# Three legged stool (old school vs evolve)



## Live True (Jul 15, 2009)

First, I'm posting this in the Japanese/Karate forum because I study Uechi-Ryu, an Okinawan style; however, I welcome posters from all styles, as I don't think this concept is a Uechi-specific one.

*A little background:*
I've recently had the honour to train with three different and very good teachers, and the differences are interesting. 

My current teacher is a traditionalist, in both how the training is run and how the forms and training proceed. I find the training grittier and the underlying principles are directly related to impact upon your opponent as well as your intent and will in practice. There was a strong body/spirit component in the training, with a good undercurrent of mind/mental focus. I would opine that this teacher believes in old style fundamentals that may change for an individual, but the roots do not change over time. 

One is what I will term a technician/tinkerer, and the training is very detailed on taking things apart and putting them back together again. There was a strong body/mind component in the training. I would hazard a guess that this teacher views the art as something to be rebuilt and to evolve over time...again and again. 

The last is what I will term a builder, and the training focused on the joy and application of kata and movements. We did several combinations that encouraged strong movements and an understanding of connecting purpose to action. There was a strong mind/spirit component to the training, with a good undercurrent of body. This teacher was a student of the second, and I think this person is still figuring out their own "style" of teaching.
<><><>
Now, I have obviously simplified the overview of each teacher, but I'm using this as an example and somewhat a metaphor.... 

I've begun to believe - - put into words, in truth, by something read from a Marine training manual - - that Martial Arts is a three legged stool, and it is the balance of body, mind, and spirit that creates the strong foundation that is our art/style. It has led me to look at how a balance in all three aspects is what creates a balanced and effective practice as well as life....still working on this concept, btw!

I find it interesting that none of these teachers embodies a "perfect" l balance of all three aspects, but they are all good teachers and with very different things to teach.  

So, should all teachers strive for perfect balance/symmetry among these three aspects, or simply teach to their strengths? 
Should a teacher make sure a student is aware of all three aspects, even if they don't teach directly to them?
Should students strive for balance among all three, or work to thier own strengths (with an awareness of the three)? 
What are your thoughts on teaching old school/traditional vs Uechi as an evolving art (or any martial art, for that matter)? 
I realize this last question can be a hot topic, so please remember we are not discussing what other arts AREN'T, but what your art IS or COULD BE. 

I also find it interesting how differently folks interpret "spirit"...as that, too, can be a hot topic.  For me, I interpret it as a combination of will, intent, and that indefinable spiritual component (that is not something of religion, yet not wholly divorced from some kind of faith).

I look forward to your thoughts on this!


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 15, 2009)

How much can a system really evolve, though?  There are only so many ways that a human body can throw a decent punch, a good kick, perform a good throw, block, etc., that any such evolution is going to be rather conservative.  

As for a system changing?  It can certainly happen, and there can be excellent results, if the knowledge is fundamentally sound.  If anything, the system of Karate that I study and teach was founded by a fellow who studied Wado Ryu directly under Ohtsuka Hironori.  When he (the founder) branched off on his own, he decided to back-incorporate much of the hard striking techniques of Shotokan Karate, and as a result, created a system from two already well-established, fundamentally sound martial arts styles.  

There wasn't anything fundamentally new going on here, though; it was simply taking parts of other well-established systems, and infusing them into what he believed is optimal.


----------



## Live True (Jul 16, 2009)

Thanks Grenadier!  
I think evolution can have a significant impact, though.  For example:

The founds of my style, Kanbun Uechi, learned his basics from Shushabu (or Shushiwa, depending on your source), and it was basically a variation of Kenpo known as Pangainoon.
Kanbun took this training and taught in China,Okinawa, and Japan for 36 years until the style was renamed, in his honour (1940).
During that time, he and his son taught what was originally learned By Kanbun Uechi.
3 of the 4 basic kata learned by Kanbun-Sanchin, Seisan, and Sanseiryu


In the next 20 years, his son (Kanei Uechi) and Kanei's students, developed five additional kata:
Some histories say this was to engage the limited attention span of modern students (many american GIs), some say it was simply an evolution of the art, and some say that these additional kata provided stepping stones between the traditional kata, and chances to progress into advanced techniques.
added kata were-Kanshiwa (1956), Kanshu (1956), Seichin(?), Seiryu(1950), and Kanchin (1960)

Within that time, the art is brought to the US.
Sometime in the last 30 years, I do not have a date, the "lost" kata of Shu Shi Wa/Shu Sha Bu was rediscovered (Suparinpei), and is taught as an advanced kata by some groups.
Having learned the first three kata and seen advanced students do the next three kata in my style, I can see progression in certain movements.  The second kata, Kanshiwa, has a progression that involves a wauke, step combination that is done separetely.  This same combination is done together in Kanshu, and I have seen it done with additional or different applications/combinations in more advanced kata.  For someone, like me, who cannot spend whole days for months at a time working one kata, this does assist in learning some of the applications and nuances.

Is this an evolution or make up for devalued knowledge?  I think it's an adaptation, certainly, for our modern attention span and available time.  I am not certain if it makes the art better, the worse, or simple different.

I think the underlying principles, though, as you state, really don't change. The application and the outward "frills" might, though.  But the underlying principles like rootedness, use of core, and many more I'm sure I have yet to learn...remain in most arts that I have seen.  I am FAR from an expert, so simply my two cents.

Thank you for the discussion!


----------



## Live True (Jul 22, 2009)

http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2005/10/10/shu-ha-ri-karate-diverging-to-independence/

This is an interesting article that was just sent to me. It discusses the translation of the Japanese saying SHU, HA, RI


does it mean "Obedience, Divergence, and Trancendence" or
does it mean, "obey, begin to separate, and then leave"



Two very different translations in wording and implication. 

Being no expert or student of the Japanese language....I can only take what is given here or read elsewhere, but this is an interesting article.....thoughts?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 28, 2009)

Live True said:


> So, should all teachers strive for perfect balance/symmetry among these three aspects, or simply teach to their strengths?


I would say both; teach to your strenths, but also strive to better communicate in the area or areas that are not your strengths.



Live True said:


> Should a teacher make sure a student is aware of all three aspects, even if they don't teach directly to them?


I think that this would be good.



Live True said:


> Should students strive for balance among all three, or work to thier own strengths (with an awareness of the three)?


Ideally, the answer to this is yes, but the world is far from ideal.  

It depends on where the student is in their journey and why they took up the art in the first place.  Some take up an art because they want to be able to defend themselves.  Others want to get into shape.  Still others just think that it would be cool to learn.  

If a student struggles to even get a basic handle on the technical aspects, that is where they need to focus and the rest can come later.



Live True said:


> What are your thoughts on teaching old school/traditional vs Uechi as an evolving art (or any martial art, for that matter)?


I think that if you are going to teach an established ryu, it should be kept as traditional as reasonably possible while also adapting to fit the era that it is being taught in.  

*Traditionalist:* The art was designed around a specific paradigm.  Until one has stuck with the art long enough, they may not see how everything fits together, and as certain principles build on others, the traditional method is well honed to teach them in a logical progression.

*Technician: *If the student does not understand what they are doing or learning, they will get frustrated and quit or they will stick around but never be the practitioner that they could be.

*Builder: *Principles of the art should be made applicable in a modern era.  New training techniques that will enhance one's practice of the art should be looked at.  We understand the human body far better today than we did even thirty years ago.  Modern training methods can maximize a person's physical potential to a much greater degree.  Also, we face threats of a different nature; it is unlikely that I will be attacked by a bo staff wielding opponent or a swordsman.  And catching arrows will not help me against firearms.  A teacher who can apply the art to the environment in which the student lives can benefit the student greatly.

I think that all three aspects can and should be incorporated into any teaching style.

Daniel


----------



## Live True (Jul 28, 2009)

Daniel, 
Thank you for the great post! I never thought to look at the three as building blocks that all teachers can use and apply to the student as they progress. What a wonderful idea for both, as they both learn and grow in this way!

Perhaps, this is why I am finding the traditionalist training so exciting for me right now, as I was frustrated with my technician teacher; eventhough, I underestood some of what he was trying to get at in his teaching.  I'm a very root and learn kinda person...so I think I was missing my foundations.

I love when light dawns!  Thank you for providing some light in my journey!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 28, 2009)

You are most welcome, and thank you in return for the same!  You provided a very concise breakdown of different perspectives of instruction!

Daniel


----------



## still learning (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello, In our kempo school training....it begins with:  Mind-Body-Spirit for shaping our training....many or most schools follow this too!

Everyone should be well rounded...ying and yan! 

Training - work - and family....needs to have a balance here....each person will make his own portions too!

Some schools have four legs on the stool......A BROKEN leg will NOT balance well........

Aloha,  ....need a spare leg?


----------

