azam
Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by azam on Nov 11, 2015 11:25:58 GMT -5
Interesting discussion! Thought I'd chime in. What I've learnt from research into the topic is: there is no right or wrong way to do kata and it depends on what you want to get out of it. . . . Yes and no. It depends on one's perspective, of course. Not all perspectives are equal. Poor information can lead to bad choices. Which perspectives are better and why? Lineage, tracing back from present teacher to those before, is not the best method of determining value for the simple reason that the founder could have been wrong. Better than lineage is comparing movement patterns in common with other arts and seeing how closely they work with/accommodate/destroy the human body, particularly the joints. In conjunction with this, one must compare the level of detail and reliance on woo. The more woo and the fewer details, the more you should suspect bs. Fighters are practical people, freight your training with woo, and you will likely lose. That kata are adapted or changed to fit modern times demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the kata. Times may change, but the form of the human body does not, and that is what we are dealing with. (This is not to say that new kata cannot be invented, of course they can.) Hmmm I'm not sure I agree with you here. Lineage is important because it helps you understand the evolution from then - up until now. It also gives you the unique position of being able to understand the perspective of the founders and those who have contributed to the evolution of said form - being able to understand why you are doing something is key in appreciating what you are doing and more importantly finding value if there is value to be found. When you can understand the purpose behind the form you have better tools to compare it to other common martial arts forms. Solely using forms common in other systems I feel is a flawed perspective. I understand your point that there is a common branch in regards to forms/movement patterns with other arts but applications vary and so does environment. This is why many martial arts systems exist because we are not all the same. The form of the human body is not the same for all of us nor our are environments similar and hence how we express/apply ourselves will be different.A great way to demonstrate this is in Karate itself. We have Shuri and Naha forms of Karate. As Gichin Funakoshi mentions in his book they are different approaches based on different body types using the same form of the human body - in this case using the same common tools found in Karate but in uniquely different ways. The form of the human body may not change drastically but the environment in which that human body interacts will inevitably change and as a result so does application with it. An example of this is the formation of Judo from the older koryus of jujitsu by Jigoro Kano. It is a clear example of adaption or modernization of a group of common styles, as a result of the changing environment of Japan and the new need of the times despite the fact that the form of the human body is not that much different from then till now.Martial history is littered with adaption/change and so is the history of kata.Kata are meant to be adapted to the times. That all the greatest proponents of Karate all adapted there kata and in instances created some from scratch. I think the biggest hoodwink in Karate has been this perspective that kata have not been changed or adapted and that somehow to do so is to go against the grain or means that the you lack what kata is all about despite there being a good deal of evidence of it having been done by the greatest proponents of Karate.The fact that there is evidence of Mabuni, Funakoshi, Uechi, Miyagi et al - all having modified the original forms they learnt. Mabuni Kenwa arguably the greatest proponent/chronicler of kata himself adapted/created kata from older forms. Adaptions or modifications to kata were done as a means to improve them, reflect new advances etc etc - not just to change for changes sake. But to reflect the changes in environment/times & any new advances that came as a result. But only when they could be improved.A good example to illustrate a modification to kata is an example I have given already. Sanchin's original form is open hands as we see in Uechi ryu. Chojun Miyagi modified the open hand to a closed fist. It should make sense why this was done and why he changed the breathing from shallow to deep.
In case I'll just mention why I think it was adapted though it is self evident: a closed fist because it is much more conducive to the long term health of your hand than using your fingers - if you need to hit something. Imagine if Sanchin was still practiced with open hands instead of closed fists like the original sanchin was meant to be practiced and that Miyagi had not adapted it. You'd have the same issue many serious uechi ryu karateka have with deformity of the hands/fingers.
I mean just look at Shinjo sensei's hands.
The breathing was adapted because in the original Sanchin - it is continuous muscle tension with shallow breathing. This is extremely harmful for people with high blood pressure or heart issues or can possibly create or aggravate health issues and was changed to deeper breathing at the tandem (with complete exhales - so you still get the benefit of isometric training that the original sanchin provides in abundance) to relieve/alleviate the stress on the heart & circulatory system with the added benefit of improving it.
|
|
|
Post by meguro on Nov 11, 2015 17:12:03 GMT -5
Hmmm I'm not sure I agree with you here. Lineage is important because it helps you understand the evolution from then - up until now. It also gives you the unique position of being able to understand the perspective of the founders and those who have contributed to the evolution of said form - being able to understand why you are doing something is key in appreciating what you are doing and more importantly finding value if there is value to be found. When you can understand the purpose behind the form you have better tools to compare it to other common martial arts forms. I did not say lineage is not important, that is another subject, rather that lineage is not the best method to determine the value of the kata practice. If you look at Kyokushin, clearly Mas Oyama had little interest in kata applications other than the standard dancing for belts, dancing because of tradition, etc. Insight into the purpose behind the form is best arrived at by understanding human anatomy.
|
|
GJEC
Member
LOUGHBOROUGH ENSHIN
Posts: 3,218
|
Post by GJEC on Nov 12, 2015 2:33:03 GMT -5
There really is only one way to judge a kata's relevance.
Does it help you to prevail?
At this stage of my life I am not chasing belts or trophies, so I just drill moves until they are smooth and powerful. Confidence to use them is key. One aspect of kata that is rarely discussed is that constant corrections of form can destroy the very confidence we need to apply it. (Tell students they're getting something wrong enough times and they will surely believe it)
It is often quoted that when you stop sparring you can maintain your capabilities with kata. I just laugh at that idea.
My belief about maintaining a very sharp bite: If in doubt, simplify.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by meguro on Nov 12, 2015 15:32:57 GMT -5
For those who enjoy kata, doing more is reward enough. Not for me either. The magic is not there. Drill, baby, drill. I'd rather work on applications and sparring.
|
|
|
Post by MMX on Nov 12, 2015 15:56:59 GMT -5
For those who enjoy kata, doing more is reward enough. Not for me either. The magic is not there. Drill, baby, drill. I'd rather work on applications and sparring. Right. The Enshin Kata are like the textbook for what you should know at that level. You practice it to remember/learn the form but in class you do padwork/sparring more. We actually don't work on kata much at all.
|
|
|
Post by meguro on Nov 13, 2015 7:54:53 GMT -5
Exactly. If your game is hitting something, you've got to hit something. If throwing, you've got to throw, and on and on. What ever muscle memory you build for fighting the invisible man perfectly, because we always win those battles, will be different than what a warm, resisting body will require. I think this vid illustrates quite well what we're talking about. Midway through you may notice that the set up for seioinage sort of resembles a posture in Pinan sono ni. (This is not to say the application in pinan 2 is a shoulder throw, but there are worse interpretations out there.)
|
|
azam
Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by azam on Nov 13, 2015 12:28:23 GMT -5
I did not say lineage is not important, that is another subject, rather that lineage is not the best method to determine the value of the kata practice. If you look at Kyokushin, clearly Mas Oyama had little interest in kata applications other than the standard dancing for belts, dancing because of tradition, etc. Insight into the purpose behind the form is best arrived at by understanding human anatomy. I think it's important to know the evolution of kata to said point - otherwise you have simply no idea what you're doing or why you are doing it within that style context. Regardless of whatever opinion you hold on kata - it makes sense first to understand the evolution of it and then form an opinion when you have information and evidence. You might not agree with the value placed in it after the research or might think there is no value at all. Kyokushin is a great example and so is Mas Oyama. If we take a look at the evolution of kata in Kyokushin - you see the reason why there is such a huge disconnect with kata. Mas Oyama didn't have the pedigree - at least as far as kata is concerned to understand what it was about or what he was doing. If you look into the history of it - he only trained shotokan at Waseda Uni for 2 years - he was not trained by either Gichin (too old - by his admission he left training there to senior students) or Gigo - as is often claimed (impossible because Oyama joined after 1945 - Gigo passed away that same year). We have no real idea who trained him in those 2 years - not that 2 years of training Shotokan whilst studying at university simultaneously will teach you a lot about a style. Yamaguchi & So Nei Chu by all admissions are probably the one's that taught Oyama whatever he knew about kata - neither really were in the position to know themselves. There is no evidence that either instructor ever trained with Chojun Miyagi or directly with any of his senior students. Morio Higaonna sensei on the other hand was taught by An'ichi Miyagi - Chojun Miyagi's most senior student. I think you need a combination of understanding human anatomy and the evolution of the forms themselves.
But how we apply ourselves does change and it is influenced greatly by environment. Body type also does play a role – a taller fighter for example will not apply himself/herself the way a shorter fighter would – range differences highlight this point. We are not only talking about forms but the way you apply the dance so to speak. This is after all what kata is - a catalogue of techniques/applications. This isn't my opinion but simply fact - look at the history of martial arts systems & the characteristics of fighters. A great example is the evolution of Brazilian Jiujitsu - by your own admissions it is only people being choked out all in the same way - the theory behind the chokes themselves do not change but the art of applying them does. It is flawed to try to find meaning of a form in a system where the application differs. There is a reason that Muay Thai and Karate are different despite "us all having limbs connected to the torso by joints etc etc." A clear example of this is - have you seen anything resembling Sanchin in any other style but those that are known to have influenced karate?.... The human body might be restricted in a consistent manner like you say but the way we express ourselves is not at all restricted by this - hence why there is always an evolution of application going on. Also it must be said that not everyone's limbs are restricted in the same manner - hence why you have the rubber guard in BJJ. Even less restricted with some yogis. I think you are too focused on the physicality of the forms themselves. The form is not the issue here but the applications. Funakoshi mentioned a karate for naturally stronger/stockier people and a karate for more agile people - same tools but different tactical approaches. Why would that make you question his authority on fighting? We all have our genetic predispositions. The creation of Judo is my point that despite our human anatomy being similar - environment/application inevitably change regardless of anatomy. In the case of Judo it was refining/adapting/modernizing; kata forms, techniques, throws etc etc from the old Koryu styles of jujitsu. The case demonstrates what I mean about anatomy being the same but how applications change independently or as a result of environment. I haven't researched all kata forms - only those of interest to me at the moment. Some I also believe that the changes made are negligible or not noteworthy to me. I feel that way with the pinans & quite a few others. Anyone with any yoga, internal arts or anyone familiar with the different breathing systems of the body will notice the advances that Miyagi made with adapting Sanchin from the original version. If you have experience in yoga or have even dabbled in any system where breathing is at the core - you'll see the advance made by Miyagi and in my eyes they are very noteworthy. In short Miyagi completely changed the breathing of the original sanchin to complete inhale/exhale as it places a lot less stress on the body compared to the original - definitely an advance - whilst still maintaining the isometric benefits including adding the additional benefit of making Sanchin a form that also improves breathing/circulatory benefits. If you still think there is not much advance or difference that Miyagi made to Sanchin - do a google search on "breathing with diaphragm" - this is what Miyagi added to Sanchin with the closed fist whilst maintaining the isometric benefit from a shallow breathing/continuous muscle tension which is known to cause health complications. Add to that all the shime & resistance that can be added to sanchin - makes it an invaluable form to practice regularly. I'm of the opinion that while there is definitely some misunderstanding - I think the karateka of old for the most part had a good idea of what they were doing. I don't think though that tameshiwari using fingers was ever intended - that's where the deformity happens. My opinion of the karateka of old wasn't too great I admit - however I changed my mind a long time back when I saw Masatoshi Nakayama teaching techniques/combinations that I've seen Machida successfully pull off - the best example being osae uke to gyaku tsuki - something I've also seen Gichin Funakoshi do as a very old man. Something we all know works very well. Something I've also seen in knockdown from Makoto Nakamura. If you want to see some of the old school stuff - it's below (interesting stuff - there were a lot more throws in Gichin Funakoshi's karate that I don't think we see anymore): Some throws around 5m45s Sanchin was always a form of isometric/breathing exercise. We can see the original form of Sanchin because it still exists in the Uechi ryu version - with the open hands. There is no bunkai for sanchin - well there are applications but bunkai is not the purpose behind the sanchin form - it's a functional training tool. If you read about Kanbun Uechi's admissions behind what he learnt in Fujian province in China with Kanshiwa - it becomes pretty clear what Sanchin was meant for. This is further evident when you have a look at the physicality of Uechi ryu practitioners under Kanei Uechi - extreme functional musculature especially of the upper body/forearms/lower body with hallmark grip. All developed with Sanchin & Hojo Undo. In my opinion - Okinawan Goju ryu & Uechi ryu are the best bet at looking behind the purpose of kata. All have an unbroken lineage of instruction from founder to student. In Goju's case from An'ichi Miyagi who passed away a few years ago - who was Miyagi's only senior student for a long time and his nominated successor - who is Morio Higaonna's instructor. You have the same with Kanbun Uechi to Kanei Uechi till now. The same can't be said for the styles that developed on the mainland including shotokan. EDIT: That was a long ass post!
|
|
azam
Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by azam on Nov 13, 2015 12:32:38 GMT -5
For those who enjoy kata, doing more is reward enough. Not for me either. The magic is not there. Drill, baby, drill. I'd rather work on applications and sparring. Right. The Enshin Kata are like the textbook for what you should know at that level. You practice it to remember/learn the form but in class you do padwork/sparring more. We actually don't work on kata much at all. Daido Juku has no kata as far as I'm aware. As for myself - I think you only need a very few. I think most of them aren't required the exception for me is Sanchin & Tensho. I'd also drill/spar rather than do taikyoku sono ichi or pinan sono ni - what's the point especially once you've learnt the techniques demonstrated in those kata.
|
|
|
Post by meguro on Nov 15, 2015 12:51:50 GMT -5
I think it's important to know the evolution of kata to said point - otherwise you have simply no idea what you're doing or why you are doing it within that style context. Regardless of whatever opinion you hold on kata - it makes sense first to understand the evolution of it and then form an opinion when you have information and evidence. You might not agree with the value placed in it after the research or might think there is no value at all. I think rather evolution, history has witnessed devolution as far as kata applications and kata goes. The huge disconnect with kata, I lay at the feet of Gichin Funakoshi, though blame could be shared by those even before him. That Oyama didn't focus too much on kata applications is a credit to him. We agree on anatomy att least. It seems we are pursuing lines of argument that are parallel, or on the same track headed the same way and not in opposite directions. You are talking about form as it relates to body types, which I do not dispute. I have said in other posts, in other fora, years ago that kata are a catalogue of martial arts principles and not simply technique. I have said that kata, much better than used as training, are better utilized as syllabi to guide training. Kata, I have also said, are a catalogue of close-in fighting technique, so whether you are fat or skinny, tall or short, in order to apply the technique alluded to in the kata, you are standing in each other's personal space, arms and legs intertwined. Now you are using "form" not as it relates to anatomy in the first sentence, but in the second sentence it's all about anatomy? Let's talk in more specifics. Take morote uke, the double forearm block in karate, or juji uke, the rising block. I do not believe these are blocks at all. You will find movements in other martial arts that look just like morote or juji uke, the difference being that those movements will have applications attached to them that are validated by the human anatomy (neck cranks and grip release technique respectively) while in karate they are simply blocks one would dare not use in sparring. exceptions don't make the rule. Applications are foremost in my mind. Form, if you mean the dance, not so much. However, if you want to understand the dance, it would help to know about human anatomy and body mechanics (form?). Again, the applications are close fighting applications, whether one is agile or less so, one must grab the opponent. A strong person might effect an armbar with his own forearm as the fulcrum, while a weaker individual would use a shoulder or torso for the same purpose. It would seem to me that Funakoshi, if he is basing style recommendations on agility, knew little about close fighting. This is creeping into woo territory. It smells of bs. I am not doubting isometrics. I rely on it for my own personal training and have benefitted from it immensely. Ibuki, not so much.
|
|
azam
Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by azam on Nov 16, 2015 14:57:28 GMT -5
I think rather evolution, history has witnessed devolution as far as kata applications and kata goes. I think there are a few exceptions but I agree with your general statement - there has been a lot of evolution with kata but that doesn't necessarily mean that evolution is improvement especially because no-one seems to want to reinterpret or make sensible adaptions. Ian Abernathy is a good example of someone trying to reinterpret kata using his own thinking - this I think does more for evolution than simply having no idea why you do whatever you do in kata - it literally does become a dance when you have no idea about the purpose of it. I agree - Funakoshi is partially responsible for the issue we have with kata but I don't think you can lay the entirety of the blame on him. I think Funakoshi had a good general idea behind the purpose of some kata - others not so much. I think the reason for the huge disconnect was the oversimplification of kata in the effort to spread karate within the school systems and across Japan. Evolution occurred here - as both Funakoshi & Itosu created the pinans/heian as you know - I think this oversimplification of the original forms is what has plagued kata since. Not all evolution is progressive. If you adapt a kata - the application will inevitably change too - I wouldn't be surprised if the oversimplification also drastically changed the intended applications. I think though equal blame lies with Funakoshi's students & the generations of karateka after including Mas Oyama. As they all spread the issues with kata by not knowing the purpose behind them. The worst thing you can do is teach something you don't know - had more effort been given into actually finding the purpose behind forms - some of the issues could have been nipped in the bud. I respect Mas Oyama but I feel that if he had no idea he shouldn't have entertained the idea of teaching something he had no real clue about. I would have credited him if he had removed kata altogether - as this is the best thing to do if you don't know rather than spread misinformation or contribute to it. I'm referring to form - as in forms in martial arts. I'm basically saying while anatomy might be similar the way we apply said anatomy differs - I gave karate & muay thai as an example. Morote & juji uke as far as I'm concerned have no value - at least as they are understood in karate circles. If you look back it's hard to verify what it was intended for because the original forms are long since lost. I suppose in such cases it would make sense to look at other arts to see possible applications when you can't find anything at all further back down the timeline. My point is there are no fixed rules when there are exceptions. The techniques/applications in karate are not close fighting applications - they are applications tailored to your own individual range - unless you call close range; kicking/punching range. I don't entirely agree with Funakoshi's classification - if I had to classify the differences between the two I'd say Shuri is more linear and naha more circular - they're similar but have slight tactical/application differences - as well as different philosophies - at least this is what I see. However if you made the comparison between modern day shotokan & Okinawan Goju - one is more agility focus and the other close inside fighting. From what I've read - Funakoshi's thinking of Karate was greatly influenced by his first teacher Anko Asato and apparently that statement was influenced by his teaching. Asato was also a kendo/bow master which makes me think that this may have had an impact on the type of karate he taught Funakoshi. It would explain why Funakoshi made such a classification if the type of karate he was learning - was distinctly different from the naha style he learnt from Itosu. Maybe to Funakoshi the body type statement held true - I mean just look at how Shotokan developed... From what I know you wouldn't be the only one to disagree with funakoshi - Miyagi & Mabuni Kenwa both strongly disagreed with him. They in effect said both styles of karate are similar but with different training objectives which is in effect the same as what you are saying I think. I agree - it seems like Funakoshi either didn't know to much about close range fighting or more likely preferred rangier fighting - it would make sense based on the information available he was probably taught a rangier type of fighting. He says as much - that agility is the stronger of the two - which I strongly disagree with. Funnily enough once upon a time - I might have agreed with you lol. There is solid science behind breathing systems. Most breathing/ibuki originates from the yogic sciences developed in India. My mind changed after attending a few Kundalini yoga classes. I'm sure you've heard of Kundalini yoga - it's a yogic nasal breathing system developed by Indian monks hundreds of years ago. Breath of fire one of the techniques has been used by quite a few famous fighters like Kazumi & Rickson Gracie. There's solid science behind the effects of ph balance & nitric oxide with nasal breathing and plenty of research into Kundalini that shows it affects brain activity as well. As for the breathing in Sanchin that Miyagi changed it too - diaphragmatic breathing it is commonly used as tool for those with asthma or cardiopulmonary diseases because it is well known to improve pulmonary function, cardio respiratory fitness, posture, respiratory muscle length & strength. There's also research and it's a common tool used by doctors to treat asthmatics (which I am) and heart patients. It's far from bs - there's plenty of research & information on it. A simple google search will suffice. Some of it did raise my eyebrows so I know what you mean there. But some of it was very interesting and I see working in a sparring scenario. I think Masatoshi Nakayama did a great job streamlining what he was taught by Funakoshi minus the kata issues. The JKA in my eyes is fine technical karate and does the best job translating what you see taught into actual kumite - I'd argue it probably produces some truly great stand-up fighters and really teaches distance control like no other style does. I liked the video btw! It was interesting. Of course there isn't anything magical. You could get the same benefits if you did ido geiko instead like you said. In fact when nigiri-game are added to sanchin in Uechi ryu - there is no arm waving - but you still derive the same benefit with the added resistance and the improvements brought by that. I'd have no problem if someone did that. True there are other applications - I'm aware of them. I think the primary application is above though - isometric training. Why the sanchin stance - because uechi ryu is heavily rooted in circular parries and sanchin dachi is the movement used for circular parries. This is why the sanchin dachi stance is adopted and also why we see hirate mawashi uke followed by strikes (depending on style) in sanchin. The same goes for goju which is heavily circular as well. Long ass post again! Thank you for your time - I appreciate it - I'm learning a lot from you. I'm grateful for the response, gives me a chance to pick your mind/opinions and get knowledge & different perspectives. Osu!
|
|
|
Post by meguro on Nov 16, 2015 19:27:08 GMT -5
The techniques/applications in karate are not close fighting applications - they are applications tailored to your own individual range - unless you call close range; kicking/punching range. This is where most karateka get kata wrong, imo. The enigmatic (for some) hand gestures and stances are for applications used in closer than punching range, and the turns are not to face someone else to kick and punch. This is related to my response above and has to do with fighting, in the case of sanchin dachi, squared up and closer than punching range. The best I can do right now is refer you to the judo throw ouchi gari (without falling into your opponent's open guard). You will notice that sanchin dachi and kake ashi dachi used in combination in some kata. Coincidently ouchi gari ("sanchin dachi'-ish) and kouchi gari ("kake ashi dachi" ish) foot sweeps are used in Judo. Karate in general, Shotokan in particular, has a poor understanding of how stances are used. The tradition has been that the lower body is only a platform used for kicking and to move the upper body around for punching. It is this gross misunderstanding of the use of stances that followers of Shotokan and other styles of karate teach only the kicking and punching game. Circular blocking is more than a fashion choice. It is an entry technique, which is to say it allows you to close distance and get in your opponent's face. Mawashi uke is a compound block comprising a parry and check. When used in conjunction with koktsu dachi or neko ashi dachi, it implies that you have taken an outside line of attack, and have side control. Forget lineage for the moment and consider the telephone game you may have played as a child. You know how information is lost or distorted the farther away it is from the source. Karate is like that. The fewer details (not cosmetic, please) the farther away from the source. When stances are only for standing, or kata is only a dance, or fighting is only kicking and punching, it is a good bet that style is near the end of the information chain.
|
|
azam
Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by azam on Nov 19, 2015 13:42:06 GMT -5
This is where most karateka get kata wrong, imo. The enigmatic (for some) hand gestures and stances are for applications used in closer than punching range, and the turns are not to face someone else to kick and punch. Yes some hand gestures/stances are best used for closer in range but they all start from within your range - depending on your opponent this could be close/on the inside if you're short or at the cusp of your own range. However nearly every parry is designed to be utilized in one's own range to redirect - which is the essence of uke - to receive/parry - move into range & throw a strike. Kata are full of them. You need distance to facilitate the timing of any parry. I'm also an avid fan of old school boxing fundamentals - something I've especially grown fond of thanks to the really informative posters in the stand up forum on sherdog. If anything can be learned from old school boxing and applied to karate - it is the nature of parrying. Both of these arts are extremely similar - especially old school boxing and traditional karate (the techniques which we still hold in modern day karate) - it's utterly surprising how similar some of our uke are with the pugilists of old (resembles age uke): We can see this even now with boxers of the modern age who fight under full contact conditions. Parries are hugely dependent on distance and your ability to control & dictate your own range - after all distance influences everything including timing of strikes down to the ability to defend yourself from strikes. Sure some hand strikes/stances work better close up - but I repeat all are tailored to your own individual range . The range can vary obviously but most uke will not work up close under a full contact scenario. Any uke I've applied in sparring have always come with dictating a certain range and maintaining it. Get to close - you simply don't have the distance to react quick enough. This is why it is so important to compete and spar under a realistic full contact scenario because even in the modern age, among some karateka there is this adage that some uke will work up close or applications involving uke. Uke are merely entry points to strike successfully in range - whether your are close or not as close depends entirely on what your intention is. Thank you for mentioning the ouchi gari & sanchin dachi connection - first time I've seen that. It's very interesting - definitely given me a new perspective! Although falling into someone's guard seems difficult to try to prevent - sometimes you might land in the guard or side control I suppose if you're adept enough. I thought I'd let you know since you brought up the ouchi gari & sanchin dachi connection. Apparently in Okinawa there was a indigenous wrestling style called tegumi - Funakoshi made mention to it while he was young that it was very popular - and that it was practiced for hundreds of years and apparently was a big part of okinawa-te before kara-te (chinese hand) was imported from southern China. Funakoshi makes mention that kara-te (open hand) was a mix of chinese hands and the indigenous te that existed on the island including tegumi. It is a very highly likely possibility that sanchin dachi might also be applied as ouchi gari since it may have existed in tegumi. Apparently Tegumi is the ancestor style to Okinawan sumo that still exists on the island - which is very different from Japanese sumo on the mainland. Okinawan sumo seems very judo-ish to me ---- it's also my believe that some of the hojo undo equipment used in karate actually came from Tegumi. In fact I strongly believe this to be the case with some equipment and have evidence of similarities. Okinawan Sumo: As you can see - distinctly different from sumo on the mainland. Almost seems like a mix of judo/sumo - although apparently Tegumi existed before Judo but on Okinawa. Thought it might be of interest to you! Could be that the mawashi uke in sanchin is an intended entry point to throw ouchi gari. Wouldn't be surprised after you notified me of the similarities. Thanks again for that - definitely going down in my notes. I think poor in relation to grappling yes - not in terms of striking. JKA shotokan imo has the best stance work for purely striking. It's the only style or organisation of karate where I've seen smooth effortless natural switching of stances from the neutral stance to other stances. They seamlessly glide into one another - one I've seen in competition from Masao Kagawa is neutral stance to kokutsu dachi (jka version) loading up rear leg driving into zenkutsu dachi with a strike - as a counter to a strike which he landed full flush - I've seen Machida do this in MMA as well - effortless switching that comes from his JKA shotokan. I definitely agree with you though - there is a huge neglected part of stance work in shotokan that involves grappling/tripping aspects. But I think the reason these don't exist in shotokan is because Funakoshi as I mentioned before was heavily influenced by Anko Asato's philosophy/style of fighting - as a kendo/kyudo practitioner where distancing is important & agility - all traits Funakoshi espoused as well - that were imparted to his students. If you recall the old school video of Funakoshi - grappling was original an integral part of shotokan. My guess is that it inevitable evolved (for better or worse - is up to you) and shed the grappling aspects that it did have to the JKA shotokan of today. I agree - circular blocking as well as uke in general are entry techniques designed to parry & open a point of entry whilst closing distance if you need to - so you do whatever. Whilst I agree that a lot of evolution of kata hasn't necessarily been progressive - that doesn't apply to every kata. But the above example you gave of the telephone implies why it is important to look at the source of karate info by going back down to the karate source as far as you can (lineage) - seeing where the adaptions take place - so you can surmise purpose or so you can see the original source info - obviously you need a decent understanding of human anatomy as well. In some cases you might not go all the way back but this will give you a good starting point to go from & then using human anatomy & the aid of other styles to surmise purpose. This is why history is studied - to get to source information that exists in the past - as in your example. This is the whole point of studying history. It's no different by me saying - that to find source information in Karate - you need to study it's history. In this case we are referring to forms/applications. If you reach the source information - all the better - if you can't you for whatever reason you have the optimum starting point to use other tools to get source information besides the tools history provides. I'm only interested in the forms as an expression of karate not anything before that. If you seek to find the original purpose behind forms - before it was karate (these are the changes made when it came back to Okinawa) or even further back which it sounds like to some degree you are - you'll have extreme difficulty even if use anatomy because martial arts constantly undergo evolution/change. Many of the original forms or purposes have long since been lost just like many things that undergo the passage of time/change. There are many many forms that have been thrown in the forgotten pile - just look at the old koryus of juijitsu. Hardly anything original remains of the old samurai way of warfare - the koryus that haven't been wiped out or absorbed by Judo & adapted are slowly fading into obscurity and many are already extinct. That's why I feel it's important to study both source/anatomy and come to your own conclusions or applications like Ian Abernathy. At the end of it, the constant in all of this is - we are all human beings. The plus side is that there is a constant state of recurrence where older forgotten techniques/applications make there way back to the fore.
|
|
|
Post by meguro on Nov 21, 2015 11:55:41 GMT -5
Azam, I will try to respond to your post point by point, as I recall them. I would have used the quote function but it is too cumbersome on my iPad. On needing distance to apply uke- some uke, almost all in fact are not blocks and would never function as blocks no matter what the distance. If you ever successfully blocked punches to your face with Jodan age uke, the opponent wasn't really trying to hit you. On Shotokan stances- surely you recall how they looked to kendo as a paradigm. Anything wrong with this picture? It is magical thinking to believe empty handed fighting can achieve the efficiency of cutting and thrusting with a long sword, and that walking like a swordsman imbues your hands with blade like qualities. That one or two guys might be able to make it work does not make it correct, it only means that they are exceptional people. The rest of us must rely on stuff that works for all. The smooth switching from one stance to another is a meaningless exercise. That's like saying that you know Paris or London but only "know" them from the transfer lounges of the airports. On the history and lineage- if there is one thing wrong about karate, it is tradition. Like religion, karate instruction is dogmatic, and like religion, things reach hallowed status even if they are illogical, rancid and past expiration. A friend recently posted a vid on FB of a high ranking Goju Ryu demonstrating kata and applications. Obviously this guy rose through the ranks never asking why or what for. His karate was perfectly correct and at the same time absolutely impractical. On boxing- you should also investigate dirty boxing, panantukan. On Iain Abernathy- I respect anyone who is trying to better understand kata. I think however there is a danger in reverse engineering, especially when you don't have the original specs. For me, the important things are the applications; learning them, getting adept at them; remembering them. Kata help a little bit with the remembering. More on stances- last Friday night we were working on several takedowns, one involved using the thigh of the lead leg as the fulcrum. The idea is to bend your opponent over it. You'll commonly see this in Muay Thai, but also Judo. You also see a hint of it all the time in karate. You ever wonder what that lead leg is poised to do in kokutsu dachi? This video sort of shows it. I wish I'd brought my own camera so as to illustrate my point. oh well.
|
|
|
Post by meguro on Nov 23, 2015 9:11:49 GMT -5
Practice this, and you don't have to put on the psycho face and shout like a maniac while you stand in a funny way.
|
|
azam
Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by azam on Nov 23, 2015 10:40:33 GMT -5
I never claimed all uke are blocks - I said most are parries. You said that karate applications/techniques were meant for close range - I brought up the point of uke to clarify - why what you said is not true. I clarified this by saying you need distance to facilitate the timing of any parry - to prove my point. As for age uke - it can also be used as a block. It's no coincidence that old school boxing and traditional karate have extremely similar techniques/applications. After all they both developed around the same time frame in the modern sense. As for believing age uke cannot be used as a legitimate block - well that's up to you. I've provided physical evidence of the old school pugilists demonstrating age uke as a means of a block/counter off an overhand (in the demos they've given). These old school boxers were prizefighters and used these techniques in full contact prizefights. The fact that they deemed it important enough to record (through multiple sources) - goes to show that they indeed did use age uke to block overhand punches and that it obviously did work - hence the reason for demonstrating the technique. Another picture showing age uke block & counter: I find it highly unlikely that prizefighters would demonstrate techniques that wouldn't work in a prizefight. Also the similarities between traditional karate and old school boxing go beyond similarities in technique/application but also how everything is applied is extremely similar. Both arts did not have any combination work - it was one or two strikes, counters and full power potshots. Of course now both karate & boxing have evolved past the similarities they once shared but it's still noteworthy to include old school boxing at one point in time - had a uncanny resemblance traditional karate. Quite a lot of people have touched on & noticed the similarities. It's highly probable that age uke as used in old school boxing must have also been used in a similar manner in traditional karate. As far as I'm aware - at least within JKA shotokan - stances are merely viewed as transitions. It's the principles that matter not how the stance actually looks - at least as far as kumite is concerned - the overall general principles that stances in karate teach are what's emphasized. The smooth switching between stances is not a meaningless exercise. If you can't understand the importance of being able to switch seamlessly between a stance with your weight on the front foot (zenkutsu dachi) to your weight on the back foot (kokutsu dachi) - and how important that is for; switching from attacking to a defensive countering/maintaining range & control of distance - then I don't know what to say. The stance themselves are obviously not as rigidly performed in kumite as they are in kihon/kata - the principles are still there. The movement in kokutsu dachi as well lends itself to any defensive or countering posture. Kagawa demonstrating how to load the back foot in kokutsu dachi & use the weight to generate more leverage when moving into zenkutsu dachi with a strike: The seamless stance switching is why Machida can switch from attack to defense to countering - also a JKA karateka - and why he is a master at countering & maintaining distance and not getting hit. Watch any Machida fight and you'll see heavy instances of stance switching mainly of zenkutsu/kokutsu dachi/neutral stance. You see it in all JKA kumite. Is it the rigid fixed stance we see in kata/kihon - no. In kata/kihon it's static - in kumite it's dynamic because after all you are competing. The principles however are there as well as the movement in these stances & the weight distributions. I can show you evidence of this if you want to see it. I agree with the dogmatic instruction - I feel it is a mix of things; tradition, ego etc etc. However karate itself is far from dogmatic hence why there are so many styles & do's (ways) of Karate. But I agree with you - if you don't understand why you are doing whatever you are doing or your karate is impractical - you should probably find a new dojo. That could possibly be one application of kokutsu dachi to throw but I'd say why kokutsu dachi in particular - wouldn't any way work as long as the thigh is in the right position. Oh wait - you mean neko ashi dachi. Shotokan kokutsu dachi & Kyokushin versions look very different - I'm referring to the shotokan version. The purpose of the lead leg in kokutsu dachi - from a striking perspective is well established I feel in shotokan. Neko ashi dachi however is a bit meh - you might be right in thinking that it has to do with aiding in throws.
|
|