# Stand up grappling applications in Isshin Ryu kata at 10:22



## TaiChiTJ (Jul 11, 2019)

At about 10:22 Javier Martinez shows applications commencing with finger and elbow locks. Interesting !! Towards the end a kata is performed as applications are shown. Anyone know if the kata is Seisan ?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2019)

A lot going on here. First, yes, it's Seisan. Mostly. As is so often said in MA, not the way we do it. But oh well. It's recognizable.

Second, what you're seeing here is chart 3 from Shimabuku Soke's original teaching. Tuite is a good description.

You are also seeing some Oyo and some Omote bunkai. Typically done with one person doing a kata and an uke providing the attack that provokes the response.

Interesting video. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 12, 2019)

TaiChiTJ said:


> At about 10:22 Javier Martinez shows applications commencing with finger and elbow locks. Interesting !! Towards the end a kata is performed as applications are shown. Anyone know if the kata is Seisan ?



My taiji shifu did something like that to me once, but he did not take me down. He just moved around to wherever he wanted to put me


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 12, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A lot going on here. First, yes, it's Seisan. Mostly. As is so often said in MA, not the way we do it. But oh well. It's recognizable.
> 
> Second, what you're seeing here is chart 3 from Shimabuku Soke's original teaching. Tuite is a good description.
> 
> ...



Sensei Martinez is an interesting figure in regards to Isshin-Ryu.  He took the katas (not including Sunsu) and tried to find their Chinese origins and how it would have been done "originally".  In some areas, he "changed the kata" from what Shimabuku taught to accomodate his application interpretations.  Also, Shimabuku did not have the elaborate "chin-na" techniques in his teachings, the hand grappling was much shorter and to the point (as evidenced by Shimabuku's '45 kumite techniques').

There are some in the IR world who really like Martinez's "reverse engineering" approach and many who say that it isn't IR anymore.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> Sensei Martinez is an interesting figure in regards to Isshin-Ryu.  He took the katas (not including Sunsu) and tried to find their Chinese origins and how it would have been done "originally".  In some areas, he "changed the kata" from what Shimabuku taught to accomodate his application interpretations.  Also, Shimabuku did not have the elaborate "chin-na" techniques in his teachings, the hand grappling was much shorter and to the point (as evidenced by Shimabuku's '45 kumite techniques').
> 
> There are some in the IR world who really like Martinez's "reverse engineering" approach and many who say that it isn't IR anymore.



I'm not qualified to judge. My personal take on it is to not modify the kata from what Soke taught. Application is more of a blank slate.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 12, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not qualified to judge. My personal take on it is to not modify the kata from what Soke taught. Application is more of a blank slate.



Me either on judging.  I am of the opinion that if you change what you do and it is no longer the same then change the name to distinguish it.  For example, Martinez-Ha Isshin-Ryu, would designate that it is HIS version of Isshin-Ryu while paying respect and recognizing that it is very close to the parent style, or if enough changes have been made then make it your own and call it your own.

I agree with applications.  I am of the belief that the movements have more than one application and the kata are a learning device to ingrain the movement itself and that they aren't locked in stone for applications.  Originally, the movements didn't have specific names so it allowed the exploration of the multiple uses.  If I call a movement a "block" now the application starts to become limited.  If I change the movement to fit a specific application, then I might be losing the other information encoded into the movement.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jul 12, 2019)

Martinez Sensei's interpretation of IR katas is that most every technique is a joint lock.  I applaud him for recognizing that the old katas were always more than just blocks and strikes (a fact lost to popular karate for many decades), although I agree with Punisher that his locks are more elaborate than the original Okinawan intention.  That said, Martinez Sensei's joint locks seem well executed.

I agree with those of you who prefer that Soke's (meaning Tatsuo Shimabuku, not the several other IR "sokes") katas  should not be modified.  Doing so fractures the style.  But that horse has left the barn.  I think it's OK to slightly change a hand position to emphasize the oyo, but as I have expressed before - Use the applications that well fit the kata, don't change the kata to fit one's applications.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 12, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> Use the applications that well fit the kata, don't change the kata to fit one's applications.


If you look at form from this angle, The form will always belong to the form creator and will never belong to you.

The form contains grammar. By using the grammar, you can create as many sentences as you like. A particular sentence is not important. How to use the grammar in that sentence is important.

If your form is "This is a book". You should be able to come up with:

- This is "not" a book.
- This is a "pen".
- "That" is a book.
- ...


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jul 12, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you look at form from this angle, The form will always belong to the form creator and will never belong to you.
> 
> The form contains grammar. By using the grammar, you can create as many sentences as you like. A particular sentence is not important. How to use the grammar in that sentence is important.
> 
> ...


Are you saying that 100 people can each customize a kata any way they like?  Then the kata, and the style, will disappear.  There would no longer be a Kusanku or Sanchin, just 10,000's of different katas.
In your example that "This is a book" can be changed to "This is _not _a book,_" _or even "This is a pen", the grammar may be correct, but *the meaning has changed!
*
The creators (I would venture understood more about MA than you and I) designed the katas for specific reasons.  We can be true to the katas, yet still make them our own.  We do that by keeping the original grammar and sentences, but change the pronunciation of the words, the accent, the cadence, inflection, and volume.  Just as 10 actors can all read the same script, but give 10 unique renditions of it.  They don't need to change the playwright's storyline to make the part their own.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 12, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> Are you saying that 100 people can each customize a kata any way they like?  Then the kata, and the style, will disappear.


If your form has a "front kick, straight punch" combo, can you change that combo into:

- front kick, uppercut,
- side kick, back fist,
- roundhouse kick, hook punch,
- hook kick, hammer fist,
- ...?

Also if your form has a "front kick, straight punch" combo, can you come up with

- How to counter it?
- How to counter those counters?
- ...

At what point of your life that you will start to involve with those tasks?

- After 5 years of your training?
- After 10 years of your training?
- After 20 years of your training?
- Never?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 13, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> Are you saying that 100 people can each customize a kata any way they like?  Then the kata, and the style, will disappear.  There would no longer be a Kusanku or Sanchin, just 10,000's of different katas.
> In your example that "This is a book" can be changed to "This is _not _a book,_" _or even "This is a pen", the grammar may be correct, but *the meaning has changed!
> *
> The creators (I would venture understood more about MA than you and I) designed the katas for specific reasons.  We can be true to the katas, yet still make them our own.  We do that by keeping the original grammar and sentences, but change the pronunciation of the words, the accent, the cadence, inflection, and volume.  Just as 10 actors can all read the same script, but give 10 unique renditions of it.  They don't need to change the playwright's storyline to make the part their own.


The Chinese arts often have a more relaxed attitude about these things.  Not always, but often.

And whether or not the founders and creators of the kata knew more about combat than we today, either collectively or individually, is very open to debate.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jul 13, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your form has a "front kick, straight punch" combo, can you change that combo into:
> 
> - front kick, uppercut,
> - side kick, back fist,
> ...


This is all true - never intended to hint otherwise.  One can adapt the kata techniques to meet a given situation, including counters.  This is the beauty of kata.  It is a template/tool box of self-defense moves from which one can draw from, and modify as needed.  That said, once the adaptation is used/demonstrated, one returns to the template.  In this way, the kata is passed on intact with all its potential variations still available for succeeding generations of practitioners to explore.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jul 13, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> The Chinese arts often have a more relaxed attitude about these things.  Not always, but often.
> 
> And whether or not the founders and creators of the kata knew more about combat than we today, either collectively or individually, is very open to debate.


As good a fighter as I imagine myself in my dreams, I don't think I would like to come up against the King of Ryukyu's personal bodyguard like Toudi Sakagawa (Kusanku's student) or, more recently, Motobu Choki.  An MMA champ or SEAL would have a good chance against them, though.

I think there should be no doubt that these old karate masters were damn tough and many were skilled in pressure/vital point striking and joint locks.  Additionally, many underwent body hardening (_kotekitai)_ for many years.  However, as much as we  honor and idolize the Masters, we should not give them supernatural powers and acknowledge they were human.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 13, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> As good a fighter as I imagine myself in my dreams, I don't think I would like to come up against the King of Ryukyu's personal bodyguard like Toudi Sakagawa (Kusanku's student) or, more recently, Motobu Choki.  An MMA champ or SEAL would have a good chance against them, though.


If you just learn a form and then pass it down to the next generation, you are just a good copy machine. Even the best copy machine, after many generations, the quality will become worse and worse.

What can you do for not being just a copy machine? What contribution can you give to the MA if you don't add into your own knowledge?

Dragon has 9 sons. They all look different. One even looks like turtle.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 13, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> As good a fighter as I imagine myself in my dreams, I don't think I would like to come up against the King of Ryukyu's personal bodyguard like Toudi Sakagawa (Kusanku's student) or, more recently, Motobu Choki.  An MMA champ or SEAL would have a good chance against them, though.
> 
> I think there should be no doubt that these old karate masters were damn tough and many were skilled in pressure/vital point striking and joint locks.  Additionally, many underwent body hardening (_kotekitai)_ for many years.  However, as much as we  honor and idolize the Masters, we should not give them supernatural powers and acknowledge they were human.


In our modern age of information technology and easy travel, we can access instruction in many different methods much much more easily than people could in 18th century Okinawa.  We have access to much more information that we can learn from, we have the ability and the tools to research more thoroughly than before.  I think people today have the definite potential to be more knowledgeable and more skilled than people of the past, with some limitations.  

I personally do not hold myself out to be one of those people.

That being said, nothing that we practice now, based on older methods, was handed down from the gods in a state of perfection.  It was all devised by people, and they had the same shortcomings and failures that people today have.  They too made mistakes, or did things one way that could have been done better another way.  None of it is sacred.  It can all be changed, either minorly or majorly.

I personally do not believe that anything today is being done exactly as it was first created, if it has been passed along for more than one generation.  Even then, I doubt it.  People are different, they will understand things differently from each other, even if only a little bit differently.  Already, it is different.  

People do things to the best of their understanding.  This can cause it to be different from their teachers, even if they BELIEVE it to be the same.  The next generation of teachers teach to the best of their ability.  That ability is not identical to their own teachers.  Again, this leads to differences.  

I think it is a myth to believe that any system or kata or whatever has remained completely true to that created by the founder, regardless of intentions.  But this does not mean that it is not still the same system.

As long as the intention is to maintain the same high level of integrity and quality, then it is still the same system, even though it changes, and even if some changes are deliberate.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> And whether or not the founders and creators of the kata knew more about combat than we today, either collectively or individually, is very open to debate.



It's not a matter of debate.  I study a style of martial arts that has a founder and a name.  I practice it the way it was taught by the founder.  That subject is not open to debate.  Whether or not anyone wants to think they have a better way of doing things is for them to decide.  It's not of interest to me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 13, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you just learn a form and then pass it down to the next generation, you are just a good copy machine.



When you become my sensei, you can tell me what and how I should study and practice Isshinryu.  Since you are not my sensei, you cannot.  You are free to have your own opinions about me, my style, or how things ought to be done.  But I don't care what your opinions are about that subject, and mean that in the nicest possible way.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 13, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's not a matter of debate.  I study a style of martial arts that has a founder and a name.  I practice it the way it was taught by the founder.  That subject is not open to debate.  Whether or not anyone wants to think they have a better way of doing things is for them to decide.  It's not of interest to me.


You are of course welcome to practice it to be best of your ability.  That is all any of us can do.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 14, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> As good a fighter as I imagine myself in my dreams, I don't think I would like to come up against the King of Ryukyu's personal bodyguard like Toudi Sakagawa (Kusanku's student) or, more recently, Motobu Choki.  An MMA champ or SEAL would have a good chance against them, though.
> 
> I think there should be no doubt that these old karate masters were damn tough and many were skilled in pressure/vital point striking and joint locks.  Additionally, many underwent body hardening (_kotekitai)_ for many years.  However, as much as we  honor and idolize the Masters, we should not give them supernatural powers and acknowledge they were human.



Yeah. That pretty much. 

It is an imitation verses innovation debate. Rather than any sort of attack.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 14, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> Me either on judging.  I am of the opinion that if you change what you do and it is no longer the same then change the name to distinguish it.  For example, Martinez-Ha Isshin-Ryu, would designate that it is HIS version of Isshin-Ryu while paying respect and recognizing that it is very close to the parent style, or if enough changes have been made then make it your own and call it your own.
> 
> I agree with applications.  I am of the belief that the movements have more than one application and the kata are a learning device to ingrain the movement itself and that they aren't locked in stone for applications.  Originally, the movements didn't have specific names so it allowed the exploration of the multiple uses.  If I call a movement a "block" now the application starts to become limited.  If I change the movement to fit a specific application, then I might be losing the other information encoded into the movement.


I think a lot of people don't do that, themselves (the renaming). The reason it gets the person's last name is that others refer to it that way. Doing that with your own name feels presumptuous, I think. In fact, I think there's a bit of humility in not renaming something, whether that's appropriate or not. The name you proposed is essentially saying "Martinez's Isshin-Ryu", which is probably how a lot of folks refer to it today. At some point, the " 's" possessive may drop off, and folks may just refer to it as "Martinez Isshin-Ryu". Probably won't be what he calls it, though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 14, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> Martinez Sensei's interpretation of IR katas is that most every technique is a joint lock.  I applaud him for recognizing that the old katas were always more than just blocks and strikes (a fact lost to popular karate for many decades), although I agree with Punisher that his locks are more elaborate than the original Okinawan intention.  That said, Martinez Sensei's joint locks seem well executed.
> 
> I agree with those of you who prefer that Soke's (meaning Tatsuo Shimabuku, not the several other IR "sokes") katas  should not be modified.  Doing so fractures the style.  But that horse has left the barn.  I think it's OK to slightly change a hand position to emphasize the oyo, but as I have expressed before - Use the applications that well fit the kata, don't change the kata to fit one's applications.


While I understand the desire to maintain the link and tradition (I've made some choices, myself, for that reason), doesn't that mean that if application continues to evolve - as it should - that kata will become less and less pertinent, since it becomes more distant from application?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 14, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> And whether or not the founders and creators of the kata knew more about combat than we today, either collectively or individually, is very open to debate.


This is part of why I take issue with attaching too much importance to how things were done by the founder (or some other important person in the history of a given art). We know things, because we (hopefully) have built upon what they handed down. And in many cases, I doubt they were done adjusting what they did. If they were still alive, many of them would be teaching a different version of the stuff they used to teach - probably including some of their forms.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 14, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Dragon has 9 sons. They all look different. One even looks like turtle.


Wait, what are the turtles like out your way, John???


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 14, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> In our modern age of information technology and easy travel, we can access instruction in many different methods much much more easily than people could in 18th century Okinawa.  We have access to much more information that we can learn from, we have the ability and the tools to research more thoroughly than before.  I think people today have the definite potential to be more knowledgeable and more skilled than people of the past, with some limitations.
> 
> I personally do not hold myself out to be one of those people.
> 
> ...


Man, I wish I could agree with this twice, Michael.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 14, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. That pretty much.
> 
> It is an imitation verses innovation debate. Rather than any sort of attack.


That is a true and accurate statement. But there are a great many older/original Masters, instructors, and fighters I would love to be able to imitate.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> While I understand the desire to maintain the link and tradition (I've made some choices, myself, for that reason), doesn't that mean that if application continues to evolve - as it should - that kata will become less and less pertinent, since it becomes more distant from application?


Not greatly I do not think. A jab or reverse punch is/was the same. I think what is changing the most is the variety within application. Most teachers/instructors today have more knowledge about a punch, and convey the information better, and broader to their students. So, in broad brush strokes, things are not all that different. The way the information is transferred very much is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 14, 2019)

This is my take on it. And since we are nominally talking IR, I'm just going to say my piece.

People change Soke's katas because they think they understand them and have found something lacking that they can improve upon. This is their mistake. They are missing a great deal of information that the original contained, and since they change it, they truncate the ability to learn it or teach it right there.

Surface karate is fine as far as it goes. But yes it has limits and I'm sure people see improvements they could make to it. But they don't do it from a place of understanding, they do it from a place of ignorance. Worse, they do it from a place of pride and hubris because they think they have learned all the kata has to teach.

Like the layers of an onion, I have dedicated my remaining years to diving deeper and deeper into what can be found in the kata as it exists, without the need to change anything.

Oh, but we know so much more now than primitive villagers did do long ago. Like fun we do. We blind ourselves to what is there and congratulate ourselves on our ignorance.

And it cannot be written in a book or put into a video. As some of you understand about your own styles, tuition is pain, effort, and time, and these are currencies our generations seem unfamiliar with.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 14, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Most teachers/instructors today have more knowledge about a punch...



I disagree. Most karate instructors teach surface karate to children.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> We know things, because we (hopefully) have built upon what they handed down.



We think we know things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 14, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Not greatly I do not think. A jab or reverse punch is/was the same. I think what is changing the most is the variety within application. Most teachers/instructors today have more knowledge about a punch, and convey the information better, and broader to their students. So, in broad brush strokes, things are not all that different. The way the information is transferred very much is.


With strikes there may be some truth to this. With grappling, there's been a lot of learning and change in approach, strategy, etc.

More importantly, IMO, is learning what works for teaching. A kata is meant to be a tool for the student. That tool can always be improved. As application evolves, especially, the principles reinforced in kata either follow the evolution of the application, or they grow more distant from it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 14, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We think we know things.


If, in fact (as I would agree) we do  not understand everything the founder/whoever understood, why should we attempt to teach the same way they did.

I don't think accurate full transmission of understanding is ever possible for any topic of even moderate complexity. Some percentage of knowledge will always be lost from instructor to student. That being the case, if the student strives simply to repeat what they learned, the art is diminished in each generation. If, however, each instructor strives to add a bit of new understanding (some of it being more a rediscovery than anything truly new), then the art is more likely to grow. 

(Add to this the concept @drop bear brings up from time to time that innovation of technique comes more from students than instructors, and the approach becomes more valuable.)


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 14, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> This is my take on it. And since we are nominally talking IR, I'm just going to say my piece.
> 
> People change Soke's katas because they think they understand them and have found something lacking that they can improve upon. This is their mistake. They are missing a great deal of information that the original contained, and since they change it, they truncate the ability to learn it or teach it right there.
> 
> ...


I think in many cases what you are saying here holds true.  Perhaps even in most cases.  But I do not agree with this in every case.  

Later generations are able to build upon what earlier generations have done.  And as I pointed out, sometimes there is simply a difference in understanding, whether or not the difference is recognized or intended, and that means it is not identical to what the founder did.  I don’t believe this is avoidable.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> If, in fact (as I would agree) we do  not understand everything the founder/whoever understood, why should we attempt to teach the same way they did.
> 
> I don't think accurate full transmission of understanding is ever possible for any topic of even moderate complexity. Some percentage of knowledge will always be lost from instructor to student. That being the case, if the student strives simply to repeat what they learned, the art is diminished in each generation. If, however, each instructor strives to add a bit of new understanding (some of it being more a rediscovery than anything truly new), then the art is more likely to grow.
> 
> (Add to this the concept @drop bear brings up from time to time that innovation of technique comes more from students than instructors, and the approach becomes more valuable.)



If the reproduction is faithful, the information encoded within it remains and can be discovered through diligent study and practice. Even if the scribe didn't speak the language, they could reproduce the book, so to speak.

Bad reproduction leads to loss of data, of course. And none of us is perfect, but I strive not to change what was taught.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 14, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If the reproduction is faithful, the information encoded within it remains and can be discovered through diligent study and practice. Even if the scribe didn't speak the language, they could reproduce the book, so to speak.
> 
> Bad reproduction leads to loss of data, of course. And none of us is perfect, but I strive not to change what was taught.


I can see your point. My assertion is that there is always interpretation. I can never know exactly what my instructor thought/knew - only what I interpreted from what he taught. If I take something from the forms in an art, no matter how good or bad that thing I took is, I can't really know (unless the founder is available to talk to) whether that's something intended to be there at inception, or something I found in it, but which the founder had never conceived of. So, when we look to learn what's in the depths of a form, there's a very real chance (in fact, a likelihood) we're actually adding our understanding to the art. Which is a good thing.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I can see your point. My assertion is that there is always interpretation. I can never know exactly what my instructor thought/knew - only what I interpreted from what he taught. If I take something from the forms in an art, no matter how good or bad that thing I took is, I can't really know (unless the founder is available to talk to) whether that's something intended to be there at inception, or something I found in it, but which the founder had never conceived of. So, when we look to learn what's in the depths of a form, there's a very real chance (in fact, a likelihood) we're actually adding our understanding to the art. Which is a good thing.


Both adding to the art in what we perceive, and losing something by (probably) not understanding everything that the founder understood.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 14, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If the reproduction is faithful, the information encoded within it remains and can be discovered through diligent study and practice. Even if the scribe didn't speak the language, they could reproduce the book, so to speak.
> 
> Bad reproduction leads to loss of data, of course. And none of us is perfect, but I strive not to change what was taught.


What is the value to the scribe, in reproducing the book by copying the symbols that he does not know, if he does not speak the language?

I could copy a text written in Chinese or Russian, copy the characters or the Cyrillic letters perfectly, and I could do that over and over,  but I don’t speak nor read Chinese or Russian.  The exercise will teach me nothing of the meaning of the text.

Copying the movements of a kata without understanding what it all means is a very slow path to developing one’s skill.  And in the context of a kata, it is virtually guaranteed that there will be subtleties within the kata that would be lost to such a person who is copying the movements.  That is a huge reason why I argue against learning by video: because it essentially amounts to the same thing, and those subtleties can mean the difference between time well-spent or time wasted.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 14, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We think we know things.


There is always a good reason for evolution.

Let's take the 'hip throw" as an example. The traditional SC hip throw is done by sliding your feet backward and use your hip to knock your opponent's body off the ground. Since during the old time, all SC matches were done outdoor on the dirt ground. To slide feet along the ground was possible. Today we all wrestle on the mat. When you try to slide your feet backward on the ground, your feet will be caught on the soft mat. In order to solve this problem, the modern hip throw use the waist lift motion instead without the backward feet slidding.

Today, all SC students know 2 different ways to execute the hip throw. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.

The traditional "hip throw" that slide both feet backward.






The modern "hip throw" that doesn't slide feet backward.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 14, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> What is the value to the scribe, in reproducing the book by copying the symbols that he does not know, if he does not speak the language?
> 
> I could copy a text written in Chinese or Russian, copy the characters or the Cyrillic letters perfectly, and I could do that over and over,  but I don’t speak nor read Chinese or Russian.  The exercise will teach me nothing of the meaning of the text.
> 
> Copying the movements of a kata without understanding what it all means is a very slow path to developing one’s skill.  And in the context of a kata, it is virtually guaranteed that there will be subtleties within the kata that would be lost to such a person who is copying the movements.  That is a huge reason why I argue against learning by video: because it essentially amounts to the same thing, and those subtleties can mean the difference between time well-spent or time wasted.



We all take what we can and pass along as much as possible.  I used the scribe as an analogy.  A person who studies diligently should absorb quite a bit.  But there are many reasons that all the inner understanding will not be revealed to a particular student.  If they can use what they have learned and faithfully pass on what they have been taught as the founder taught it, they will have done well nevertheless.

To some extent, we all fail to make to the ultimate core of the arts we study, in large ways and small.  And that's OK, we are all human.  What bothers me is when a person has absorbed all they can or choose to, realizes the shortcomings of what they have, and decides that this means they must extend or add to an otherwise inadequate system.  Never stopping to think that perhaps it is they who are inadequate. I speak as one who is entirely inadequate, so please don't think I feel myself to be a master of anything in particular.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 14, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is always a good reason for evolution.
> 
> Let's take the 'hip throw" as an example. The traditional SC hip throw is done by sliding your feet backward and use your hip to knock your opponent's body off the ground. Since during the old time, all SC matches were done outdoor on the dirt ground. To slide feet along the ground was possible. Today we all wrestle on the mat. When you try to slide your feet backward on the ground, your feet will be caught on the soft mat. In order to solve this problem, the modern hip throw use the waist lift motion instead without the backward feet slidding.



I am sure you're a good person and a diligent student of your art, but you and I will never see eye-to-eye.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 14, 2019)

If evolution has no value, it will disappear in the MA history sooner than we can predict.

Let's take the "foot sweep' as another example. A traditional SC teacher will teach foot sweep directly to his students. A modern SC teacher will teach his students in the following order:

shin bite -> sticky lift -> scoop kick -> foot sweep

You first learn how to lock your instep behind your opponent's ankle. You then learn how to lift your opponent's foot vertical upward. You then learn how to pull your opponent's foot horizontally along the ground. Finally you learn how to sweep your opponent's foot 45 degree upward.

The modern training method has more detail than the traditional training method that go directly into foot sweep. It adds more value into the SC system instead of taking things out of the system.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 14, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> In your example that "This is a book" can be changed to "This is _not _a book,_" _or even "This is a pen", the grammar may be correct, but *the meaning has changed!*


The grammar (principle, strategy) is more important that the sentence (technique).

Form (technique) is your dessert. Your main meal is principle and strategy.


----------



## Buka (Jul 14, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not qualified to judge.



I love when you're right.


----------



## Buka (Jul 14, 2019)

This will sound completely nuts, but here it is.

You might know that I am not a fan of George Dillman, other than for entertainment purposes, not a fan at all.

But if you ever get the chance, and can get him to not try and sell you something - talk to him about Kata. Kata from any style, from anywhere. The man is a walking encyclopedia on Kata and Kata history. Really.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 14, 2019)

Buka said:


> This will sound completely nuts, but here it is.
> 
> You might know that I am not a fan of George Dillman, other than for entertainment purposes, not a fan at all.
> 
> But if you ever get the chance, and can get him to not try and sell you something - talk to him about Kata. Kata from any style, from anywhere. The man is a walking encyclopedia on Kata and Kata history. Really.



Dillman Sensei came from Isshinryu, originally studying with a first-generation student of Master Shimabuki, Harry G. Smith, who has his own interesting backstory.

Neither comes from my lineage, but there is little doubt that they were at one time the 'real deal'.  Where things changed I have no idea.

I find that my own sensei has a great deal of information about our kata and a great deal to teach; more than I could ever process in the years remaining to me.  I am content to continue what I have started and walk the path I am on.

I no longer attend seminars, courses, or competitions.  I have come to realize that all I need is in my dojo, I just need to work harder and study more.


----------



## Buka (Jul 14, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Dillman Sensei came from Isshinryu, originally studying with a first-generation student of Master Shimabuki, Harry G. Smith, who has his own interesting backstory.
> 
> Neither comes from my lineage, but there is little doubt that they were at one time the 'real deal'.  Where things changed I have no idea.
> 
> ...



I have walked far and wide, still kind of do at times. But with every step of the way I have always had that very same thought in my mind and heart - _"I have come to realize that all I need is in my dojo"_

Ain't that the truth.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 14, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Dillman Sensei came from Isshinryu, originally studying with a first-generation student of Master Shimabuki, Harry G. Smith, who has his own interesting backstory.
> 
> Neither comes from my lineage, but there is little doubt that they were at one time the 'real deal'.  Where things changed I have no idea.
> 
> ...


I largely feel the same way that you do.  I work within the methods of my system because the method makes sense to me.  I have little interest in seminars or competitions or exploring other schools or other systems.

I also largely agree with you about kata and making changes to it:  by far, most people have no business making changes to it, and by far most people have a long way to go before they come close to understanding their kata completely.  For the vast majority, they have more than enough on their plates.

That being said, I also believe that some people are in a legitimate position to make changes and move the system in another direction.  I do believe that we can build upon what earlier generations have done, and that does not make the system into something else, it does not require a name change, although it might become a hallmark of a lineage through a certain person.


----------



## Buka (Jul 14, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Dillman Sensei came from Isshinryu, originally studying with a first-generation student of Master Shimabuki, Harry G. Smith, who has his own interesting backstory.
> 
> Neither comes from my lineage, but there is little doubt that they were at one time the 'real deal'.  Where things changed I have no idea.
> 
> ...



There is something to be said for going exploring. If I had never done that I never would have done any Okinawan Karate. I think that would have been a shame.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 15, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> What is the value to the scribe, in reproducing the book by copying the symbols that he does not know, if he does not speak the language?
> 
> I could copy a text written in Chinese or Russian, copy the characters or the Cyrillic letters perfectly, and I could do that over and over,  but I don’t speak nor read Chinese or Russian.  The exercise will teach me nothing of the meaning of the text.
> 
> Copying the movements of a kata without understanding what it all means is a very slow path to developing one’s skill.  And in the context of a kata, it is virtually guaranteed that there will be subtleties within the kata that would be lost to such a person who is copying the movements.  That is a huge reason why I argue against learning by video: because it essentially amounts to the same thing, and those subtleties can mean the difference between time well-spent or time wasted.


I think Chinese (or Japanese) is a good analogy for kata. If I copy an ideogram without understanding it, I may believe I've copied it exactly properly, but might actually make a mistake because I don't understand the drawing. This is especially true of written calligraphy, because there is some interpretation in the strokes. If you don't know the language, it's virtually impossible to figure out what's interpretation and what's error.

I hang around the dojo after my class sometimes. The black belt class (really, just a study group for the BBs) starts right after us. I watch them go through some kata, discussing the nuances. This isn't Isshin-ryu, so I can't say how similar it is, but it's a very structured, kata-rich Okinawan art (Shorin-ryu) that has folks with many years of training still discussing the interpretation of moves.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 15, 2019)

It seems that there are two different arguments going on.  Further refinement of a kata/movement and changing the kata.  Again, the kata should teach principles and concepts along with the techniques.  So, in Kung Fu Wang's example of the throws, if that movement was in a kata you don't need to change the kata.  You take that base and show the student two different applications based on the movement.  But, I have seen people who couldn't do an application and change the kata to something that they liked better.  They lost the applications and concept that the movement was showing and if passed on that information would be lost to future generations.

There is also a difference between "changing" and "tailoring".  Kata generally show punches to the middle level, if I am applying and practicing the kata and throw a punch to the face or lower to the bladder or practice throwing my block to a higher or lower level, I am tailoring my approach and not necessarily changing the kata.  Again, something that students should be doing in their training to make it their own.

I have known many instructors who do alternative movements, but will tell students the change and why, but keep the original template.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 15, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think Chinese (or Japanese) is a good analogy for kata. If I copy an ideogram without understanding it, I may believe I've copied it exactly properly, but might actually make a mistake because I don't understand the drawing. This is especially true of written calligraphy, because there is some interpretation in the strokes. If you don't know the language, it's virtually impossible to figure out what's interpretation and what's error.
> 
> I hang around the dojo after my class sometimes. The black belt class (really, just a study group for the BBs) starts right after us. I watch them go through some kata, discussing the nuances. This isn't Isshin-ryu, so I can't say how similar it is, but it's a very structured, kata-rich Okinawan art (Shorin-ryu) that has folks with many years of training still discussing the interpretation of moves.


Very true


----------



## Bruce7 (Jul 15, 2019)

TaiChiTJ said:


> At about 10:22 Javier Martinez shows applications commencing with finger and elbow locks. Interesting !! Towards the end a kata is performed as applications are shown. Anyone know if the kata is Seisan ?



Cool Video.

Years ago my aikido instructure used a lot of the same techniques.


----------

