|
Post by garage on Mar 6, 2013 10:15:39 GMT
In an article on the shotokan way, Kanasawa says he teaches the katas as taught to him by Nakayama and it is the JKA that changed them not him. So Maikyo Nakayama in best karate, Low Block, middle block, Low block, JKA class same, In Kanasawa's book low, middle, high level block. Gojushiho Best karate and JKA have mixed sho and dai up but obviously the original way in Kanasawa's book. So I am glad that has been cleared up
|
|
|
Post by Rob S on Mar 6, 2013 11:21:42 GMT
For Meikyo JKA have always (since I learned it in the early 1970's at least) done 4 x gedan-barai, 2 x uchi-uke.
The association I am with is identical to Kanazawa sensei in that it is 2 x gedan-barai, 2 x uchi-uke, and 2 x age uke.
We also have a totally different Chinte (we also perform the standard way - so we have 2) , Jiin, and Gojushiho (i.e. Useishi - we still recognise a sho and dai version too - so we have three!).
We are an old Shotokan association, and our founder predates Nakayama and the JKA (he was an advisor to both the JKA and Shoto-kai).
Is there a right or wrong way? I do not think so, just the foibles of the individual teachers and associations propagating the Shotokan style.
To add to Kanazawa sensei's comments, I was a member of Yahara sensei's group for many any years. He teaches Bassai-dai without the knee lift prior to yama-zuki - because in his words 'that is how Nakayama sensei used to teach it before it was changed'.
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Mar 6, 2013 13:07:44 GMT
The problem is that Kanazawa was booted out of the JKA before Nakayam Sensei made some of the changes. Look at the dates fo the books and when Kanazawa started to leave...he simply was not around for the changes his instructor made...no one is wrong here, its just different, and that is not bad!
|
|
|
Post by Allan Shepherd on Mar 6, 2013 21:37:54 GMT
One hour kata class tonight covering Chinte.
Always practiced the last moves from Zenkutsu Dachi Tate Ken Gyaku Zuki as a pull back into Heisoku Dachi Tsutsume Ken followed by the 3 "bunny hops" but tonight we did not pull back first but went straight into a "bunny hop" followed by 2 more.
Any thoughts?
I have experienced Meikyo as per your explanation Bob but also with 2 x gedan, 2 x uchi and 2 x age. Right or wrong? as you say Bob I do not think so either since each group is only thinking outside of the box.
As a member of the KUGB many years ago we practiced Heian Yondan with Kime on the opening moves of Kokutsu Dachi into Kaishu Haiwan Uke, when we changed to UKTKF the kime was replaced with a flowing movement without kime. When I asked Sensei Kawasoe why the change he said simply that it was the way they taught in Japan!!
Best Regards Allan
|
|
|
Post by elmar on Mar 7, 2013 0:32:12 GMT
I refuse to do bunny hops. I just stand up. The requirement that kata begin and end on the same spot is artificial, imho.
|
|
|
Post by nathanso on Mar 7, 2013 6:59:07 GMT
I refuse to do bunny hops. I just stand up. The requirement that kata begin and end on the same spot is artificial, imho. Even when you do the hokey-pokey?
|
|
|
Post by Rob S on Mar 7, 2013 7:30:36 GMT
Our Koryu Chinte just steps backwards. No hops!
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Mar 7, 2013 11:11:16 GMT
Although I agree with Elmar, returning to the start is an affectation for competition kata, I quite like the bunny hops.
Paul Willoughby (JKA/ISKF) wrote a rather nice thesis on Chinte, which included a decent explanation for the Bunny hops. Basically the final motions are a choke with three sharp neck cranking actions.. The jumping back to the Embusen start is less important than the sharp dropping action of the "bunny hops"..
Very nasty...
|
|
|
Post by jimlukelkc on Mar 7, 2013 12:32:49 GMT
I favour the neck-crank explanation myself Tom but the lack of evidence for this would suggest this is retro-engineering technique to fit the kata ( although there is an argument that all bunkai is retro-engineering ) The fact remains that the neck-crank works so it is a much better solution than saying it is symbolic of waves lapping at the shore etc....
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on Mar 7, 2013 13:43:49 GMT
I'm all for retro Bunkai rather than sticking to an "official" explaination, the moves and meanings could have come from long before the Kata was put together. With this move being at the end of the Kata then in theory it should be a fight stopping response which is why I prefer the neck crank.
I've also seen another application where you have someone in an arm lock and they are bent over double in front of you, as their other hand tries to attack your groin you move back sharply - try it in practice. You also hurt their arm as you move suddenly. You wouldn't put your fist in your hand in a fight situation unless you were trying to hit someone with it or symbolising an arm/wrist/foot lock.
I used to get a bit hung up on Kata being the same or traditional but not so much now, it is a shame we now have different versions of the same Kata, and it seems without a reasonable explaination as to why it was changed.
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Mar 7, 2013 14:03:52 GMT
I favour the neck-crank explanation myself Tom but the lack of evidence for this would suggest this is retro-engineering technique to fit the kata ( although there is an argument that all bunkai is retro-engineering ) The fact remains that the neck-crank works so it is a much better solution than saying it is symbolic of waves lapping at the shore etc.... Hi Jim I too think it is a retro-engineered bunkai. Although the three bunny hops don't exist in the non-shotokan versions ( Shorin-Ryu) so I suspect the form was also retro-engineered to get back to the start of the embusen . (note: the Shorin-ryu and shotokan versions are very similar except the shotokan version with the larger stances ends up at a different point ...requiring the bunny hops) www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHOR8kMpgfUOh and nice retro-engineered explanation for putting the bunny hops at the end of the kata too, Mal ;D
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Mar 9, 2013 12:22:58 GMT
I dont teach a Bunkai for the three hops, it was added to make sure you get you your starting point. I dont see a point in adding a bunkai when their was NO movement their for the original. I understand that the JKA changed a great deal of the Kata, and the shorin version was interesting, but I dont teach a bunkai just to cover up the fact that the move is designed to get you back to the starting point...i just say its to get you back to point A.
|
|
|
Post by jimlukelkc on Mar 9, 2013 12:50:18 GMT
Hmm.... maybe it is time to stop teaching the hops then? From a pragmatic view point, perhaps if it is purely cosmetic then it has no place. I do not understand why a large step would not have sufficed rather than the faintly ludicrous hops..?
|
|
|
Post by elmar on Mar 9, 2013 14:31:15 GMT
I do not understand why a large step would not have sufficed rather than the faintly ludicrous hops..? You don't understand the Japanese psyche Ever see bunraku puppeteers? They're all in black, and so they "don't exist". The hops "don't exist" since they are not "steps". Kyudo has some of the same strangeness: after you complete your second shot, you have to move off the line and exit the shooting area. It is the rule that all stepping must begin with the left foot. But this does not get you off and behind the line of shooting to clear the view from the shomen to the shooter behind you. So you take a "non-step" with the right foot slightly to your right front. This "step" does not exist. Therefore your first "official" full step is with the left foot. See? Easy. Hops are not steps, so they don't exist, and nobody sees them. If you had to do a "step" you would have to admit that the kata's embusen was not conforming to the rule that all kata must end where they begin.
|
|
|
Post by nathanso on Mar 9, 2013 21:36:31 GMT
Elmar- so do the Japanese think that rabbits are stationary and never move?
|
|
|
Post by jimlukelkc on Mar 9, 2013 22:27:07 GMT
That's fascinating Elmar. I was aware of Japanese theatre where stage hands would dress in black and move sets around and the audience would treat them as invisible. Suddenly one of them might become part of the action and " kill " one of the actors. This would be treated as if the killer was invisible and hence the erroneous tradition of ninja dressing in black and being able to become invisible. However, that said, it is not a cogent enough reason to justify continuing to teach it outside of Japan surely ?
|
|
|
Post by elmar on Mar 10, 2013 20:01:55 GMT
Elmar- so do the Japanese think that rabbits are stationary and never move? LOL - well, the one in the moon never moves
|
|
|
Post by elmar on Mar 10, 2013 20:04:09 GMT
...However, that said, it is not a cogent enough reason to justify continuing to teach it outside of Japan surely ? It depends on what you are doing with your kata - are you conforming to a cultural tradition in the performance, or are you doing the kata for some other reason? As you know, some Westerners out-Japanese the Japanese (sadly). As for me, as I said, I don't do the hops, but then I don't expect to ever grade for rank in a JKA style again.
|
|
|
Post by Allan Shepherd on Mar 10, 2013 20:38:05 GMT
Hi Elmar
I respect the fact that YOU do not do the hops but do you pass on the hops to your students to retain "tradition" or is tradition no longer a criteria since you no longer expect to grade for rank in a JKA style again?
Best Regards Allan
|
|
|
Post by elmar on Mar 10, 2013 23:10:39 GMT
Easy I tell my students that the hops exist in the JKA versions, and that in certain dojo they will be expected to execute them, simply because Gigo Funakoshi replaced cat stances with rooted stances and the local requirement is to "get back to the starting point." For me it is a question of "dialects" of karate kata - and some are older than others, but they are all equivalently valid. "Right" and "wrong" is not applicable. I do not do the hops, and I do not ask that my students do the hops. They can if they like, no harm no fowl.
|
|
|
Post by nathanso on Mar 11, 2013 3:45:42 GMT
They can if they like, no harm no fowl. Just missed being funny by a hare.
|
|
|
Post by Rob S on Mar 11, 2013 8:01:01 GMT
The hops may well have been added for effect, masking incorrect stances or footwork, or to get back on the spot, etc. Funakoshi allegedly stated that kata was not logical, so therefore why try and make it fit a start and stop point? I train in Iaido and the Seitei gata section of ZNKR also asks for starting and stopping on the spot or close to it! So yes I agree with Elmar .. it is a Japanese peculiarity .. and it was considered important to see standardisation and 'shape'.
Back to karate ... Funakoshi admits: ""Since Karate is a Japanese martial art, there is no apparent reason for retaining these unfamiliar and in some cases unclear names [of katas] of Chinese origin simply because of earlier usage. I have therefore changed those names I considered to be unsuitable after considering the figurative nature of the old masters' descriptions of the kata and my own study of them."
So he, and others changed the names! What else they changed we can only see when we compare Shotokan to Shorinryu.
We become obsessed with JKA renditions of Shoto as being correct. We cite Best Karate etc. We cite the DVD and videos of Masatoshi Nakayama. But it is not the correct or definitive Shotokan! It is the globalised version.
We can say that as karate progressed on Okinawa various teachers and generations of karate-ka were changing and evolving it. The kata especially would have become the subject of changes over time!
So, if you like the hops, do them. If you don't .. then don't. Who says they have to be included? Ah yes .. I remember ... that association who released all the books etc. The books that were radically different from the books of their own sensei!
Change is with us. If we want to really know the kata as per the source ... well ... I guess we need a DeLorean.
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Mar 11, 2013 12:28:50 GMT
Back to karate ... Funakoshi admits: ""Since Karate is a Japanese martial art, there is no apparent reason for retaining these unfamiliar and in some cases unclear names [of katas] of Chinese origin simply because of earlier usage. I have therefore changed those names I considered to be unsuitable after considering the figurative nature of the old masters' descriptions of the kata and my own study of them." That is an interesting take, I know that Funakoshi clearly adapted karate for the japanese audience, but what your quote seems to suggest is that he viewed it as a new "japanese" art not an old okinawan one? If that is true it explains some of his behaviour, such as; only teaching the form and not the application of kata; the removal of grappling and throwing techniques (which overlap with Jujitsu); introduction of the coloured belt system. Maybe this was a way for Funakoshi to feel that he was not denigrating the art (or his teachers) by not passing on what he was taught, as he was developing a brand new Art, one based more on a Japanese budo culture;a more progressive (to his Japanese customers), self-fullfilly, health promoting, leisure-style pursuit. a la Elmars Kyudo. He clearly wasn't a fan of "sport-karate" but by the late 1940's he had no choice, as that was the direction the next generation of Japanese instructors wanted to take karate....
|
|
|
Post by Rob S on Mar 11, 2013 15:07:33 GMT
Hi, to clarify the Karate-Do Kyohan quote - the full quotation is:
"“The names of the kata have come down to us by word of mouth. Names in use in the past included Pinan, Seishan, Naifanchi, Wanshu, Chinto, and the like, many of which had ambiguous meanings and have led to frequent mistakes in instruction. Since karate is a Japanese martial art, there is no apparent reason for retaining these unfamiliar and in some cases unclear names of Chinese origin simply because of earlier usage. I have therefore changed those names I considered to be unsuitable after considering the figurative nature of the old masters’ descriptions of the kata and my own study of them.”"
I think it is clear that more than just the names were word of mouth teacher - to student (who became teacher and made changes)- to the grand-student - to the great -grand-student etc.
That is progress, but also, unfortunately, taking away some of the very nature of what the kata/art should have been.
The crux may well be found in these words by GF - "and have led to frequent mistakes in instruction."
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Mar 11, 2013 20:07:15 GMT
Yes, I rather suspect it had more to do with trying to distance karate from an association with China (the Okinawan name was China-hand). Using names for kata that could be recognised as having a Chinese origin was not very popular at that time... the Japanese Imperial Army had been fighting a war in China since 1931.. starting with the occupation of Manchuria...
It certainly appears that Funakoshi could have done rather well in a modern marketing or public relations company...
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Mar 11, 2013 21:25:56 GMT
Lets not discount a few things here...first their are many stories about Karat an its name change/kata name change/technical changes that all make sense in some light. However I think its more a mix of things.
Also, lets not get confused as well in that may instructors take ownership of the name change for many reasons...we may never know or at the least all accept a singular person/reason.
Also, I find Japanese history to be very interesting....seeing as way back when the Japanese population were all Chinese...sort of...it is interesting that the single written sentence set China and Japan against each other to the extent that its bad will is used to color the reason behind the name changes.
Personally I dont think we will ever get a straight enough answer as to who did what and why!
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on Mar 11, 2013 22:08:43 GMT
Couple of quotes I read today that seem appropriate.... “Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old but rather continue to seek out what they sought.” “Tradition doesn’t mean preserving someone’s ashes in a box but rather keeping its flame alight.” I'm not trying to offer up answers, just to add to the thinking pot of our progress, maybe it doesn't matter too much on where your hand is or what stance you are in, to hop or not to hop, but the feeling you get when doing? Okay, i'm rambling.....
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Mar 12, 2013 11:37:56 GMT
Mal, you nailed it on the head!
|
|
|
Post by jimlukelkc on Mar 12, 2013 11:47:47 GMT
Karate tradition has been change. Every "master" or innovator down through the years has made changes and this is important to prevent stagnation. The only questions we should make of change is " Is it relevant"? " Does it work?" "is it necessary?" Imagine if all chefs just repeated the same old recipes handed down unchanged over generations or if scientists just repeated the same things and never innovated, speculated or researched?
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Mar 12, 2013 13:17:56 GMT
Other than personal changes the most important thing to ask is do you agree with the changes that you see happening in your org, style. For instance, some of the changes that are happening outside of the JKA are not my cup of tea, they are not wrong...just not what I agree with.
For instance, with all due respect, I dont agree with Asai making 60+ kata. I find them interesting but I dont practice them because it is impossible to know all 26 so well that you can do them perfectly, their is always more work for me to do. Add an additional 60 or even 10 and i dont feel I have enough time in the day as a married family man to scrape the surface.
I have dipped into the odd Goju Kata but I dont Shotokanize them, I just do them for fun once and a while. I dont think changing Kata, adding new ones or making big moves in techniques as being for me. I like the style I train in and want to kind of keep it as is with just the few small shifts I have put in for personal reasons.
|
|