|
|
Post by Dod Watt on Nov 18, 2012 2:55:01 GMT
Here we go, this could be a bit unconventional, but we speak about the evolution of Karate, so who holds the rights to what is and what is not, does it not come down to what works and what does not. Do we hold the old in esteem and prevent our own expansion.
Yet the new that come through from the land of the birth of our art, we tend to hold on to every word, what are your thoughts, remember some of you have been training longer than the new regime!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by garage on Nov 18, 2012 6:57:23 GMT
If you read Nakayama's books he talks of putting karate along scentific lines. If you compare it to other physical training in 40 years it fails to adopt new practices as they are understood. Nutrition and equipment has stayed the same. Some Japanese instructors make a big thing about using kick pads old news. Karate think it knows better than science.
Why is it that they do not stop clubs that are clearly tarnishing the brand, Nakayama went to a business university not a sports or science as a business it works brillently spreading japanese culture.
If you training with the first 12 or so instructors from the 60's they all do things differently yet we all behave as if the techniques are set in stone.
The original wave of 60's instructors from japan tested their techniques with each other in the gym if you read the best karate and where not tried anywhere for real.
There maybe plenty of secret techniques in kata but a visit to judo aikido mma etc will unlock them and allow you to practice them in months instead of years in the hope you might find something.
The japanese method is practice pratice and discover it yourself do expect them to tell you anything anytime soon.
If you always look to someone else to tell you what to do you, you will prevent you own evolution. As a defence system it does not work unless you adapt it and make it work for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Nov 18, 2012 18:49:21 GMT
This is an interesting, dynamic and revealing subject. first off some people dont want Karate to evolve, others think that it must become more like MMA than traditional styles.
For me the first answer is that Japan no long "owns" Karate per see, they are "the keepers of Traditional Karate in my mind. They represent what Karate was and what Nakayama senseis style became.
However each of us has our own way of performing or interpreting what Karate is and thats the most important part of Karate. We all evolve in Karate and we grow. As a unit Karate grows through all of our own innovations as well. But the nice part is that it only evolves enough for us to remember what traditional ideas of self exploration are!
|
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on Nov 18, 2012 21:33:29 GMT
Deep thinking mode on.....
My biggest concern with the future of Karate is that you can still walk into a Dojo and learn what is called Traditional Shotokan Karate but learn nothing more than a small section of the 3 K's and next to nothing about applying Karate.
Obviously part of the responsibility is down to the student to further their knowledge and seek out more.
How you fix that - if it needs fixing - is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Nov 19, 2012 18:03:56 GMT
Hi all Personally I think there is a need for standards and structures, in particular those that facilitate learning through experience. The very basis of learning requires structure just to give new students a framework and context in which to fit the new things they learn. However there is a slightly less obvious benefit about increasing the sum of all knowledge through the sharing of ideas... I will explain what I mean: In all walks of life (social, political, team etc) the ability to have the freedom to learn by your mistakes requires an individual to be given the trust to make those mistakes, the space (in terms of time and cost) to learn through experience and have the authority to change the way you do things for the better. This also requires a culture of recognising expertise (through doing-the-job) and a culture, within the group, of being receptive to change. So how does this relate to Karate? It goes back to the old Context argument again. What is your karate training for? Personally for me it is a self-protection martial art, with a few exotic trappings and the benefit of practicing in your pajamas.  On a serious note; I don't want to learn something that will be completely useless in the street. Physically I enjoy the training, emotionally I like the idea that I may have some skills for self-protection and intellectually I am interested in the intellectual archaeology associated with understanding and applying the fighting principles found in kata. The very rigid adherence to the "classical Shotokan" form, as espoused by the JKA (for example), with its focus on perfecting technique for the very niche environment of a wood-sprung dojo, or competition mat...would seem to me to inhibit innovation, especially from those who have "been-there" and "done-it" (club bouncers, emergency services, Saturday night in Redhill etc). It feels more like re-enforcing dogma (based on unrealistic fighting principles) rather than empowering learning... What I would want is a "karate learning framework", something like a set of core principles, approaches, skills and applications that when taken as a whole says "this is karate". A learning regime to give new comers a simple set of tools to enable them rapidly to partake in practical training - a foundation based on practical karate skills to provide benefit quickly, which then can be built on in their future karate career. |
|
|
|
Post by jimlukelkc on Nov 19, 2012 19:45:10 GMT
Ladies and gentlemen, I give Mr Tom Runge! Hear hear sir!
|
|
|
|
Post by elmar on Nov 19, 2012 20:07:10 GMT
Personally I think there is a need for standards and structures <heresy mode on> Why? There was none of this before Itosu, was there? In Okinawa, one went to a teacher and learned from that person, who might send you to another teacher to learn something else. The onus was on the student to find out where and how to get knowledge. Likewise in Japan, the menkyo kaiden system only said you had learned, in the estimation of the person giving the certificate, a certain amount of what that person knew. And the primary question in those days was not "what is your rank?" but instead, "who was your teacher, and who was their teacher?" The standards question only arises if one wants to maintain a style purity independent of knowing what person is embodying that style, and wants to teach large number of folks in a quasi-military format (historically - post 60's - mainly to make money). Since there is no style without a stylist, it's in the end silly imho; one cannot escape the human factor. <heresy mode off> All the above said for the purpose to help clarify hidden assumptions, since I talk somewhat out of both sides of my mouth, in that I give JKA standard kyu and shodan tests myself. |
|
|
|
Post by dek1 on Nov 19, 2012 21:45:35 GMT
As a defence system it does not work unless you adapt it and make it work for you. I think that this is the same for all martial arts but in essence i disagree about Karate not being a working self defence system. I have only joined Karate in the past three and a half years before that i boxed for 20+ years. I have had a few violent encounters over the years between being a door man since my late teens and a prison officer for 16 years. If you train properly and use the system basics of block & immediate counter even if the block is just moving out of the way it is effective. The training in my opinion if done correctly conditions you to react to a punch naturaly and not mechanically. I think if someone trains to punch, kick or block in a every time you do it do it for real then karate is a powerfull form of self defence. That said half of the bunkai I have come accross would take years to make reflex reactionary and to me is pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on Nov 19, 2012 22:02:54 GMT
If we were to standardise and have a framework or structure then it would have to be full of everything from all orgs and techniques of Shotokan, nobody would want to be a part of it if parts of their training were left out but others could also dip in and use any of it - especially stuff that they don't normally practice - so long as they could learn it properly. From the global point of view then a Brown belt from one place would be at the same standard as one from anywhere else, if the standards were somehow enforced (as a minimum) then it would prevent some clubs from turning out garbage or putting people off by not teaching them anything usefull in the first 3 years. So long as it didn't restrict any others.  Karate is probably too fragmented now with too many politicians to get anywhere near a standard. I feel strongly about this as we have a small club near us who are learning a small standard syllabus badly, we have had a couple of their students move to ours and we've had to go back to basics - I dare say another club could look at us and say the same - but i'm not boasting, just feel bad that they are learning something that will have little use to them until they reach a certain level and seek out their own training. Most would have given up out of boredom or realised that they still can't fight their way out of a paper bag. |
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on Nov 19, 2012 22:08:11 GMT
.....That said half of the bunkai I have come accross would take years to make reflex reactionary and to me is pointless. One of my aims as a new instructor is to drill these close up Bunkai techniques to try and make them useful, it may take ages for any of it to sink in but I wouldn't say it's pointless though. This leads onto the statements about Karate taking more than a life time of learning.... |
|
|
|
Post by mikeflanagan on Nov 20, 2012 13:10:09 GMT
Deep thinking mode on..... My biggest concern with the future of Karate is that you can still walk into a Dojo and learn what is called Traditional Shotokan Karate but learn nothing more than a small section of the 3 K's and next to nothing about applying Karate. Obviously part of the responsibility is down to the student to further their knowledge and seek out more. How you fix that - if it needs fixing - is beyond me. Surely the answer is simple? You teach it as best you can so that the training includes the things that you think are missing. Then hopefully one or more of your students will teach with the same mindset themselves, as I figure the process will take more than one generation. Only then will you get a continually improving methodology. Mike |
|
|
|
Post by mikeflanagan on Nov 20, 2012 13:13:36 GMT
[quote author=dek1 board=philosophy thread=1057 post=8619 time=1353361535That said half of the bunkai I have come accross would take years to make reflex reactionary and to me is pointless.
[/quote]
I'd say that's probably an issue either with the bunkai itself or the way its being trained. That said, karate is at least in part a method for old men (and women). Some things will take a long time to learn, but will still work when youth, strength and speed have faded away.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Nov 20, 2012 14:08:36 GMT
From the global point of view then a Brown belt from one place would be at the same standard as one from anywhere else, if the standards were somehow enforced (as a minimum) then it would prevent some clubs from turning out garbage or putting people off by not teaching them anything usefull in the first 3 years. So long as it didn't restrict any others. Okay let me preface this by saying I am not of the opinion that we should allow clubs to turn out crap Karate, its horrible...however.... I am SO against standardization past brown belt or higher. The Cookie cutter idea is stupid and should be DONE AWAY WITH! I love watching Shiina sparring or Tanaka in his hay day blasting people, then you look at guys like Yahara,....who spars like a crazy man or Osaka who has perfect form in Kata, Imura who does one of the best Jutte I have ever seen or...well you get the point. The problem with standardization is that you end up with guys that all look the same, train the same and end up being the same. No flavour, no differences and personal flair! I think that forcing people to be the same is stupid and if that is what some club was doing when I visited it...I would walk out and laugh at how silly that is. I have fought guys that were 7 feet tall...NO WAY I can do what they can do and no chance they will look anything like me doing a Kata. Get real, past the basics...which need to be strong...standardization is not just impossible, its stupid and sufficating! |
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on Nov 20, 2012 20:55:48 GMT
How about a standard that encourages a minimum but will allow clubs/orgs to still include what they want?
That's the sort of thing I was thinking of.
For a good club/org if someone came along and said at certain levels you should ideally introduce these things which are all included in Shotokan, maybe ground fighting/defence, grappling/throwing techniques etc, then a good club will say, yep - we already do!
For a bad club that just did 3K's they would be encouraged to step up their training and include more than just a standard syllabus.
I know it's near impossible to introduce and get even half of KarateKa interested, we all like to think we do a good job and also think that those in the towns and cities nearby are also doing a good job, but how do we know unless we go out and train with them and knowledge share.
How popular is Karate still? When you see MA's like TKD that have national standards and can get into things like the Olympics, then they may take over, our local one is full. In a few generations time Karate maybe just the old MA that a few places still do.
Even if we could have a great scheme that everyone wanted to sign up to then some bugger would see it as a money making idea and it would fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Nov 21, 2012 13:01:33 GMT
Wow this topic has moved on  (...and rather than respond individually to each post I will try and distill my thoughts here) I think there is a bit of a terminology challenge here... A standard can be seen as just a benchmark to which you can measure the quality of something...and quality is in the eye of the beholder.  My view is that what constitutes as a standard does not have to follow the same technique/stance form that large classical shotokan organisations use for the purpose of style purity and grading conformity. In fact I would argue that this approach will always result in what we see today in organisations such as the JKA. Why not base your standards on outcomes (fighting principles) rather than process (Technique and kata form)? I would argue that each fighting "style" grouping, such as Karate vs Jujitsu vs Judo vs Boxing vs Muay Thai etc, when you distill each down into its core fighting principles will show some core differences in terms of emphasis of techniques, fighting tactics and strategic principles. A lot of that may be to do with focus or context of each art (Judo - sport grappling, Ninjitsu - tree climbing whatever...). So Karate has a range of fighting principles and strategies that are designed for "self-protection vs untrained street ruffians". These are encapsulated in the kata and particular karate styles have slightly different emphasis often based on the kata lineage that underpins the particular style. Interestingly an outcome based standard might actually bring certain styles together given their common lineages, the opposite of what happens with a process/form-based standard which tends to focus on the differences. If we look at Shotokan, the key kata series that underpin the style are arguable the Heian/Pinan's as designed by Itosu, who developed them from the earlier Kankudai (Kushanku), Bassai/Passai, Tekki etc. The other current styles that also are underpinned by Itosu's influence would probably have the same underlying principles... So what does an outcome based standard look like? It would still include the basics, such as punching, kicking, kata practice (all be it with a focus on application rather than form). Stances and movement might be a bit more interesting. it might be more about how to use stances to gain mechanical advantage or Tai sabaki. Certainly the practice of Kihon "blocking" techniques would change.... Now I don't want to get into exactly what i think the strategies/principles are for shotokan in this post (I have to get back to work...  ) ...but I think this approach to outcome based standards allows and encourages variety, experimentation and learning through experience and would encourage teaching of practical skills much earlier on in the learning cycle. |
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Nov 21, 2012 18:51:46 GMT
How about a standard that encourages a minimum but will allow clubs/orgs to still include what they want?That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. The problem is with who sets the standards! Can you imagine a world were someone looks at Yahara sensei and says “until you stop jumping, spinning so much you are not doing Shotokan”! It already has happened to some extent but it’s the “Who” that makes me nervous! The most we can hope for is that each club holds higher standards and yet makes their style accessible by the majority of people to benefit from training. For a good club/org if someone came along and said at certain levels you should ideally introduce these things which are all included in Shotokan, maybe ground fighting/defence, grappling/throwing techniques etc, then a good club will say, yep - we already do! But Ground fighting is not part of any Karate syllabus that is Shotokan or Japanese Karate…so your proposal is saying that we have to add on to our current syllabus to include training that is not traditionally part of what makes our style Shotokan/Wado/Goju ext. in essence you have to add Brazilian Jiu Jitsu/wrestling ext to your current syllabus to be seen as good?? For a bad club that just did 3K's they would be encouraged to step up their training and include more than just a standard syllabus. Again, what makes doing just the 3K’s a bad club? I have seen clubs that just do the three K’s clean house at open tournaments. I think the definition of what you are trying to encourage is to develop a more orthodox looking form of MMA……Not a better karate program. I know it's near impossible to introduce and get even half of KarateKa interested, we all like to think we do a good job and also think that those in the towns and cities nearby are also doing a good job, but how do we know unless we go out and train with them and knowledge share. I agree that sharing with others is one of the only ways to build a stronger style of Karate…but politics and ego always get in the way one way or another….. The problem with setting standards and imposing them on others is that you get push back big time. The best and ONLY thing you can do is ensure that you are teaching at the best level you can and encouraging those that train with you to seek a higher level yet than you teach at. Let other clubs do what they will, you cant change them no matter how hard you try and trying harder only makes you part of the problem! |
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Nov 21, 2012 19:05:31 GMT
...but I think this approach to outcome based standards allows and encourages variety, experimentation and learning through experience and would encourage teaching of practical skills much earlier on in the learning cycle. I really don’t know what the standards are for the Organizations anyone belongs to as each instructors seems to have their own feeling on what “Shodan”, “Nidan” ext and so on would be. I was once told by an instructor that control was the main key as a black belt and if you hit someone you are at fault 100% of the time and if you get hit it is not your fault in a kumite match with a fellow black belt….a few years later I was told that you should try and hit your partner with control and if they get hit it is their fault 100% of the time…. take that to testing and you have a situation were under the first instructor if you are testing and get hit you are not at fault and going to pass no issue, the other bloke will have a mark against….the second set up will see the opposite situation set up. Also, Kata presentation, I have been told that Kata is simple and basic and not fancy, then I train with a different instructor and he is doing flowery moves and setting up fancy hand techniques and timing that makes it look like a dance performance. For me the Core values of Shotokan are strong basics, good spirit and a determined look when testing or training. I don’t give extra marks for fancy basics, advanced moves that have about a 50/50 chance of working in real life and my Shotokan…its ugly, practical and powerful. I don’t like free style that lasts for 2 minutes because if you have to “fight” someone in real life for that long you probably lost already. I don’t play tag and I don’t look like a dancer so I don’t dance. You wanna get points on testing from me you better be able to fight for real…not show dance in Kumite and get fancy in Kata! I don’t care if you can kick above your own knee as long as when it comes time to fight…you fight! |
|
)