# Step Thru vs. Cross



## MJS (Mar 6, 2006)

Many times we see techniques demonstrated in which the 'attacker' does a step thru punch. We then hear people say that nobody steps thru when they punch, but instead throws more of a cross.

IMO, we shouldn't dismiss either. That being said, we should be able to apply a technique regardless of what they throw.

I'm interested in hearing everyones thoughts on this.

Mike


----------



## Rick Wade (Mar 6, 2006)

I agree with you in that we should be able to do the technique no matter what.  But lets take the first technique and asume that they through a punch instead of a lapel grab.  The only difrence is at what point in the arm you hit and then your left hand is a true precautionary check if it is a step through.  Then of course it changes how the kick is employed.  Then end result should be the same in the sense that the last part is a chop to the neck.

V/R

Rick


----------



## INDYFIGHTER (Mar 6, 2006)

In boxing we call it a over hand right, if you're a orthordox fighter.  There's a LOT of power available in that punch!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 6, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Many times we see techniques demonstrated in which the 'attacker' does a step thru punch. We then hear people say that nobody steps thru when they punch, but instead throws more of a cross.
> 
> IMO, we shouldn't dismiss either. That being said, we should be able to apply a technique regardless of what they throw.
> 
> ...


Perhaps the most realistic (common) should be taught first.
Sean


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 7, 2006)

imo, train first as the canon tells us.  practice the technique as taught.  there are reasons it was set down that way.  sometimes for combat effectiveness, sometimes for teaching effectiveness, sometimes to develop a specific skill.  learn what is taught.

and once you've learned it, go nuts with the thing.  try it from all types and angles of punches.  try it against kicks, elbows, multiple attackers.  try it sitting down, lying down, in a chair, in the car, underwater.

for what it's worth, i've observed mostly step-through punches but not the exaggerated kind we throw in class.  usually, the attacker is standing in what can best be described as a sloppy, half-assed horse stance (horse's *** stance?) with the leg on the punching side slightly forward.


----------



## Simon Curran (Mar 7, 2006)

Personally I don't look at a step through punch as the classical deep stance Karate type punch, I try to think of it more as kind of like the agressive drunk almost stumbling forward as he throws his power shot, that, I think, represents a more common attack


----------



## JamesB (Mar 7, 2006)

I remember this being discussed a while back (possibly on kenponet): The consensus was that a 'step-through' punch was easier to defend against than a 'reverse-punch', so the the step-through-punch was utilized alot more as attacks in the kenpo-techs, in order to teach the basic principles of the kenpo system.

Once the basics were in (i.e. step-back, block on outside of arm, control width etc), then presumably the idea is to inject more and more realism into the attacks, rather than just being static punches.

Having said that, even a step-through punch will have a follow-up with the rear hand (i.e. lead-jab, reverse-cross-hook or whatever). How many kenpoists practise the punch *attacks* as punching combinations, *with intent*, rather than just the step-through by itself?

But I do agree with MJS, I think that a 'lead-hand', step-foward punch is just as likely as a cross-hook - the key here being that the cross-hook will be coming at ya pretty soon afterwards  


james


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 7, 2006)

lead hand punching is called a jab.
Sean


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 7, 2006)

JamesB said:
			
		

> How many kenpoists practise the punch *attacks* as punching combinations, *with intent*, rather than just the step-through by itself?



kosho-ryu kenpo (a grandfather art to american -- mitose's art) teaches a lot based on the iterative attacks in a combination.  set them up by manipulating the first punch, then take advantage of the weight shift when they commit to the second.  interesting stuff and really powerful.

a fun drill for AK is to wait for the second attack before throwing your technique.  want thundering hammers?  have your partner throw a committed left-right combo and wait for the right before firing.


----------



## MJS (Mar 7, 2006)

Lots of great replies!



			
				Rick Wade said:
			
		

> I agree with you in that we should be able to do the technique no matter what. But lets take the first technique and asume that they through a punch instead of a lapel grab. The only difrence is at what point in the arm you hit and then your left hand is a true precautionary check if it is a step through. Then of course it changes how the kick is employed. Then end result should be the same in the sense that the last part is a chop to the neck.
> 
> V/R
> 
> Rick


 
Thats a great point!  If we see that arm coming, why wait until its actually grabbed us before reacting.




> Perhaps the most realistic (common) should be taught first.
> Sean


 
Another good point.  Then again, no matter what method is taught, going back to cover the 'what if' areas is always a good plan.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 22, 2006)

Right! Action beats re-action, When in doubt, take them out! I usually see the weaker arm hold on while the stronger one fires away, or a sad facsimile of a boxing match. I'd go with the cross as the most common one, and learning to deal with that first.


----------



## KGS BBS (Apr 15, 2006)

Here's how I see it. although I'm kempo I have done some research into other arts, such as Shotokan. Funakoshi taught the step through punch first and called it the 'lunge punch' and the second type he taught, the legs were 'reversed' in the stance so he called it the 'reverse punch'. We use the same methods. After looking at both methods, believe or not, I noticed a similiarity on the street, many with my experiences as an LEO since '77.

The first strike, sucker punch, haymaker, roundhouse punch, over hand type right, whatever, lol, but I found that to be one of the most popular attacks, not only in my life experience but the 'caught on tape' assaults and brawls we've seen over the years along with other peoples' input. I also observed there are two ways a person delivers this. He/she either steps in aggressively and throws the shot with the back foot coming forward (the step through or lunge punch) or he shoulder-shifts making sure his power side (usually the right) his back (strong leg back) and then throws the punch from that position (the reverse punch). 

I have a theory that maybe this is what the elders looked at many years ago, took the natural way people move to attack, fine tuned the movement for strong body mechcanics and came out with these two methods of delivery and defense against such delivery. What do you guys think??? Possible?


----------



## Doc (Apr 15, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Many times we see techniques demonstrated in which the 'attacker' does a step thru punch. We then hear people say that nobody steps thru when they punch, but instead throws more of a cross.
> 
> IMO, we shouldn't dismiss either. That being said, we should be able to apply a technique regardless of what they throw.
> 
> ...


While the traditonal 'step through' punch doesn't really exist in the street, these 'haymaker' types punches do tend to come from slightly to the rear from behind the leg. Street body language tends to 'hide' the weapon and/or distract before delivering a fully committed anticipated contact attack, stepping forward with more power and much less precision.

The traditional 'reverse' punch on the street, (which refers to the leg arm relationship forward to rear) is more clearly represented as a follow up attack to the former, as opposed to an initiated attack. 

Therefore in my teachings to raise the degree of difficulty to a more realistic level, 'traditonal' step through punches are not allowed at any level of training. Why train with something not likely to be presented in reality? I make things 'easy' where it makes sense, but whoever said defending yourself against a committed attacker who wants to knock your head off, was easy. Stick with reality. 

I would remind you that the Japanese 'Shotokan-like' step through punch comes from a martial based discipline never intended to be a fighting art. "Karate-do" is a 'way art,' not a figting art and the methodology utilized in "C stepping" forward to engage the hips, is anatomically flawed and misaligns the entire body. Its 'power' comes from inertia and not an anatomically properly structured execution.


----------



## Jimi (Apr 15, 2006)

I have seen some untrained people throw a haymaker punch in the street before, and some begin the punch with the left foot forward & launch the right hand. As the hand reaches forward some people will uproot the rear (right foot) a step with the punch almost as an after thought, and the foot sometimes arrives after the hand lands.(unlike the tradition one-step style lunge punch) I agree thet people should train to try and deal with all sorts of attacks, even the drunk goofy foot punch. RESPECTS TO KENPO PRACTITIONERS


----------



## Henderson (Apr 15, 2006)

I know this is in the kenpo area, but here's my opinion...

It does not matter (not even a little bit) to me whether he throws a reverse punch, lunge punch, right handed or left handed.  My defense _is_ my defense.  If I have decided I am going to step to avoid and "block" with kake uke (hooking reception), the only thing that is different is whether I end up inside or outside.  And to me, I am comfortable in either place.  From there, my follow-up and finish are dictated by way too many factors to say "I will do this, then that, and end with a whatever".  The idea that my defense depends on what technique is thrown, and with what hand, requires way too much thought.  If my technique is dictated by the manner of attack, I have fallen into the pit of numbered self-defense.  Not a good place to be.

Just my $.02

Respects...


----------



## kenpoworks (Apr 15, 2006)

Well Henderson,
it does'nt matter to me  whether you should be in here or not, because that was a  very good post which I mostly agreed with .
W.R.
Rich


----------



## Matt (Apr 15, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Many times we see techniques demonstrated in which the 'attacker' does a step thru punch. We then hear people say that nobody steps thru when they punch, but instead throws more of a cross.
> 
> IMO, we shouldn't dismiss either. That being said, we should be able to apply a technique regardless of what they throw.
> 
> ...



In some styles of Kempo, such as the Karazenpo subsets, some attacks were taught off of a cross, or reverse punch. some were even taught off of hooks. If you look back to Kajukenbo I think they still teach off of a reverse punch sometimes. It seems they were standardized off of a step through punch at some point, but that is only a semantic / pedagogical limitation. At my school we initially teach the combinations we've kept of the Shaolin Kempo curriculum off of a straight step through punch, but then on combinations that had different attacks initially, we teach the 'old attack' as well. Some make much more sense off the 'old way' whether it is a reverse punch or a hook. 

However, that being said, once the techniques are learned, I mess with them. In my class, the students would not be surprised if they came in and:

All techniques done off of a jab cross combo. 
Done off of a two handed shove to the chest followed by a punch. 
Done from a 'boxing cover' while weathering a flurry. 
Done from a different entry where the opponents hands coming to guard are the trigger to move. 

Etc. etc. 

The techniques are just tools to teach principles. They are codified as a tool for the instructor, so that by teaching all the techniques, the principles and toolbox get provided to the student. However, just teaching the techniques doesn't guarantee the student will get all the principles any more than giving me a box of airplane parts is the same as giving me an airplane. Somebody has to show me how to put them together. 

Now, as we've transitioned to a Kempo-jutsu school, we've been incorporating techniques, forms and principles from that art. Professor Ferreira teaches his techniqes off of a variety of attacks, including (my favorite) the shirt grab / right overhand. But (because I don't want to use however too many times), each of his techniqes can (and often are) be taught off of a variety of attacks. The same general motion can be used to defend two hooks, a two armed grab, a front choke, a lapel grab and overhand right, and so on. 

Some techniques don't work well for some things. It's better to find out sooner rather then later. 

As I often tell the folks in my class: Go home and play with your material. If you only do what I show you, how are you ever going to be better than me?

Matt


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 15, 2006)

Ah, the step-through.

Despite Doc's amusing comments about Japanese and Okinawan martial arts, the karate version works fine if you know how to load the supporting foot. The proper method is remarkably similar to Taijiquan stepping, but more similar to Five Ancestors (its ancestor). 

It isn't designed to "engage the hips;" that's actually a function of shifting weight and hip orientation (again, much like Tai Chi, except that the foot /leg does not take Seven Stars before moving forward), not the step itself. The "C" step (which isn't really "C" shaped, incidentally) is an entering technique intended to alter your relative position so as to seize the opponent's balance.

On the other hand, it isn't really a good idea as a movement for an uke/reciever (outside of some basic distancing drills that are often mistaken for the whole of the karate corpus) because it's not a suitable attack against an opponent pausing in stance or in a neutral posture. It's like defending against a boxer's bob and weave.

In the end, step-through attacks are a martial arts staple because they are a basic way to ensure that the attacker commits enough for the defender to get a sense of distancing and receiving force and doesn't really require training in the technique to perform these functions. A jab, cross or overhand tends to be underpowered when somebody uses it without proper training, which makes the attack less useful for practice because it's neither very threatening nor committed enough to be exploited. Properly trained versions of the techniques *can* be used, in time.


----------



## KGS BBS (Apr 15, 2006)

Jimi wrote: 

I have seen some untrained people throw a haymaker punch in the street before, and some begin the punch with the left foot forward & launch the right hand. As the hand reaches forward some people will uproot the rear (right foot) a step with the punch almost as an after thought, and the foot sometimes arrives after the hand lands.(unlike the tradition one-step style lunge punch) I agree thet people should train to try and deal with all sorts of attacks, even the drunk goofy foot punch. RESPECTS TO KENPO PRACTITIONERS

I say: Jimi is correct. This is exactly what I had said of the one of two ways a street person throws his punch. Jimi describes the step through punch or Shotokan's lunge punch. The second type being the more popular reverse type punch with the strong side remaining to the rear. I have to therefore respectfully disagree with you on that Doc. I have seen people actually step thorugh and swing at someone, it's not that uncommon, not here anyway in New England, lol.

Yes, Doc, that is true about Shotokan but these fighting methods all came from the Okinawan fighting arts, Shotokan being no exception. It appears all the vast majority of the kenpo/kempo systems are Okinawan influenced. It certainly appears that the Mitose/Chow/Emperado lineage is, which covers most kenpo/kempo arts. I may be wrong but I don't think the step through or lunge punch and reverse punch were Funakoshi's creations, he just put a name to them for his teaching system. Just my thoughts. With respect, Prof. Joe


----------



## Danjo (Apr 16, 2006)

KGS BBS said:
			
		

> Jimi wrote:
> 
> I have seen some untrained people throw a haymaker punch in the street before, and some begin the punch with the left foot forward & launch the right hand. As the hand reaches forward some people will uproot the rear (right foot) a step with the punch almost as an after thought, and the foot sometimes arrives after the hand lands.(unlike the tradition one-step style lunge punch) I agree thet people should train to try and deal with all sorts of attacks, even the drunk goofy foot punch. RESPECTS TO KENPO PRACTITIONERS
> 
> ...


 
The exaggerated crecsent step is mostly from Shotokan as it was developd by his students. The Karate that Funakoshi personally used was more up-right in it's stances as witnessed by his earlier manual featuring himself performing the techniques. Motobu favored the Nihanchi stance twisted to the side for fighting more than the forward stance. But the step through punch/forward punch, was common to all of the Okinawan Karate schools and the Northern Shaolin styles (as witness training tapes featuring Kam Yuen etc.), though many did not use the crecsent step.


----------



## KGS BBS (Apr 17, 2006)

True Dan, now that you mentioned it. When I see the old black & whites of Funakoshi his stances are more upright and nautural and look much like Motobu's stances but when I see pictures of his descendants they are always  in the very deep low stances.  Good point! 'Joe'


----------



## Doc (Apr 17, 2006)

The evolution of the Japanese arts are all rooted in actual fighting from the Chinese and Okinanwan's. However there is a historical distillation process that was the basis for their many "do" or "way" arts, that emphasized the 'spirit,' and cultural 'codes' over practical or even effective applications.

Jigaro Kano was an educator who distilled Japan's fighting discipline jiujitsu, down to the sport ju-do. ("Do" means "way"). 

Morihei Ueshiba, also an expert in jiujitsu, sword, and spear wanted neither a competitive sport or destructive fighting art, and created the neutralizing "do" art Aiki-do.  As a holistic art it was to be a conduit for the connection between the mind, body and spirit. 

Gichin Funakoshi introduced his "karate-do" to Japan after migrating from Okinawa, which originally consisted primarily of only 'kata' training, and no sport sparring. He insisted that his "do" art not be turned into a contact sport, emphasizing instead self-perfection through kata. 

Ken-do (ken=sword, do) or "way of the sword," developed during the relatively peaceful Edo period (1603 - 1867), when the military rulers insisted the samurai study the martial arts. During this period all japanese martial arts came under the influence of Buddhism and the emphasis of developing good character. The goal of study shifted from preparing the body for the battlefield to cultivating mental discipline in all of the nationalistic arts. This changed kendo too, and was the catalist for creation of the shinai (babmboo sword), and practice body armor or "dogu." The kendo that has gained recognition is not the martial art of feudal Japan, but a sport-like physical training system.

With the emphasis shifting from fighting to culturally ritualized rule based competition, and/or the cultivation of personal discipline and 'inner peace' through this type of training, practical application of fighting was not the emphasis. Thus many methods seen in these and other arts have questionable application in modern street scenarios, and the disciplines have given rise to "how" you perform as being more important than application. It was much later in Japan when contact sport sparring took hold, as well as the Asian melting pot of Hawaii where the Japanese arts began to drift back toward a physicality of application, and methodologies were question under the light of tough streets.

Migrating from there to mainland America first as a sport, when the market was discovered to be ripe, all of the arts became 'self-defense' vehicles instead of sports.  I remember when they were called "karate-players, as the dropped the "do." Now they are all "the ultimate in self defense." The Parker/Tracy influence again.


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 18, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> The evolution of the Japanese arts are all rooted in actual fighting from the Chinese and Okinanwan's. However there is a historical distillation process that was the basis for their many "do" or "way" arts, that emphasized the 'spirit,' and cultural 'codes' over practical or even effective applications.



Not really, no. The do/jutsu split is an arbitrary and historically inaccurate one, since the do suffix was used as part of curricula that are considered koryu, and there were koryu that were created after the collapse of the Tokugawa bakufu. Daitoryu Aiki is one example of an art with a koryu structure that was developed when every art was supposedly a "Do," art. Choki Motobu emphasized practical karate and an entire school -- Uechi-Ryu -- developed in the modern period.

Meanwhile, plenty of Japanese arts persisted through Meiji and afterward. The Toyama-ryu was a swordmanship school that became a standard part of officer training during WW2.  Meanwhile, Kendo formally began in 1912, not before. Some techniques were codified in the mid-19th century. It's also worth noting that Aikido and Judo both gained popularity not as methods of inner cultivation, but because their exponents defeated people in duels and impromptu demonstrations. This is actually how Judo spread in the UK and South America, and it wasn't through sikmple Judo-rules contests, either.

Now you can argue that, in one case, Gichin Funakoshi taught karate using a particular structure that was not ingerently suited to self-protection, but that would require more than surface level knowledge of the art. Plus, of course, Funakoshi didn't take particular care to hide applications; photos of Funakoshi using grappling techniques, throws and entries exist in his own texts. But to understand where that fits in to Shotokan, you have to understand the role kata, ippon and sanbon kumite and kihon play in karate's technical corpus. Since this is totally different from how American Kenpo does things, looking for EPAK values in karate fails, but says nothing about karate's practicality.


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 18, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> The exaggerated crecsent step is mostly from Shotokan as it was developd by his students. The Karate that Funakoshi personally used was more up-right in it's stances as witnessed by his earlier manual featuring himself performing the techniques. Motobu favored the Nihanchi stance twisted to the side for fighting more than the forward stance. But the step through punch/forward punch, was common to all of the Okinawan Karate schools and the Northern Shaolin styles (as witness training tapes featuring Kam Yuen etc.), though many did not use the crecsent step.



Northern styles don't use the bow so much for that kind of thing. It uses it sometimes, but it's more common to use a more dynamic step (that can be a kick) and end up in a horse. This is how you get your power lead hand in.

High-level Shotokan pactitioners tend to use higher stances in application. Using deep stances is a lot like altering frame in Tai Chi. You can make karate or Tai Chi postures quite extreme in order to train strength and exaggerate problems with your structures that are more easily disguised with higher stances, but everything in application gravitates toward a natural posture. Nishiyama's karate series demonstrates this, where "plainclothes" applications don't use the deep training stances.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 18, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Northern styles don't use the bow so much for that kind of thing. It uses it sometimes, but it's more common to use a more dynamic step (that can be a kick) and end up in a horse. This is how you get your power lead hand in.
> 
> High-level Shotokan pactitioners tend to use higher stances in application. Using deep stances is a lot like altering frame in Tai Chi. You can make karate or Tai Chi postures quite extreme in order to train strength and exaggerate problems with your structures that are more easily disguised with higher stances, but everything in application gravitates toward a natural posture. Nishiyama's karate series demonstrates this, where "plainclothes" applications don't use the deep training stances.


 
When Motobu showed up at Funakoshi's school and threw him to the ground three times in front of his students, he said it was to show that Funakoshi's Karate was not good for fighting and that it was only window dressing that looked good on the outside and had no real fighting applicibility. I don't know how much of this was true or how much was merely Motobu running down Funakoshi because he was successful, but he did claim thta there was a lot wrong with Shotokan in terms of it's use in fighting.

_*"Funakoshi's karate is fake. He could only copy their elegance by performing the outer portion of what he was taught and used that to mislead others into believing he was an expert when he was not. His demonstrations were simply implausible. This kind of person is a good-for-nothing scalawag. Funakosi is very good at talking, in fact, his tricky behavior and eloquent explanation easily decieves people.To the naive person, Funakoshi's demonstration and explaination represents the real art! Nothing is more harmful to the world than a martial art that is not effective in actual self-defense. If that stupid person opens a dojo then let him fight with me and I'll make him go back to Okinawa. This would be a real benefit to the world!"---Motobu Choki*_


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 18, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> When Motobu showed up at Funakoshi's school and threw him to the ground three times in front of his students, he said it was to show that Funakoshi's Karate was not good for fighting and that it was only window dressing that looked good on the outside and had no real fighting applicibility. I don't know how much of this was true or how much was merely Motobu running down Funakoshi because he was successful, but he did claim thta there was a lot wrong with Shotokan in terms of it's use in fighting.
> 
> _*"Funakoshi's karate is fake. He could only copy their elegance by performing the outer portion of what he was taught and used that to mislead others into believing he was an expert when he was not. His demonstrations were simply implausible. This kind of person is a good-for-nothing scalawag. Funakosi is very good at talking, in fact, his tricky behavior and eloquent explanation easily decieves people.To the naive person, Funakoshi's demonstration and explaination represents the real art! Nothing is more harmful to the world than a martial art that is not effective in actual self-defense. If that stupid person opens a dojo then let him fight with me and I'll make him go back to Okinawa. This would be a real benefit to the world!"---Motobu Choki*_



Well, there was some bad blood between them for a couple of reasons:

1) Motobu defeated a boxer, but popular accounts confused him with Funakoshi (this wasn't Funakoshi's fault).

2) Motobu's family was more highly placed than Funakoshi's in the Aji/Pechin system. Funakoshi was seen as something of a culture traitor and presumptuous, besides.

3) Motobu didn't like Funakoshi's teachers, specifically Itosu.

As for the two men, Motobu was definitely the better fighter. Funakoshi was a schoolteacher and was also lighter and about eight inches shorter. Motobu was a giant among Okinawans of his time because he was about six feet tall and incredibly muscular, and the closest thing around to a professional karate fighter. He didn't have much respect for anyone that didn't practice for combat full time, and had an equal amount of contempt for Chinese arts. Then again, Choyu allegedly chucked him around with Palace Hand techniques, so there were definitely some limits to his skill.

But this is kind of like saying that Rorion Gracie is a better fighter than a high level judo coach. It's true, but said teacher doesn't spend all of his time practicing judo for competition. It doesn't say much about the actual techniques. For contrast, note that the technical base of Kyokushinkai started with Shotokan, and Mas Oyama credited Funakoshi as his "true" teacher.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 19, 2006)

Very True! The moves are the moves. Everyone learns them. It's how each individual chooses to apply what they've learned.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 19, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Well, there was some bad blood between them for a couple of reasons:
> 
> 1) Motobu defeated a boxer, but popular accounts confused him with Funakoshi (this wasn't Funakoshi's fault).
> 
> ...


 
Motobu studied under the same people as Funakoshi as well as some others. He was still on friendly enough trerms with Itosu to discuss his changing of Chanan to the Pinan kata later in life. Motobu was also only two inches taller. The six feet tall was wrong, there are far too many photos of him standing next to people of known height. He was, according to on eof his students in McCarthy's book 5'5" (165 cm) tall. I even have a picture of him next to Funakoshi where it's clear that they are very nearly the same size. Funakoshi was fairly muscular too. He even has himself flexing his muscles in his first book to show what Karate can do for your muscular development etc.

Anyways, the point is that Shotokan was criticized early on concerning it's usefulness in fighting and I'm wondering if it's not due to what Funakoshi emphasized in terms of the stances and footwork. But, like I said, it could have been largely due to Motobu's hatred for Funakoshi since other Okinawan karateka criticized Motobu for teaching a karate that was too focussed on fighting.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 19, 2006)

Sound like it could be plausible. Looking through these forums, the debate of what should be the focus of the martial arts is still raging. No system should be looked down upon, they are all valid. I'm sure that Funakoshi could have defended himself quite well, if needed.


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 20, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Motobu studied under the same people as Funakoshi as well as some others. He was still on friendly enough trerms with Itosu to discuss his changing of Chanan to the Pinan kata later in life.



His disagreements with Itosu on things like the technical elements of Nahanchi were well-known. His being on friendly terms was probably largely because he was several social classes higher than all of his teachers.



> Motobu was also only two inches taller. The six feet tall was wrong, there are far too many photos of him standing next to people of known height. He was, according to on eof his students in McCarthy's book 5'5" (165 cm) tall. I even have a picture of him next to Funakoshi where it's clear that they are very nearly the same size. Funakoshi was fairly muscular too. He even has himself flexing his muscles in his first book to show what Karate can do for your muscular development etc.


 
I'd like to see the picture. 5'5" is correct, though. On the other hand, it would be a real stretch to say that they were the same size.



> Anyways, the point is that Shotokan was criticized early on concerning it's usefulness in fighting and I'm wondering if it's not due to what Funakoshi emphasized in terms of the stances and footwork. But, like I said, it could have been largely due to Motobu's hatred for Funakoshi since other Okinawan karateka criticized Motobu for teaching a karate that was too focussed on fighting.



It depends on what you mean by "fighting." Funakoshi's view was that karate had to have a greater purpose because its techniques were primarily designed for lethal struggles ("One two tigers fight, one is bound to be injured, while the other will be killed"). But in terms of the style, Mas Oyama's appreciation of Funakoshi more than compenates for Motobu's opinion.


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 20, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Sound like it could be plausible. Looking through these forums, the debate of what should be the focus of the martial arts is still raging. No system should be looked down upon, they are all valid. I'm sure that Funakoshi could have defended himself quite well, if needed.



Funaoshi probably wasn't the fighter Motobu was. Then again, there are plenty of exponents of good systems that vary in taolent despite similar amounts of time training.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 21, 2006)

I hear Ya! I just responded because it seemed that Funakoshi was getting dumped on, or his Karate was not legit because of his personal philosophy. I just don't think that is fair, if it was the case. (If I read it wrong, I apologize!)


----------



## Danjo (Apr 21, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I hear Ya! I just responded because it seemed that Funakoshi was getting dumped on, or his Karate was not legit because of his personal philosophy. I just don't think that is fair, if it was the case. (If I read it wrong, I apologize!)


 
Hey, I'm not dumping on him. I have a brown belt in Shotokan and found the training very good. However, I did notice that the exagerated stances etc. always had to be adjusted in order to free-spar. That seems like a waste of time to train that way now. Same goes for the crescent stepping. But to each his own. I don't think karate would have been nearly as popular without Funakoshi's inovations in terms of popularizing it for the masses.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 21, 2006)

I apologize then, as I said, I might have misread it. I agree about the trainig to.

Respect!


----------



## Doc (Apr 21, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm not dumping on him. I have a brown belt in Shotokan and found the training very good. However, I did notice that the exagerated stances etc. always had to be adjusted in order to free-spar. That seems like a waste of time to train that way now. Same goes for the crescent stepping. But to each his own. I don't think karate would have been nearly as popular without Funakoshi's inovations in terms of popularizing it for the masses.


You mean kinda like Parker did with "motion Kenpo-Karate?"


----------



## Danjo (Apr 21, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> You mean kinda like Parker did with "motion Kenpo-Karate?"


 
It'd be a lot less people on this message board with out that particular inovation


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 21, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> However, I did notice that the exagerated stances etc. always had to be adjusted in order to free-spar. That seems like a waste of time to train that way now.


 
How do you feel about the idea that the stances are exaggerated to build strength and stability, and when they are relaxed for fighting, this gives you greater speed and mobility from training from a more difficult position?

In Wing Chun, we use a bizarre, knock-knee stance that I think is sometimes call the "goat clamping stance".  It is painful and works the hell out of the legs.  nobody would try to fight from this stance but the training builds a lot of power and stability.  Once we move into a fighting stance, speed and mobility is better because of this training.

Kind of like running with ankle weights, but you take them off before the actual race.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 22, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> How do you feel about the idea that the stances are exaggerated to build strength and stability, and when they are relaxed for fighting, this gives you greater speed and mobility from training from a more difficult position?
> 
> In Wing Chun, we use a bizarre, knock-knee stance that I think is sometimes call the "goat clamping stance". It is painful and works the hell out of the legs. nobody would try to fight from this stance but the training builds a lot of power and stability. Once we move into a fighting stance, speed and mobility is better because of this training.
> 
> Kind of like running with ankle weights, but you take them off before the actual race.


 
I understand that explaination but I'm not sure how valid it is. It seems more like a justification than an actual explanation. Here's why: The older Karate styles didn't have those low stances. They were an inovation of either Funakoshi or his students. Even Funakoshi's early stuff was practically upright compared to how Shotokan looks now-a-days. I thnk it was done for asthetic reasons more than anything like strengthening the legs etc. Muscle memory is a funny thing. It means that the nervous system has been trained to the point where it no longer requires the brain to engage. The signals simply go from neuron to the spine and back out again. When we're first learning something, the brain is constantly engaged in the process. It isnt' until it gets past that that the reflexes etc. can take over and you get real speed and power with fluidity. If you train to do something wrong, i.e., in an exagerated form, then that is what your nervous system is going to be able to do with fluidity. Now, if what your nervous system is trained to do doesn't really work in real life, then you're screwed. Adjusting your stances up from how you normally train will put you in a zone that you have no reflexive ability and you're simple back to engaging your brain before you can effectively execute your stuff. Therefore, I think that the old school Karateka were wise to train the way that they were actually going to use the stuff. Your legs are already strong enough to injure someone sufficiently if you are executing a proper kick just from walking around all of your life, you don't need exaggerated stances to strengthen them in training. One of the things I like about kempo/kenpo is that they tend to train in a more natural fighting stance. No conversion required.


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 23, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> I understand that explaination but I'm not sure how valid it is. It seems more like a justification than an actual explanation. Here's why: The older Karate styles didn't have those low stances. They were an inovation of either Funakoshi or his students. Even Funakoshi's early stuff was practically upright compared to how Shotokan looks now-a-days. I thnk it was done for asthetic reasons more than anything like strengthening the legs etc. Muscle memory is a funny thing. It means that the nervous system has been trained to the point where it no longer requires the brain to engage. The signals simply go from neuron to the spine and back out again. When we're first learning something, the brain is constantly engaged in the process. It isnt' until it gets past that that the reflexes etc. can take over and you get real speed and power with fluidity. If you train to do something wrong, i.e., in an exagerated form, then that is what your nervous system is going to be able to do with fluidity. Now, if what your nervous system is trained to do doesn't really work in real life, then you're screwed. Adjusting your stances up from how you normally train will put you in a zone that you have no reflexive ability and you're simple back to engaging your brain before you can effectively execute your stuff. Therefore, I think that the old school Karateka were wise to train the way that they were actually going to use the stuff. Your legs are already strong enough to injure someone sufficiently if you are executing a proper kick just from walking around all of your life, you don't need exaggerated stances to strengthen them in training. One of the things I like about kempo/kenpo is that they tend to train in a more natural fighting stance. No conversion required.



Actually, adjustment is *required* because of the way people move under real stress, which is under conditions that restrict range of movement and produce tunnel vision and the loss of fine motor control. Making your movements larger helps you maintain fullness of posture. You see the same thing in Tai Chi, actually. If you look at the postures used in Chen style in particular you see training at these very low postures. In fact, every single CMA I have studied (Wing Chun, Hung Gar, Mizongluohan, Xingyi and Tai Chi) used this method.

I think Shotokan could stand to drop the low postures in step sparring and bunkai, but the method isn't an inherently bad one. Plus, it's been my experience that the crane or "C" walking step has lent itself to mis-execution because it's rather easy to cheat by dragging your leg to the position. It's the wrong way to do it, but it's reached wide acceptance. In fact, your front leg should be doing the vast majority of the work.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 23, 2006)

I think I need to agree with eyebeams here.  The Chinese arts pretty much all train with low stances, tho I cannot speak for the Japanese arts, older or newer, having not studied them. 

I understand what you are saying about muscle memory, but keep in mind, low stances would not be used in every aspect of training.  When it comes to sparring, and perhaps technique execution drills the stances would be higher, and this training will instill the ability to actually fight from the higher stances.  Meanwhile, training kata and basics with low stances develops the power and stability in the lower body that would make fighting ability in a higher stance even stronger.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 23, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, adjustment is *required* because of the way people move under real stress, which is under conditions that restrict range of movement and produce tunnel vision and the loss of fine motor control. Making your movements larger helps you maintain fullness of posture.


 
That's what training is designed to overcome. The freezing up and panicking etc. and learning how to channel your fear etc. are all part of good martial arts training. I don't think that the argument that if you train to use massively exaggerated movements, that you'll move normally when you are panicking is a good one.




			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> You see the same thing in Tai Chi, actually. If you look at the postures used in Chen style in particular you see training at these very low postures. In fact, every single CMA I have studied (Wing Chun, Hung Gar, Mizongluohan, Xingyi and Tai Chi) used this method.


 
Other forms of Tai Chi, however do not. Cheng Man-Ch'ing's style of Tai Chi, for instance, seemed to be very upright in it's postures. He was reputedly indefeated in contests, so the freezing up factor didn't seem to be there for him. Hsing-I that I have seen was not exaggerated along the lines of Shotokan, but rather more akin to the other styles I have refered to. The purpose of the various CMA arts and Sanchin in Goju Ryu etc. are clearly to excercise and strengthen as well as train. My point is that Shotokan seems to take this to an extreme and it seems to have been done for looks more than anything else.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I think Shotokan could stand to drop the low postures in step sparring and bunkai, but the method isn't an inherently bad one. Plus, it's been my experience that the crane or "C" walking step has lent itself to mis-execution because it's rather easy to cheat by dragging your leg to the position. It's the wrong way to do it, but it's reached wide acceptance. In fact, your front leg should be doing the vast majority of the work.


 
I think that your front leg is doing the work whether you're dragging the leg or not.


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 24, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> That's what training is designed to overcome. The freezing up and panicking etc. and learning how to channel your fear etc. are all part of good martial arts training. I don't think that the argument that if you train to use massively exaggerated movements, that you'll move normally when you are panicking is a good one.



That's not the idea, exactly. When I talk about fullness I'm referring to a specific concept called Peng in Tai Chi. People who do "health" Tai Chi (or any martial art) don't have the ability to express it well, because they talk about yielding and being gentle all the time instead of aggressively expanding their body's freedom of movement in and through an enemy. Large postures encourage the maintenance of Peng and also assist in helping you listen to your own body. The "unbendable arm" you see in demonstrations is sort of a useful illusion for demonstrating Peng; it's not it, but it kind of feels like it.

The ability to express energy in this fashion from almost *any* posture (not merely from those that adhere to overly specific rules of rehearsed biomechanics) is the hallmark of a good martial artist in Chinese and Okinawan systems, though each takes slightly (and in some cases, very) different paths. Okinawan systems use specific postures and kiko (qigong) to get it, along with kata training. Strength is a goal (because it;s always good to have more of it), but what's more relevant is the ability to issue energy properly in the face of physical and mental constraints. More difficult postures enable that and are not really "rehearsals" for a specific situation in the way an American Kenpo technique is. I think there's a basic difference of mindset, but that's a topic for another time.



> Other forms of Tai Chi, however do not. Cheng Man-Ch'ing's style of Tai Chi, for instance, seemed to be very upright in it's postures. He was reputedly indefeated in contests, so the freezing up factor didn't seem to be there for him.



He also reutedly hit his son with a stick because his hands were too deadly, so I think much has been lost in mythmaking. His style is also one of the styles that emphasizes application the least, and when he learned Tai Chi, he learned Yang.



> Hsing-I that I have seen was not exaggerated along the lines of Shotokan, but rather more akin to the other styles I have refered to. The purpose of the various CMA arts and Sanchin in Goju Ryu etc. are clearly to excercise and strengthen as well as train. My point is that Shotokan seems to take this to an extreme and it seems to have been done for looks more than anything else.


 
With Xingyi, it really depends on your goals for the session. When I did returning fist this afternoon I practiced it a couple of different ways. Again, which method is "standard" is a matter of taste. At my school we use pretty moderate postures, but I've sen older filmclips that use low postures. With Xingyi it's hard to tell because walking/bow is not used much at all.

Sanchin and low CMA postures are more than gross exercise, because they develop that "fullness" I'm talking about. You are correct in that it *is* possible to get hung up on this as athletic training alone, but that's more a function of the person, not the method.

In the end, it's really a matter of taste and preference.



> I think that your front leg is doing the work whether you're dragging the leg or not.



Not necessarily. When you drag the leg the hamstring and glutes are acting in antagonism. A lot of karate folks like the feel of this because once you move past the lead leg there's a "springy" feel that provides the illusion of momentum and power, when in fact all the person is feeling is the release of tension that they themselves are responsible for.

You can see this kind of thing with a simple demonstration. If you lay newspaper down your walking path and you're dragging like this, you'll move the newspaper.


----------



## Danjo (Apr 24, 2006)

Well, I'm not about to get into a debate about CMA with you guys since I'd LOSE  I have very limited exposure to it (Five connecting forms of Hsing-I, Single Palm Change of Ba Gua, and One 13 movement short short form of Tai Chi) I learned these from a student of mine a few years ago and I'm sure that I do them badly. I've read some, but again, my exposure is very limited.

I see what you mean with the antagonizing movement and the momentum thing. Either way though, I'm not a big fan of this type of training. I thnk that structural integrity is essential, but that it should be from the stance you'll actually use rather than one you'll have to adjust.


----------

