenticity of Shotokan kata, forms have no purpose without application and it has always been the teacher who shaped the form once his knowledge allowed it. The first part of your statement is 110% true...so is the last part but sadly some instructors dont know the history of the Kata, the intenet and just verbally puke up what their seniors have taught them for years and years and often...they get it wrong and pass it on as such....and that is more a blanket statement than anything. The problem is that Kata can be and has been mistaught for so long and you have no litmis test to work with. If you teach a strategy in Kumite and you teach it wrong then when your students spar they will notice that the idea you passed on basically blows goats and you dont know what you are teaching...but if you pass on bad Kata applications, horrible history stories that make not sense when held to the light or you basically are talking out your arse about a specific movement you thought would look cool as an application....you will more than likely get away with it.....unless its some silly "and if he swings a sword at your head then you grab the blade betwen both hands...."kind of crap..and even then only 80% of the time your students will leave wondering what kind of head injury you have. That aside, it is my opinion that playing with, varying and expanding on the dead movements of kata is vital to both understanding their applications and actually using them in live encounters. Exploring the same technique via variations in movement and emphasis of force helps us çome unshackled from the form and go into the fight while still being guided by the strategy and tactics of a given kata. I agree to this 50%! ;D First off I dont agree that the Kata has "Deadmovements" at all. The use of subtle pause, concentrated Kamae and other movements that some see as frilly and dead are not dead at all. they are strategy that some miss in their game. Sometimes the most potent movements in sparring are those done covertly and with no movement at all. I once saw a national Kumite champion stand so still I thought something had happened like a injury or something...then when the opponent tried to attack he blasted the poor sot for thinking his external posture reprosented his internal thinking. However, I am one to experiment with applications and defensive moves. But I draw the line at creating some kind of defene that would work 10% of the time on tuesday only if the wind was coming in from the south and my attacker grabbed my wrist "just so". Been in way to many real life acts of violence to think that would work. Researching Kata, experiments and the like are fine, but dont get so far from the base line that you have to alter the ideals of the Kata to make it work. Dont stray so far as to that you are "making it up" as you go as it were and dont go so far outside the box that you tend to ignore the box. Be creative but be intellegent about your crativity.
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Jan 2, 2013 1:03:26 GMT
I happen to see it different, Stacked hands dont always mean Grappling, they can be augmenting a techniuqe or they can be grappling... I concur. Depending on the technique in question there are a range of options, but all those I can think of are more pro-active than a kamae, except of course for a kamae. Understand I don't think this idea of inviting an attack is wrong; as you point out at certain times it is a valid tactic, but is it really a first choice considering how high risk a method it is. There are other issues with it but to look at them moves away from the important point. This is really an issue of what you hold as your core belief about applications for kata and how you determine a foundation of applications to train in the face of so many possibilities. If you believe that kata apply primarily to dueling between karateka who tend to fight from distance, then I can see holding an application that involves dropping your guard and giving up initiative to your adversary as foundational, but it doesn't really fit for a self defence paradigm. I agree with looking at the feel of a form as one important route to developing application but this is why experiment and variation from the standard is so important. In my view the standard performance is a base template, not a biblical codex. The feel of a kata can be completely obscured by the standard performance (Nijushiho and Hangetsu spring to mind). When I speak of dead movements I am referring to all kata movements in that they are meaningless and empty until we put them to use on an opponent. And for me this is really the key issue: are applications something to be talked about between kata repetitions or are they the live (firm+ contact, resisting and adaptive partner training) training to be practiced and ingrained with living resisting opponents, that impart all of the skills strategies and tactics of your fighting art? If the latter, then bad applications will be found out on the mat and will not survive the endless testing of students and teachers alike. If kata are truly at the core of the training then the teacher should have done the hard work and gotten the feel of the form. They should have also researched the history, compared and contrasted the form across different styles, studied similar movements across other arts and made certain that every application not only worked and was tactically sound for the aim (self defence/jiyu ippon kumite/UFC etc) but that they fit within the context of the preceding and following techniques. The remaining few applications per movement can easily be paired down into a structured syllabus. You talked about keeping the ideals of the kata, but unless you know something I don't, it is the job of this generation of karateka to work out what those ideals are because those that came before did not know and were content with empty handed kendo that bore no relation to the kata they were handed. That means that it's all up for grabs, nothing is sacred. Yes there are limits to how far one should or could take that, but honestly I think so long as you are working from a process like the one I described then your on pretty sturdy ground. The creator of this empi bunkai is one of Iain Abernethy's devotees, an evidence based pragmatist in kata study. For me at least it doesn't get much more academically sound. Even if I don't agree with the conclusions I respent the method.
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Jan 2, 2013 10:50:53 GMT
You talked about keeping the ideals of the kata, but unless you know something I don't, it is the job of this generation of karateka to work out what those ideals are because those that came before did not know and were content with empty handed kendo that bore no relation to the kata they were handed. That means that it's all up for grabs, nothing is sacred. Yes there are limits to how far one should or could take that, but honestly I think so long as you are working from a process like the one I described then your on pretty sturdy ground. The creator of this empi bunkai is one of Iain Abernethy's devotees, an evidence based pragmatist in kata study. For me at least it doesn't get much more academically sound. Even if I don't agree with the conclusions I respent the method. here here.. well said! This was the main thrust of the reason i posted the topic in the first place. In some respects the specific techniques shown in the you tube video are secondary to the rationale and the following method that derived them. This enables you as a karate practitioner to pressure test the techniques within the correct context and adopt, adapt and discard as you see fit depending on what works for you personally or based on your own experience etc.. As an example: Personally I am not happy with the specific's of the arm-bar throw interpretation from the youtube video of the rising punch followed by rising knee section of Enpi kata. However I do like his rationalisation prior and post this application and the logical flow he proposes. So I am looking at alternatives...which is fun
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Jan 3, 2013 13:07:35 GMT
While PETA may get after us for beating a dead horse on this one….I am all for it!....... Understand I don't think this idea of inviting an attack is wrong; as you point out at certain times it is a valid tactic, but is it really a first choice considering how high risk a method it is. It is one tactic, lets get this straight right off the bat, there are not absolutes in Karate. You wont find me saying that 110% of the time you need to do A or you should never do B when the attacker is doing C! That kind of thinking is white belt-esk and probably what most junior instructors teach like when they start out. The truth is that we face all kinds of people in the Dojo and on the street. The key is trying to learn to read someone when they are going to confront you, be it at the Dojo or on the street. Is the person bigger, smaller, faster, slower, more aggressive and likely to attack or just stand and try to intimidate? How you handle the situation in Kumite is going to depend on the situation, along with street defense situations. Kata should instill this kind of flexibility of mind into a student while laying the ground work for different approaches to defensive tactics. One Kata can have a variety of movements that can be seen in a variety of ways. Some Katas do have specific tactics that they work with that others, for one reason or another do not. (jutte comes to mind along with Chinte for different reasons). If you believe that kata apply primarily to dueling between karateka who tend to fight from distance, then I can see holding an application that involves dropping your guard and giving up initiative to your adversary as foundational, but it doesn't really fit for a self-defense paradigm. Kata is a series of movements that are set to instill a “hard wire” response to simple attacks, The kinds of attacks that happen on a more common basis at a very basic level…..then it sets a student down the path to creating and study. I have read a LOT about how the Kata were a word for word interpretation of the activities and defensive ideals of the masters. By that standard we should not be looking at them to interpret and extrapolate…but the fact is they forgot to “write it down” and let us know what they were thinking when they created the Kata. But they did say “keep it simple and straight forward” to their students…so why are we now delving into Aikio’s mystery throws when it comes to Kata and doing crazy fancy crapola when it comes to some forms…is that not counter to the wishes of those we say we follow?? My point is that Kata is simply dueling between attacker and defender…now the distances vary a lot, I have to say however that most of our Kata work at a bit longer distance because that is how they were designed. Argue the point if you will, but look at the JKA and their “tendencies” in Kumite and Kata…the distance starts off a Kicking/Punching not Grappling like some Goju Kata suggest their style does. Yes we have some Anti-Grappling stuff and some close in stuff, but its mostly a guide on “how to get to the proper distance if the worst case happens”, not how to get in close and take a man down and stomp him like seiyunchin or Sepai in Goju ryu. Can we do the close in thing…yes, but we are not really specialists in it. When I speak of dead movements I am referring to all kata movements in that they are meaningless and empty until we put them to use on an opponent. I don’t know of any “Dead movements” by your standards then……..I see and use all movements as having meaning in all Kata. If kata are truly at the core of the training then the teacher should have done the hard work and gotten the feel of the form. They should have also researched the history, compared and contrasted the form across different styles, studied similar movements across other arts and made certain that every application not only worked and was tactically sound for the aim (self defence/jiyu ippon kumite/UFC etc) but that they fit within the context of the preceding and following techniques. The remaining few applications per movement can easily be paired down into a structured syllabus. I can not agree with you more here, this statement should be seen as a manifesto for instructors. I hate going to seminars and a question is asked of an instructor….who is teaching a specific Kata and they have NO CLUE how to answer it…You brought the Kata to the seminar bub….Know your stuff. Or when instructors simply regurgitate the same sad weak ass old crap that their instructor dumped on them because they were to busy with other things to actually look into something or give a straight answer. My favorite is when an instructor pukes up some old stuff that is so obviously crap that the students even squirm a bit at the “retelling” and know how cringe worthy it is….it hurts! I recall a instructor puking out the same old “Yah, so Karate was invented by rice farmers to fight off Samurai” Crapola and one of my students said “Yah, that’s not true” and kind of got me in crap….till I stud up and explained how ridiculous that whole story was…..yah, my students get educated properly because I do my research. Same thing as when and instructor says “yah, Heian Shodan is to teach you how to defend if four people attack”…they forget the whole “attacking in sequence and working like a synchronized swimming event! Ridicules ! You talked about keeping the ideals of the kata, but unless you know something I don't, it is the job of this generation of karateka to work out what those ideals are because those that came before did not know and were content with empty handed kendo that bore no relation to the kata they were handed. That means that it's all up for grabs, nothing is sacred. I half agree with that statement! I think that the fact that the road map was “lost” or misplaced or even dissuaded on purpose is a call to arms for us to intellectually and responsibly go back and rework much of the kata applications that have been taught, because to be frank some of the Bunkai we have been shown is just crap! But also the point that the masters were making in that we tend to create things out of wit and imagination that go far beyond the original intent and cross over into psudo-bunkai Crapola is strong in some. I have seen so much “recreated” Compostable Kata applications (read fancy term as :Crapoloa) that I could plant a garden and have no fear of running out of compostable Kata applications! The one thing that hurts the most is that over my 32 years in Karate I have seen so many people crate so much crap that I am starting to see why people leave Karate with such a poor opinion of us. First and foremost….KEEP IT SIMPLE and effective. If the Bunkai is not reproducible at least 80% of the time…Toss it, its worthless and is kind of like saying “hey if you get attacked…this may work…or it might get your ass killed…so try it!” That’s not good enough, we would not take that from a master so why would be accept it from anyone. Your Bunkai needs to work 80% or more…and I stress the “or more” because if my old ass is getting into a fight….I don’t want to think for one second that “this might work” or “this could work if I am lucky” I want the “This guy is in for some pain” kind of ability. Karate was never meant, in my mind, to be pretty. Its not supposed to be a Kata section of a tournament that looks so nice you get a national championship out of it…its dirty, ugly and works when you need it. Your Kata needs to reflect this when you practice it or its like taking up archery to help you run a marathon…two activities that wont help each other out ! Having said ALL that, Katas have a theme, character, intent, or ideal that is associated with the Kata…which is why we have so many. IF you only needed one Kata to work on and it taught you EVERYTHING You needed to know about fighting…well we would have only one. The fact is we have 26 in Shotokan that we practice and each has a point to it. Some things like changing levels in Empi are not the same as Bassai Dai or Jion. Jutte teaches us to deal with an armed attacker, Wankan…not so much. Yes you can argue that you can learn the stick defense in Wankan the way you do in Jitte…but really, do you think the Kata was Built with that in mind? That’s all I mean by Theme, Character, Intent or Ideals. Yes there are limits to how far one should or could take that, but honestly I think so long as you are working from a process like the one I described then your on pretty sturdy ground. The creator of this empi bunkai is one of Iain Abernethy's devotees, an evidence based pragmatist in kata study. For me at least it doesn't get much more academically sound. Even if I don't agree with the conclusions I respent the method. I have never met Ian but I have seen much of his stuff, its good. He breaks down movements and teaches the applications very well…but even he has gone off reserve a few times and thrown some things in I kind of don’t agree with. And this young guy throwing in a whole bunch of wrist techniques and avoiding core movements and obvious things did not go over well with me. I just found he was taking to much away from Empi in his approach and trying to reinvent the wheel when it did not need to be dissected and changed that much. The truth is that most Bunkai is crap…the old and the new. Some Bunkai applications are fantastic and some are Fantastical! It fits your Karate to a glove! If you have down and dirty, basic Bunkai that looks like “If A Grabs me/punches/kicks…I SMASH THE CRAP OUT OF HIM WITH BASIC WAZA” then your bunkai will work 80-90% of the time…if it looks like “If A grabs me just right on the wrist stands their for .03 seconds and the wind out of the west is perfect, I stick my tongue to the top of my mouth and swirl my Chi while I overtly manipulate the attackers grip by moving his fingers just so…then I can throw him backwards and land my hammer fist to his rib cage and shatter his sternum!” …well my suggestion is to just smash the bugger in the nose! I wont say that some Kata bunkai is not exciting or interesting to watch, but the more time you devote to counter grappling a wrist grab or the more time you give to fancy moves…the less time you are giving to just getting the damn fight over with! And after all….is that not the core of Karate practice?? You hint at Kendo and sword fighting a bit in your post…..interesting stuff that could be brought up their, but that is for a different post.
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Jan 4, 2013 16:31:15 GMT
Kata is a series of movements that are set to instill a “hard wire” response to simple attacks, The kinds of attacks that happen on a more common basis at a very basic level…..then it sets a student down the path to creating and study. I have read a LOT about how the Kata were a word for word interpretation of the activities and defensive ideals of the masters. By that standard we should not be looking at them to interpret and extrapolate…but the fact is they forgot to “write it down” and let us know what they were thinking when they created the Kata. But they did say “keep it simple and straight forward” to their students…so why are we now delving into Aikio’s mystery throws when it comes to Kata and doing crazy fancy crapola when it comes to some forms…is that not counter to the wishes of those we say we follow?? I can't agree with this statement; you even seem to be contradicting yourself. You"'ve stated that kata are not for teaching set response patterns but now you are saying they are meant to hard wire responses? In any case my own studies have brought different answers: that forms hard wire movement that follows certain tactical and mechanical rules. Once you are moving correctly and you understand why that particular method of moving is correct, then you can start looking at the sequences of the kata for the strategies which employ this method of moving the limbs and body. What you consider simple from a modern Japanese Karate background is going to be different to what Okinawans in the 19th century considered simple. To me there is nothing remotely advanced about the empi bunkai, but my karate journey began incorporating jujitsu basic so I see locks and throws as fundamental as punching. With an indigenous wrestling culture, close ties to Japan (whose empty hand arts centre on jujitsu) and close links to Southern China where fighting was never chopped up into separate disciplines as in Meiji era Japan, I'm pretty sure the Okinawans were similarly predisposed. Furthermore the idea that karate was intended to be used at the kinds of distances advocated by the JKA is just plain false. Long stances are for beginners, Funakoshi's words. They were brought in as training, like squats or press-ups, and while I don't think them useless they and the distances they are used at are not definitive of karate application. As practitioners of Shuri-te based karate we are meant to make more use of angles and evasion than Gojuka who's technique derives from chi-sau/direct control centered southern Chinese systems, however as well as kungfu matsumura was a Jigen ryu practitioner, meaning much of our empty hand work is jujitsu based. We may not be specialists in close methods but that's a symptom of the gaps in our training not how kata were designed. But what original intent? How can we get too far from an intent when we have no way of knowing what it was? The only way to test if an application is valid is to train it in suitably testing exercises. If it fails to do what it's supposed to then and only then can we label it as crap. If an instructor is not testing his applications he should not be teaching them if students are not regularly training applications then they should not bother with seminars or DVD's or any other half arsed means of learning about kata as only through regular pressured training can any benefit be gained and bad budo be found out. We have so many because karate was not being taught as a fighting art by Funakoshi and so without applications to perfect students were getting bored of the original 15. GF wrote that beyond his original syllabus there was no point learning other kata as you would mostly just be repeating movements. That his syllabus gave a thorough overview of Karate as it was when he left Okinawa. Hence why Choki Motobu only taught Naihanchi. What one needs to fight is personal preference. Okinawans used to teach no more than 3 or 5 kata syllabi. My personal system is 6 kata but I could reduce it to one because I understand how my methodology is built up. And that is precisely the rulebook we need to rip up and rewrite ourselves. Those are just one individual or one groups ideas about those kata. They are no more valid than the empi applications we are discussing. A valid concern, but are we seeking applications to find what we think is the most efficient way of fighting, or are we seeking them to find out what the kata have to teach, whatever that may be? For myself the answer lies somewhere in the middle. If we are of the belief that in our kihon we have all we'll ever need for fightingthen why study application at all? Personally I am interested in learning the fighting styles presented by the kata. I feel that the traditional Shotokan fighting style is effective but extremely limited. Fundamentally I am of the belief that there are different ways to fight, that no one method is perfect and that use whatever works is a cop-out that leaves a student of martial arts to work out for himself what is already well documented in kata if you know how to look. While no one needs to agree with me, we at least have to be willing to concede that there is more than one way to win a fight otherwise kata are worthless as martial training.
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Jan 5, 2013 0:51:30 GMT
I can't agree with this statement; you even seem to be contradicting yourself. You"'ve stated that kata are not for teaching set response patterns but now you are saying they are meant to hard wire responses? In any case my own studies have brought different answers: that forms hard wire movement that follows certain tactical and mechanical rules. Once you are moving correctly and you understand why that particular method of moving is correct, then you can start looking at the sequences of the kata for the strategies which employ this method of moving the limbs and body. Its not a contradiction at all once you realize that the set patterns of If A does this then B or C is needed and….blah blah blah…The hard wired response is to a single stimuli, not a set of moves based on a set of stimuli. If you are thinking that a fancy set of movements and practicing throws, wrist locks and the like are better than punching a guy in the face then you need a bit of real life experience. The more pure the Karate the more basic it is…..just my way of thinking and I am thinking that Pure Karate is useable Karate. Furthermore the idea that karate was intended to be used at the kinds of distances advocated by the JKA is just plain false. Long stances are for beginners, Funakoshi's words. They were brought in as training, like squats or press-ups, and while I don't think them useless they and the distances they are used at are not definitive of karate application. As practitioners of Shuri-te based karate we are meant to make more use of angles and evasion than Gojuka who's technique derives from chi-sau/direct control centered southern Chinese systems, however as well as kungfu matsumura was a Jigen ryu practitioner, meaning much of our empty hand work is jujitsu based. We may not be specialists in close methods but that's a symptom of the gaps in our training not how kata were designed. JKA Style Karate was designed to be more sport oriented but still had a pure root of self defense, I grant that most modern JKA training has things in it that are not purposeful for self defense….however they are still in the training a very basic style that will get the job done very quickly and train you to be efficient. I have trained some Goju and I only see the chi Sau style of training and control as being a small part of the training, the rest is in close training, grappling and control and even they abandon that when doing kumite and free fighting that I have observed is almost all the same. Matsumura was more a sword trained individual who used linear stepping and angles to strike and counter. If you read anything about him or even Sukakawa you will see tha they used the Jigen Ryu Kenjutsu styles to work add to the foot work. Thus why Karate seemed to adapt a more linear motion in Okinawa. This was further modified by Nakayama and created a even more linear and sport style to their movement patterns. But what original intent? How can we get too far from an intent when we have no way of knowing what it was? Again, I may not have been clear here. The intent I am talking about is the obvious content of the Kata. I don’t see Hangetsu as being a Kata used to learn throws and jumps, nor do I see Empi as a Kata to learn dynamic tension and heavy movement….You can Alter the Katas to just about any ends…..However there are obvious contents that a Kata are teaching you. IF you don’t see it then a student needs to really focus their studies more! We have so many because karate was not being taught as a fighting art by Funakoshi and so without applications to perfect students were getting bored of the original 15. GF wrote that beyond his original syllabus there was no point learning other kata as you would mostly just be repeating movements. That his syllabus gave a thorough overview of Karate as it was when he left Okinawa. Hence why Choki Motobu only taught Naihanchi. What one needs to fight is personal preference. Okinawans used to teach no more than 3 or 5 kata syllabi. My personal system is 6 kata but I could reduce it to one because I understand how my methodology is built up. Actually, we have so many for several reasons…aside from teaching different things…we have so many because different instructors brought influence to the styles of Karate and passed them on to the students. Obviously the number of Kata in each style is based on the style designers likes and dislikes in forming they curriculum that they called their system…that and one LONG ASS Kata would be needed to teach us all what they were trying to pass on. As for Choki Motobu, I tend not to make to many friends when I say two things…One he knew way more than just Naihanchi, doing a 3 minute scan of Google and reading a few things about him will tell you that he knew and passed on more than one kata…However the other thing that I often say and others don’t like…he was a bad character and a bit of a thug that got his studies by black mailing, bullying and throwing his weight around…and he liked to pick on students that were intellectuals because he could not read or speak Japanese and many of his students left him because of his rude behavior. Not someone I like to bring up to argue a point ever. That being said, Motobu, bad habits and questionable character aside, was a hell of a fighter, and when he fought he tended to drop all fancy techniques and go back to a more boxing style with kicking….He had some talent for sure. And that is precisely the rulebook we need to rip up and rewrite ourselves. Those are just one individual or one groups ideas about those kata. They are no more valid than the empi applications we are discussing. You are missing a point. We are talking about Shotokan Kata here, not other styles and other groups. Do we need to go and find new applications for Kata, yes…do we need to review that which we have been taught and really dig into it to see what we were taught that was worth keeping and what was just taught to us to keep us coming out…yes. Is some of it crap and some of it great…Yes, but why create more crap to cover the crap we have been taught….dig through it and find the good stuff! The point is that you CAN do what every you like with applications, but some of it is going to be worthless and moving in the wrong direction when studying….and the worst part is the look on their face when they push for us to listen and see what they have done…and yet we end up looking at it like “Cute…but can you make that work in a real fight”? Their seems to be two kinds of Applications used for Kata…that is intended for real world applications and that which is meant to impress and be fancy!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bedard on Jan 5, 2013 3:05:00 GMT
I really want to stay out of this, but I`m sorry I just can`t. So I`m going to say something here that might not go to well. Dave if I remember correctly you do self study & self training. It seems to me that you need to `study` less & `just do` more. How often do you even have a training partner. When was the last time you studied with a qualified instructor. I don`t want to pick on you, but some of your ideas are making me wonder? Kata are not IMHO meant to carbon copy, do this move exactly like this. What they are, are tools to help us learn important principles, like changing direction, flowing from one stance to another, get in & get out, compression & expansion, balance, timing, rythm, breathing, etc. Not you do this, then you do that, which allows you to do the other thing.. Also if you go back to the time of Matsumura, the Japanese were still doing Aiki-Jujutsu, which was eventually broken down to become, Aikido, Jujutsu & Judo. All three of these are modern martial arts.. Dave you are good at debating & I`m seeing that I`m not, because there are certain points that when they don`t make sense, they tend to upset me when I feel that someone is trying to come across as being more knowledgeable than they are. `If you can`t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit`.
I`m sorry to offend any-ones intelligence here. Like I said, I don`t think that I am good at debates.
On the positive side, look at the valuable information that Kensei is giving us. I really appreciate, learning from his extensive research & real life experience.
Osu
Paul B
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Jan 5, 2013 3:18:08 GMT
Dave you are good at debating & I`m seeing that I`m not, because there are certain points that when they don`t make sense, they tend to upset me when I feel that someone is trying to come across as being more knowledgeable than they are. `If you can`t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit`. I`m sorry to offend any-ones intelligence here. Like I said, I don`t think that I am good at debates. I am not very good at written debate as well, never have been and paid the price on more than one instance. However you did well to voice a point of view that I have as well. On the positive side, look at the valuable information that Kensei is giving us. I really appreciate, learning from his extensive research & real life experience. Osu Paul B LMOA, I think that is a bit over stepped but I like to share, just not very good at debate, and I love LOVE love when people say things that are triggers for things I know....like mentioning Mabuni or Motobu...the younger brother not the older one that was given his family tradition. J
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Jan 5, 2013 11:58:15 GMT
I really want to stay out of this, but I`m sorry I just can`t. So I`m going to say something here that might not go to well. Dave if I remember correctly you do self study & self training. It seems to me that you need to `study` less & `just do` more. How often do you even have a training partner. When was the last time you studied with a qualified instructor. I don`t want to pick on you, but some of your ideas are making me wonder? Kata are not IMHO meant to carbon copy, do this move exactly like this. What they are, are tools to help us learn important principles, like changing direction, flowing from one stance to another, get in & get out, compression & expansion, balance, timing, rythm, breathing, etc. Not you do this, then you do that, which allows you to do the other thing.. Also if you go back to the time of Matsumura, the Japanese were still doing Aiki-Jujutsu, which was eventually broken down to become, Aikido, Jujutsu & Judo. All three of these are modern martial arts.. Dave you are good at debating & I`m seeing that I`m not, because there are certain points that when they don`t make sense, they tend to upset me when I feel that someone is trying to come across as being more knowledgeable than they are. `If you can`t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit`. I`m sorry to offend any-ones intelligence here. Like I said, I don`t think that I am good at debates. On the positive side, look at the valuable information that Kensei is giving us. I really appreciate, learning from his extensive research & real life experience. Osu Paul B So a difference of opinion should be met with attempts to discredit the speaker? It's really sad that a good and productive debate had to take such an ugly turn. Sadder still that it had to happen out of a total failure to understand someone's perspective. Please, so all who look at this thread can be clear and so that we can avoid any confusion, use the quote function and show me exactly where I have advocated Do A then B etc. Before your politely worded personal attack, the only person to mention such an approach was Kensei. It is an approach so far from my own I had no idea he assumed it was my position. I'm sorry if I failed to make myself clear. Paul, since you say you are not very good at debate, allow me to advise you. Rather than diving in and shouting bullshut, why not ask questions to get me to clarify my position, then either ask more that my viewpoint has failed to consider, or simply point out where I seem to be lacking. Also using the quote function like Kensei will help make clear what you take issue with. You and I just finished discussing kanku dai application. My whole point in that debate was that principles are the most important part of kata and that they transcend small details. It strikes me, as it did on Shotokan way, that if someone doesn't want to listen because of their opinion of the person speaking that no matter what they say it will be misunderstood. If you can get over your bias and your half baked ill informed opinions of me and my training, I will be happy to answer any questions about my views in order to clarify them. And I was serious about you quoting me. If nothing else while trying and failing to find what you are looking for it will cause you to reread and maybe understand my posts. Also jujitsu as an art came first. Daito ryu is one style of jujitsu which formed the basis of aikido. Some historians think jujitsu predates shorin and developed entirely independently. Check the journal of Asian martial arts for more details or just Wikipedia jujitsu. Kensei, in principle you and I are not far from one another, although we differ somewhat on the details. Your view on Motobu is illustrative of my previous point though. Motobu's illiteracy is a myth, there is a great documentary short on YouTube about him where they showcase his calligraphy. And yes he did know more than Naihanchi but as time went on he reduced his teaching to deep study of the one kata. As for Goju, take a look at this video. It's in Chinese, but you getthe gist. IMO much of he Chinese arts that founded the it was not transmitted, but the structure of the style, the emphasis of stance and posture and technique, calls for strategies and tactics that have been forgotten in favour of kickboxing technique. There is a very good illustration of this from around the 36 min mark www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ThrA-QbCrk.
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Jan 5, 2013 16:14:19 GMT
Hey Dave, This debate, discussion is getting good, but I fear we may vear off a bit here so let me be straight forwards with a few things….both Paul and I have been around a long time and are well known on the web as well as in our respective organizations, both different by the way…and lets keep this all above the belt shall we…that’s for all of us involved…Me included! So a difference of opinion should be met with attempts to discredit the speaker? It's really sad that a good and productive debate had to take such an ugly turn. Sadder still that it had to happen out of a total failure to understand someone's perspective. I don’t see it as an “attempt to discredit the speaker, more a clarification of where it was coming from…kind of “Consider the source”! I have seen some people come on the web and announce stuff that is so full of crap that it stunk through my monitor and they were “self-taught” and while I hesitate to paint all self-taught people with the same brush, but its kind of like a like comparing the subject paper for a proposal from a MBA and a self-taught business man…both have something to offer, but the MBA has the back ground to support their views…and the education to miss making simple mistakes….thats what the point of making your training obvious to us. We WILL view your posts a bit different as we now know you are self-taught and do not have a classic relationship with a instructor and lineage. For me it means two things, you A) will not have the foundation to really judge the information that you are viewing and realize the relationships that some information has and to properly judge the sources yourself…normally self-trained people are more trusting of information because they have not been trained not too! And B) you will do a lot more research and look into things more than other will who are force fed things….This is both good and bad. It strikes me, as it did on Shotokan way, that if someone doesn't want to listen because of their opinion of the person speaking that no matter what they say it will be misunderstood. If you can get over your bias and your half baked ill informed opinions of me and my training, I will be happy to answer any questions about my views in order to clarify them. So to be clear, as I posted above, I see the good and the bad in your style of self-training and will listen to your opinions…with a critical ear! Also, please detail your training for us….what style, who is your teacher, what kind of self-training do you have ext and so on. As you stated it may not be fair to judge your posts passed on your back ground, but it is natural that we do, a bit of clarity may make this more fair and just than just dismissing you thinking you are just some Book worm that reads others ideas. And I was serious about you quoting me. If nothing else while trying and failing to find what you are looking for it will cause you to reread and maybe understand my posts. As one of the mods here, I am going to say this is a foul! If you are going to make an attack on others then you need to make sure its not so covert. Saying this assumes we, Paul in this case, is incapable of communicating properly. The assumption should always be that you are not being clear, this is the only fair way of dealing with the written word….and assuming that Paul or anyone else does not understand your written word is a bit of a Egomaniacal assumption, and I can assure you that Paul and most of us here can read and comprehend very well….lets keep this respectful and say that if you don’t think we understand…its your fault. I assume the same things when I post and repost more than not when I think someone misses what I am saying…Yes, this is a bit of a public spanking saying DON’T DO THAT so I really hope you respect the fact that we don’t allow this kind of tactic in our posts here. If you want to say “Hey Paul, you did not understand what I wrote…” and then re-write it..thats fair! Also jujitsu as an art came first. Daito ryu is one style of jujitsu which formed the basis of aikido. Some historians think jujitsu predates shorin and developed entirely independently. Check the journal of Asian martial arts for more details or just Wikipedia jujitsu. Okay, so you proved you can Wikipedia things….and you proved you can google things. Fine…now if you do some research on Jujitsu and you will see that the early Japanese forms of Jujitsu predate the Okinawan. As you know what became known as Jujutsu was stylised and formulated in the 1500’s and Okinawan Karate was formed and stylised in the 1700’s…however they do have a similar history if you review why they were created and by whom! Now also keep in mind that when you read sources like Journal of Asian Martial arts and Wikipedia things tht you are reading others ideas on history and some of the histories that are written are missing things, or even twisted by others ideas. You have to be careful and watch what you read, be critical and realize that some of the standard things you take as truth…are not necessarily true at all but propaganda made up by people to “Sell” Karate. Kensei, in principle you and I are not far from one another, although we differ somewhat on the details. Your view on Motobu is illustrative of my previous point though. Motobu's illiteracy is a myth, there is a great documentary short on YouTube about him where they showcase his calligraphy. And yes he did know more than Naihanchi but as time went on he reduced his teaching to deep study of the one kata. Motobu came to Japan and did not read or write Japanese, he did not do Calligraphy until he was very old and some of his students taught him some basics to use….some suggest this was because he realized that the “competition” was educated and making headway. Both Funakoshi (his sworn enemy) and Mabuni were very educated and had growing student based and growing organizations…he however was only enjoying a small group of senior students from other styles who would take tidbits from him and make their own styles better with it…he feared his name and style would dissolve into history. So, he learned a few things in his old age to “Fake” literacy, and many say that the calligraphy that you see…and this is the story I believe more…were not his but students of his who would put his name to it. It is NOT a myth that he was Illiterate, just about everyone student and peer that ran into him said he could not read a lick and that his Japanese was so limited that he had to have a Okinawan student translate when he taught in one on one student work outs. His son, who is now the head of his style, teaches all the Kata that Motobu knew and it is more than Naihanchi/Tekki. He said his father often started students with Naihanchi and they left before they learned more. It’s a false assumption that he dropped Kata from his syllabus actually as his son, the head of Motobus style passed on his fathers style to his son and in that he sent him many Kata. That is the litmus test for me. As for Goju, take a look at this video. It's in Chinese, but you getthe gist. IMO much of he Chinese arts that founded the it was not transmitted, but the structure of the style, the emphasis of stance and posture and technique, calls for strategies and tactics that have been forgotten in favour of kickboxing technique. There is a very good illustration of this from around the 36 min mark I have seen this video before, you have to look with a educated eye at this video. Yes it’s a great video…but do we know what the hell they are saying? NO! and the other things is that this is a Kyokushin stylist trying to trace his roots to Goju and Shito….but without the sub titles or the English translation we are only guessing at the benefits of what is being presented here…Is it fun stuff to look at, yes…how valuable is the subject matter being presented for our purposes as students…its questionable….because we don’t know what they are saying at all! Back to the applications from the Empi…I had seemed to contradict myself in a few posts so I am going to try my best to be as straight forwards as possible. First off a Kata is not set up to teach “If A is done by the attacker then B or C are the responses” and the Kata are not set up to be so open that you can simply learn a Kata and it teaches you everything….each Kata has a purpose and set of ideas that it presents. For instance, Empi is about avoiding attacks, moving in and out, adjusting your distance, dropping your stance and body and then changing sides, direction to counter your opponent. Its about being deceptive, quick, unpredictable and fighting in such a way as to confuse your opponent. The original Empi, Wanshu, looks a bit different but its also about deflecting attention and confusing an opponent while changing directions and making movements to avoid attacks. The stand still and work to disarm an opponent or get out of a grip and grapple with an attacker is counter to this katas characteristics. You can break down a move from a Kata and make it something so different that it becomes something “other than” the Kata in my eyes and that is what the video at the start of this thread does. My view is that you can adapt a Kata anyway you like, but to slid so far away from the techniques presented and to reverse engineer a kata to fit your views is a bit off! I am not saying that you should not experiment, but it’s the education and control given by years of training with an educated instructor and training to use the Kata in a “live training” situation that will show the use of a “made up” Bunkai. And If you are trying to push Empi to be a pure grappling Kata you should see your mistake with proper training, education and practice. Again, if I am not clear in my views….I can try again!
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Jan 5, 2013 19:00:44 GMT
With regards to your opinions of me, look up the phrase ad hominem.
Kensei, empty your cup. I wasn't showing the video to point score or state that I thought one system was better than another. I was highlighting how the southern kungfu styles make use of methods that are linked to the mechanics of how they use the body. Goju has similar structural mechanics but is eemployed differently. Part of my trainig back ground is in a Southern crane derivative system, so yes I am looking with "an educated eye". You are looking so hard for an opening your missing the point of what is being said. It is like a finger pointing to the moon... :-) Of course I'm just joking, I will explain better next time.
As for empi. I understand your point, I even agree with nearly all of it. There are just two comments: first that your perception of the message behind empi can be looked at in terms of the direction of force. If you look at it like this, changing directions of force, then you can see that it can be applied to close grappling techniques as well as distance based fighting. The second is that while I agree with the above theme for empI and dislike these applications for the same reasons as you state, I also have to acknowledge that my perception is just my perception and that if someone can find technically and tactically sound applications that have a different bases then they are just as valid.
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Jan 5, 2013 21:59:03 GMT
With regards to your opinions of me, look up the phrase ad hominem. So, now you want to provide a latin class….LMAO, Ad hominem is a latin term meaning “to the man” its short for argumentum ad hominem or argue against the man and not the argument. The truth is that we live in the real world…if someone who has no education in medicine contacts me at work and says that a client of mine has Fibromyalgia and they are not the proper kind of practitioner with the proper education I contact my clients and tell them to stop wasting my time! Because you are self-taught, as I laid out, it does give a different kind of weight to your posts….sorry about that but its just real life and how we view those that are self-taught! If you do not like this then the only two suggestions I have are one to go and get educated and find someone to train with that will give you some weight to your arguments and the second option is to just be that much more careful when you post and double or triple check your sources and give more weight to your posts this way. And Ad Hominem is an attack against a person and not the argument…I never said I was going to attack you…I said I was going to give your posts and suggestions more of a critical eye when reading your stuff…that’s all I said. Not that you were “wrong right off the bat because its you” but because of your lack of classical training I am going to really read what you say with a critical eye….and you can not do anything other what I suggested to change that. Sorry if that hurts, but you went your path and have to realize the outcome of doing this. Kensei, empty your cup. I wasn't showing the video to point score or state that I thought one system was better than another. I was highlighting how the southern kungfu styles make use of methods that are linked to the mechanics of how they use the body. Goju has similar structural mechanics but is eemployed differently. Part of my trainig back ground is in a Southern crane derivative system, so yes I am looking with "an educated eye". You are looking so hard for an opening your missing the point of what is being said. It is like a finger pointing to the moon... :-) Of course I'm just joking, I will explain better next time. Oh, dear God, Please don’t quote Bruce Lee! The second someone tries to rip off the biggest rip off of all time in the martial arts you start to lose ground with me in the realm of legitimacy! I watched the video and say two things…unless you speak Chinese or read Japanese the whole thing was a pretty and interesting video but about as useful as watching a Russian documentary on Sambo…you wont know much more about the whole thing than what you SEE! And about 2/3 of the video is lost because you don’t know what the heck they are saying. You request that we reread and post quotes….please understand that I never said it was a horrible video or questioned anything you said I questioned…I said that we simply get the physical on the video and that we lose a lot due to a lack of translation. As for empi. I understand your point, I even agree with nearly all of it. There are just two comments: first that your perception of the message behind empi can be looked at in terms of the direction of force. If you look at it like this, changing directions of force, then you can see that it can be applied to close grappling techniques as well as distance based fighting. The second is that while I agree with the above theme for empI and dislike these applications for the same reasons as you state, I also have to acknowledge that my perception is just my perception and that if someone can find technically and tactically sound applications that have a different bases then they are just as valid. Again, we are not far off. I don’t think that anyone should avoid experimenting…but I also think that the point of going to far away from the source idea/character or whatever you want to call it is not for me. I can think of tones of other things that I would rather be training. Also, I have found that some people who do this tend to do things that are not “real world” ready….I tell everyone that Karate was not meant to be pretty or to be fancy, it was meant to be deadly and quick…that’s it, that’s all and that’s what my yard stick for Karate is. Again, what exactly is your training back ground as I am being led to believe that your training consists of self-training from videos and books….And I don’t want to be giving you less credit than you deserve.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Davis on Jan 5, 2013 22:27:59 GMT
I'm sorry to jump in on this (none of my business really as I'm not involved in the discussion) BUT...... As one moderator to another I understand the requirement to know from what position of knowledge someone speaks but for some reason only DaveB is being asked to justify his background and training experience live on line whilst the rest of us are judged over time based on what we say and how we behave. By all means clarify these things for yourself via PM if you have doubts but surely we should do him the same courtesy as we offer everyone else here and base our opinions on the material presented rather than an "I am led to believe...." We all talk a certain amount of tosh on occasions (and should be pulled up on it ) but the rest of us don't have our background queried as part of that argument (and as has been said before, we none of us really know each other above how we present ourselves on line). The fact that someone doesn't have a "lineage" isn't relevant as I know many karate-ka with known groups and instructors who have a very limited experience, narrow view, no imagination and very closed minds (in fact very much the norm in mainstream karate). Just an opinion obviously
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Jan 5, 2013 23:31:29 GMT
Hey Bob,
I respectfully disagree, and I am more than willing to put my lineage out their for those that are interested.
I know the lineage of most people here, I know whom they trained with or what group they are with and I can view their posts with my eyes wide open and considering the source!
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Jan 6, 2013 1:30:28 GMT
Dude, it. Was. A. Joke. Note the smiley face.
As for your opinions of me and my training (not self taught by the way, only the kata applications) I really don't care, the only person who stands to loose anything from your idea of "considering the source" is you if you dismiss something beneficial because it came from me. And if all you are going to do is look at my posts with a critical eye, why would you need to base that on your ideas about my lineage? I look at all posts with a critical eye and expect no less in return.
The thing is any idea put forward by anybody will either stand on its own merits or it will fail due to it's flaws. All it takes is asking the right questions. Your lineage means less than nothing to me, your ideas are what I care about and they tell me all I could wish to know about your karate.
Over the last 14 years I have trained in non traditional Shotokan that incorporated jujitsu basics, WTF taekwondo and Tiger-Crane kungfu. I worked as a community officer for the Metropolitan police in London for 9 years so lots of officer safety training. Between shift work serious injury and starting a family I have had to vary my training greatly so I also have training in boxing, wing chun, krav maga, Enshin karate, MMA, Thai boxing among others. I came to most of the same conclusions about kata application as Iain Abernethy years before hearing his ideas in his pod casts. I don't own any instructional videos and have at least partially tested most of my ideas about kata. I also have a talent for analysis that I put to use in my kata study and in refining my ideas on training methods.
Paul, doesn't know me from Adam, so which high quality source he got his information from I don't know. Once more, if you or anyone has issue with my ideas, just ask about them. That way misunderstandings can be smoothed out, and all who read these forums will benefit from clearly defined concepts.
Bob, thank you for your comments.
|
|
|
Post by nathanso on Jan 6, 2013 4:12:31 GMT
I have to agree with Bob about the lineage issue (even though I am of course proud of my own). I know people who have spent years training with famous instructors from supposedly prestigous organizations who had limited knowledge of anything beyond the superficial surface of things, and have met people who have trained with someone I never heard of who have blown me away with both their technique and knowledge.
In any case, in a forum like this, what counts is not who you say you are but how convincingly you can make an argument and whether that argument, if questionable, can be tested to determine its worth.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bedard on Jan 6, 2013 5:36:53 GMT
O.K. here goes; First off, I knew that my comments were going to cause some friction, but I didn`t quite expect this. So I apologize for for what obviously has been taken as an attack. Dave I said that you were good at debates, but I do wonder about the info you share. As has already been mentioned a lot of the info out there is the perception of the writer who most likely wasn`t even there at the time. I do get to the point where I question maybe more than I should. Also I do get defensive of Shotokan Karate, I am seeing way to many references to Jujutsu being what is inside of our kata & it bothers me. Yes there are things that can be transfered over to other martial arts & that may or may not be some of the original intent, but the masters have made it quite clear that we just don`t know exactly what a lot of the original intent is, as it was never recorded. Dave you mentioned that in 14 years, you have studied, Shotokan, TKD,Goju, Jujitsu,MMA & Krav Magda, so it is obvious that you have had a taste of a variety of martial arts. Also I certainly respect the Police work. As I said I do get defensive. I am a Shotokan Karate practioner & yes I feel quite comfortable with Joint locks, throws, trapping, chokes, some weapons & have done a bit of wrestling. But that is my experience & I`m not about to say that that is what the kata are trying to teach me. I see some of the same principles in a lot of the kata, but was that the intent, well like I said, `we don`t know`. I do get on my high horse ( per say), when I feel that some are pushing MMA time concepts ( read jujutsu) into my Shotokan & then try to back it up with articles that they have read about pioneer martial artists. For crying out loud, Funikoshi had an extensive background, but he chose to pass on what he believed in & of course this has been altered by others that lead their various orgs, but we still train in Shotokan. If others want to do MMA that is fine, but there is a line that when crossed bugs me in referring to martial arts history. Most of this history is like camp fire stories, that are changed a bit every time someone new tells the story. Entertaining, but the facts get questionable, so it bothers me when some come across like they are spreading the gospel. Sorry if anyone takes offence, but that is me & my feeling. What you enjoy or chose to believe is yours. Dave is right, I do not know him from Adam, I just remember something that was brought up on another site about the self training & he did mention his own personal system on this post. There again, I did not mean to attack. Only Question??
Osu
Paul B
|
|
|
Post by nathanso on Jan 6, 2013 6:57:56 GMT
Funikoshi had an extensive background, but he chose to pass on what he believed in... Paul- Don't forget that Funakoshi very clearly said both in To-te Jitsu and in KdK that throws were an important part of karate. As for what GF taught about kata and applications- Harada said in an interview in SKM that GF told them kata was the soul of karate but never told them why it was important. The obvious inference is that he never did any applications or partner work in kata, or the students would have seen why kata was important.
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Jan 6, 2013 10:00:53 GMT
Thanks for your comments Neil, and thanks for the apology Paul. I think when remembering comments about another person that is one time where considering the source is quite important. Psychopathic paedophiles aren't the most reliable sources. As for my personal system, it is a condensation of the arts I've studied into the 6 or 7 kata I feel are most important for study and physical training. Most martial artists I know have forms and methods they identify with more than others.
I can understand someone being defensive about their art, but what is the point of a discussion forum if different ideas are automatically assumed to be bs.
One of the interesting points about looking at Chinese arts is that we find that they are not split up into striking grappling etc. Real fighting arts are all inclusive and they always have been. The southern Chinese arts in particular operate in a blended middle ground where striking and grappling are nearly indistinguishable because the aim is fundamentally control of the opponent.
Does that mean real karate has whole segments dedicated to rolling around on the floor with an opponent? Of course not, but because it's not a sound tactic outside of a ring. But equally if tackled or grabbed or just in a situation where face smashing is inappropriate, karate doesn't just fail. Like it or not, the research is there, karate contains a level of grappling, in my view usually with the aim of keeping the opponent still so that they can be hit hard and often. You have to ignore a lot of evidence to dispute this.
That aside I personally don't think that the grappling in karate is the same as jujitsu or that it is as prevalent as a lot of kata researchers make out.
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Jan 6, 2013 15:29:24 GMT
Hey Dave, I was a bit nervous with the Bruce Lee quote to be frank and I thought the smiley face was just being a smart ass on your part, which by the way I totally approve of! As for your argument about your posts standing on their merit (and Neils backing of this) I also totally agree, and that is what I was trying to draw out…more because of Neils assertion that some, who have been in organizations for 30 years and are 5th and 6th Dans know little about Karate history, application and self preservation techniques and tend to be just great Sports guys. I do stand by my post that applications need to make sense to the Kata, but Like I said as well, if you can make it work for you then do it, does not mean I will be playing along with your change of pace in a Kata. One MAJOR point that needs to be made is that we often do give weight to things based on the person, training or lineage. To that end I do think that some lineage (s) are bunk and the instruction leads to some less than supportable educations in Karate/martial arts. For instance if you instructors are known to be KI guys you probably wont get my vote for “someone to listen to” when it comes time for debate. Also, if you have never set foot in a Dojo and don’t train regular or stopped training years ago but still want to haunt the hallowed halls of Karate forums spewing caustic rhetoric…not on my short list of go to guys for the forum info Guru! Now, Nathen and you have gone to the great length of saying “Consider the source is wrong, consider the information first” and that is great! I often say that some well trained people could not figure out an original thought on their own and they spread Crapola that they learned so thick that it could be used as morter! That and I have learned just as much training with brown and even white belts as I have from senior instructors who have taught for years. However, I have to say that the lessons were often accidental in nature! As for a critical eye, I hope everyone views all posts with a critical eye and that we are all learning smart here and not just reading posts and saying “oh, how original…that is the new truth” or some such BS. I also want to point out that some of us are great at debate and others…not so much. I read all posts with a critical eye and get over the bs and view the information...then I filter it. Dave you mentioned that in 14 years, you have studied, Shotokan, TKD,Goju, Jujitsu,MMA & Krav Magda, so it is obvious that you have had a taste of a variety of martial arts. Also I certainly respect the Police work. Now, this is a Shotokan forum, and someone that has trained only half the time as some of us in martial arts and split their time between Shotokan, TKD, Goju, Jujitsu, MMA and Krav Maga is doing a okay job of supporting his posts, this I must respect. While I don’t agree with some of your history based on my own research and researching interviews from the source, getting translations done from interviews and books…at a bit of an expense on my half, and even writing lots of papers to ensure that the info I am passing on is accurate….mainly because I hate when Dogma that is not researched and is full of marketing BS is just flogged to students. This is why I am critical of people who don’t have their history right. And if I can be shown something I take as truth is wrong…I actually greatly appreciate it! That aside I personally don't think that the grappling in karate is the same as jujitsu or that it is as prevalent as a lot of kata researchers make out. Actually, wouldn’t the grappling in Karate be the same as Jujitsu/Aiki-jujitsu? Not Jui Jitsu…but Jujitsu! Most classical Jujitsu was standing grappling and learning to lock and throw attackers then use chokes or joint locks and strikes to kill the attackers. Seeing as the Samurai that developed this fighting art were wearing fairly heavy armour they were not interested in ground wars..but a quick way to take away a sword or fight when they did not have one and then kill the attacker with their arms and feet only. Jiu Jitsu is all about the ground work that was brought in from Judo, which was created and distilled from some styles of Jujitsu. However, the Samurai fighting arts had little ground fighting other than how to get up off the floor and reverse bad positions…mostly joint locks and dangerous chokes and such. Anyways, the original posts about lineage and such was more to push a point and get people discussing some issues, my apologies if it upset some people but often that is the only way to get us to cross that barrier that etiquette learned in a dojo has put up. You make some good points Dave but I hope you also do not carry the same chip on your shoulder that some of us do! My only suggestion, view the posts with first the open mind and then the critical eye, that’s my real rule for myself and then argue to learn and debate to grow as an individual in Karate. J PS still dont like the Empi Bunkai ;D
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Jan 9, 2013 8:28:41 GMT
Just a note about my comments on Goju ryu. This teacher is the first I've seen to put the Southern kung fu back into the system by applying the kata as close fluid fighting making use of trapping and sensitivity as their mechanical structure implies (at least to me). Basically this is what I was talking about. www.youtube.com/watch?v=UttTa7hGYqA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Jan 9, 2013 12:10:13 GMT
wow... This thread turned slightly nasty... I am pleased that it has calmed down a bit. I would also like to extend my apologies to Dave, I wouldn't want to be a member of a forum where it was not possible to recognise where things got a little out of hand... Back to topic...(to kensei): I do not disagree with the first part of your statement, however what you discribe is your personal interpretation of the Empi/Wanshu kata, rather than a statement of fact. I would argue that you could also interpret the particular movement structure of the kata (the changing directions, the rising and falling movements etc) as the application of mechanical advantage at close range...which I would argue makes more sense from a self-protection real fight perspective. Your Interpretation seems a little too long range for my tastes...
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Jan 9, 2013 12:37:21 GMT
I do not disagree with the first part of your statement, however what you discribe is your personal interpretation of the Empi/Wanshu kata, rather than a statement of fact. I would argue that you could also interpret the particular movement structure of the kata (the changing directions, the rising and falling movements etc) as the application of mechanical advantage at close range...which I would argue makes more sense from a self-protection real fight perspective. Your Interpretation seems a little too long range for my tastes... When you you look at the Kata as a whole, not just the physical practice but the history, stories and the non-JKA/Shotokan versions you see that it is a mid to long range Kata and it was created to mimic the fighting skills fo Wanshu, a Chinese guy in Okinawa. When those that trained with him described his fighting style it mirrors my "personal interpretation" of what they say he fought like. Erog, when I read the history of a Kata, read the stories passed on by those that trained with the guy we are supposedly mimicing when we do the Kata...well thats what lead me to the possition I take on Empi. The stories of dashing in and then changing directions, moving up and down, blocking and then striking from strange angles....well they dont suggest a guy that is doing anthing remotly grappling to me. Just my point of view. If you take a Kata, Ignore the history and the stories of how they came about....if those exist as some Kata are more mystery than meat...well you could say Empi was a Kata on how to draw yoru side arm and fire then evade the counter shooting and is perfect for old west gun slingers, the change of direction is changing shoulders for rifle shooting.... When I see people make up Bunkai and not take into account the very history of the Kata and the mostly obvious applications that are sitting their looking at you....well I kind of feel sad for the person as it appears, like most, they have half an education in Karate.
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Jan 9, 2013 14:21:02 GMT
James, can you tell us where to find any of these stories/accounts you mentioned?
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Jan 9, 2013 14:54:40 GMT
James, can you tell us where to find any of these stories/accounts you mentioned? Yah, read a book! seriously, we all need to do our research and we all need to dig a bit. I read like a mad man for 20 years trying to figure out what was "story" and what was fact. I wrote a few notes down and give them out to people who want them....but one thing that I dont do is spoon feed people things. I have a tone of faith in people and the fact that if you set them on the right path they will find things. I have read so much and made so many notes that I could not start to tell you were to begin on somethings and to be frank...why should I take that away from people who want to learn. I get a tad taxed when people say "Prove it"....okay, you prove what you are saying first then I will do the extra foot work to go and give you things to read. As my way of setting things up for those that want to read a bit and dig a bit...Dont look at notes from Shotokan "history" its limited and a large portion of it is written by people who were actually disconnected from the source matterial by being in Japan and not Okinawa were all this started. Read Matsubayashi Ryu stuff and stuff by Chosin Chibana and his pears or even things on Shito web sites as apparently Mabuni was a much better source for verbal education than others. As for direct thigns about Wanshu, you have to read things that Itosu passed on from his instructor who told stories about Sakukawa and Wanshu. If you dig outside of Shotokan sources you get a better picture of our history pre-JKA and Pre-Shotokan.
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Jan 9, 2013 15:43:08 GMT
James, can you tell us where to find any of these stories/accounts you mentioned? Yah, read a book! seriously, we all need to do our research and we all need to dig a bit. I read like a mad man for 20 years trying to figure out what was "story" and what was fact. I wrote a few notes down and give them out to people who want them....but one thing that I dont do is spoon feed people things. ..Sorry James that doesn't wash with me. What Dave is asking for is references. You have come to some conclusions based on your own research. This is obviously perfectly valid, but it is your interpretation of what you have read. It is totally reasonable to ask for references so that others can also read what you have and come to their own conclusions (which may or may not be the same as yours). Now it may be, not unlike myself, that you have read a lot of stuff and these conclusions have grown and formed as part of a holistic collection of everything you have read, practiced, experienced and been taught etc. Which makes it very hard to give specific references... Anyway this is the basis of the scientific method that underpins all aspects of modern society - we hypothesis based on observation, we test through experimentation, we reference, we open it out for peer review and criticism.. (not unlike OSS ) Just a small caveat... this can also apply to those accounts from okinawa. often they are written down having been passed by word of mouth a few times first or the hazy filter of a fallible memory over time...( this is somewhat demonstrated in the literature where there are a number references to the same shipwrecked-sailor-hiding-in-cave-teaches-fighting-techniques-story referring to different kata's... (kenkudai/Kushanku and Gankaku/chinto as an example)
|
|