# History Of SKK Kata



## Hand Sword (Mar 29, 2007)

I always like to hear what people find in their forms. It definitely adds a cool spin to things, and gets minds moving. What I would like to know, however, concerning the Katas, has anyone ever questioned the creators of them and get what they thought? Looking into things is good stuff, but sometimes its over analyzing. As a psych. Professor once said, "Sometimes a cake is just a cake."


----------



## stickarts (Mar 29, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I always like to hear what people find in their forms. It definitely adds a cool spin to things, and gets minds moving. What I would like to know, however, concerning the Katas, has anyone ever questioned the creators of them and get what they thought? Looking into things is good stuff, but sometimes its over analyzing. As a psych. Professor once said, "Sometimes a cake is just a cake."


 
The level of breakdown that I look for depends upon the level of the student.
For example, a blackbelt in our school should be able to give at least one solid application for each move in the form.
Our 3rd degree blackbelts can give several possibilities for interpretation: striking, grappling, or pressure points, etc...
I think that you can reach an extreme eventually where you start to get removed from practicality when you get too sophisticated.
However deep one wants to get, the main thing is that I like to see our students be able to demonstrate the form in a convincing way and be able to explain it.

As you advance, try doing one pinion in many different ways. Facing different directions, with eyes closed, striking applications, grappling applications, etc,
How does someone in another art interpret your forms? I have found that to be an interesting conversation too!


----------



## LawDog (Mar 29, 2007)

It is important for all students and Instructors to understand the tactical theories that exist within forms. It is just important for a Senior Instructor know and understand the pure theories that exist in all preset material. Example, why do you lock some strikes out, how / why does this type of impact work. When an Instructor knows and understands these things he will be able to answer any and all questions from his students and instructors. Any changes to a preset that an Instructor makes will heve been done on a "knowing" level not just a trial and error level.
There should be a balance between perfection of motion and reality. Forms are supposed to be done on a level of self expression, how a student would do this form in an actual situation. When a form is over anilized in order to perfect motion you will lose the "alive" form and then degress into a "dead" robotic type" form.
One of the first levels on understanding forms,
A form is series of pattern techniques connected together by transitional motion.
The pattern techniques have their own rhythm / speed, the transitional motion has it's own rhythm / speed. Never the same.
:ultracool


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 29, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I always like to hear what people find in their forms. It definitely adds a cool spin to things, and gets minds moving. What I would like to know, however, concerning the Katas, has anyone ever questioned the creators of them and get what they thought? Looking into things is good stuff, but sometimes its over analyzing. As a psych. Professor once said, "Sometimes a cake is just a cake."


 
Well, a cake is always a cake, yes.  But, the uses for the cake can range from the obvious (dessert), or less than obvious (making the cake the main course, when in a pinch, etc. etc.).

I've started something new with my advanced colored belt class. This was inspired by Lane and Wilder's work, as well as Iain Abernethy. In class, we'll take one sequence from a form and then working with partners, experiment with San Soo (free hand/free fighting/free form) to discover new applications. Will everything they try work? No, and that's just as good as what does work. It's a lot of fun, and _very_ eye-opening.

Then, when we run through the whole form again, they see with fresh eyes (and sometimes, so do I--always want to keep discovering). :ultracool


----------



## Joe Shuras (Mar 29, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I always like to hear what people find in their forms. It definitely adds a cool spin to things, and gets minds moving. What I would like to know, however, concerning the Katas, has anyone ever questioned the creators of them and get what they thought? Looking into things is good stuff, but sometimes its over analyzing. As a psych. Professor once said, "Sometimes a cake is just a cake."


 
You know, Mike, one of my 4th dans and I were just talking about that yesterday during a private. I'm going to throw this out there just for that, to throw around and get opinions. I also want to say I have been exposed to some of the traditional Japanese/Okinawan/Chinese systems and I am aware of the hidden movements in kata/sets and so forth. I say that so we can remove ourselves from the mindset of maybe we have only been exposed to the modern Hawaiian derived Kenpo/Kempo/Kajukenbo forms and therefore missed out on the secret or hidden bunkai or application of the ancient masters and their Japanese/Okinawan/Chinese forms. Having said that and putting that aside, I'll get to my point.

Sometimes, I wonder if we're just reaching. Let's face it, there are certain, I guess you could call them generic type movements that can have two or more applications and when modified can have many more interpretations. Almost any defense against a punch attack can be easily applicable to a grab or club and visa-versa.... agreed, that's a more basic example but there are many more creative ones than that. I wonder if some black belts are over analyzing the forms as Mike stated, looking for more... well.... like there has to be more to all this, you know, the magic pill that turns martial artists into a superhero, lol, and the system they study as to having all the answers.... like the 'is there more to life' question... know what I mean? 

In other words, when the older, or what some refer to as 'traditional' forms were created, was it with these secret or hidden moves in mind? Or is a hidden move just something that you, the practitioner or your instructor or your instructor's instructor just didn't see before? Did the old masters' really hide things or is this just another myth of the arts that has been perpetuated so long, it know has become a truth. I'm not saying this is correct, just something to throw around and discuss because it's obvious many of us have thought about it in the past. Mike brought it up on the thread and last evening, not knowing that, I had the same discussion with one of my guys. Let's toss it around and see what comes up. Is a cake just a cake??? - Joe


----------



## LawDog (Mar 29, 2007)

I do not believe that any moves were intentionally hidden within the forms. These are a few of the things have caused this confusion.

1) In many of the traditional Chinese Kung fu type systems it is not uncommon for the school Master to show one instructor one portion of the system, another instructor another portion and so on. The Master will do the same thing with his Seniors, one is given some of the advanced  nitty gritty, another is given different advanced stuff and so on. This was/is being done so that, after 20 years or more,  a student will have earned the right to know the entire system. This is a major control thing.
2) After WW 2. many of the Japanese Master would only give the American GI's the superficial,(physical), part of their system. This practice still goes on today in many systems, not in just the Japanese systems either.
3) Way back many martial artists went on to develope their own systems at a young age. There is nothing wrong with this on the surface but like most young men they just want to "bang". To them learning technical stuff was a waste of time. It worked for them so there can be no wrong doing attached for doing so.
4) Then there were others who had questions on the how's and why's. Either by befriending a true Master or through self discovery they began to discover that there were advanced things within the preset material.

This hidden stuff, wheather placed in there intentionally or unintentionally is still there. If someone wishes to learn it, this is fine, if they do not wish to learn it, this is fine also. What counts is that they do it right either way.

I believe that a Master level Instructor should know as much as he/she can. In this way his system will never travel down the wrong path.
:ultracool


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 29, 2007)

I have a friend here in town who is an teacher of a Chinese internal system (in fact he is published in the current Kung Fu and Tai Chi magazine and the photos with the article were taken at my school  )

Well, this is what he told me about "hidden techniques":
-sometimes techniques are hidden by doing the opposite of the actual technique
-sometimes they are hidden by splitting them in half and seperating them
-the more dangerous the technique, the more it is obscured
-sometimes what appears to be a transition is the technique

He backed it up by showing us a tape of Sensei Oyata of Kansas City teaching layers of bunkai from Naihanchi, some quite obvious and some not at all (until you know about backwards / split up then you can see them... in slow motion)

But, was S. Oyata teaching something handed down to him through the years, or stuff he had "hidden" in there himself, or stuff he just made up?  I don't know, but I do know that I really never want to be used in a demo with him


----------



## RevIV (Mar 29, 2007)

I just wanted to throw one thing out to you before i jump into my next class.  If you are trying to find hidden moves in the SKK pinions, I think you may be reaching.  These have been changed so many times since their origins of the Heianns that moves keep switching.    DavidCC talked about his Internal Stylist friend.  When i was in Japan i worked with a Chinese Bau Gua and Xing Yi Grandmaster.  (I know, Japan and working with the Chinese - weird world)  He lived with his teacher Ochi Kin (sounds that way but probably messed up the spelling) and is the inheritor of that particular system. When we talked he said that he would have to work on certain moves 24/7 and come up with his own interpretations. This was the way it was.  
In Peace,
Jesse


----------



## LawDog (Mar 29, 2007)

I believe that the hidden secret stuff in forms are the same ones that are found in the "one on one" presets. This secret stuff is really the hows, whys and tactical applications that are found within the forms many individual presets. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for the traditional point of view on the hidden "super secret" stuff, I am not a follower or believer.
I agree with RevIV that the SKK forms have been changed many times and for many reasons. These forms can be interperted in many ways. If you can justify your interpertation then who is to say that you are wrong.


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 29, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I always like to hear what people find in their forms. It definitely adds a cool spin to things, and gets minds moving. What I would like to know, however, concerning the Katas, has anyone ever questioned the creators of them and get what they thought? Looking into things is good stuff, but sometimes its over analyzing. As a psych. Professor once said, "Sometimes a cake is just a cake."



BTW, *Hand Sword*, wasn't being obtuse earlier, and certainly not argumentative. Just playing devil's advocate for the sake of generating this discussion, which is an important topic to me.


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 29, 2007)

stickarts said:


> The level of breakdown that I look for depends upon the level of the student.
> For example, a blackbelt in our school should be able to give at least one solid application for each move in the form.
> Our 3rd degree blackbelts can give several possibilities for interpretation: striking, grappling, or pressure points, etc...



To me, stickarts cuts to the heart of the matter. The higher one goes/longer one trains, the more we should expect of ourselves in understanding both what is there, and what could be there.



> I think that you can reach an extreme eventually where you start to get removed from practicality when you get too sophisticated.
> However deep one wants to get, the main thing is that I like to see our students be able to demonstrate the form in a convincing way and be able to explain it.


Yes, it has to make sense and be explainable. Don't want ones explanation to go further than their understanding, and so become phony--a quasi-application that wouldn't really work. But the MA should grow over time, as stickarts indicated above, and so new possibilities should also occur to some extent.



> As you advance, try doing one pinion in many different ways. Facing different directions, with eyes closed, striking applications, grappling applications, etc,


Excellent way to gain new understanding: create a 'problem' by doing the form differently, then see what 'solutions' come to you.


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 29, 2007)

LawDog said:


> This hidden stuff, wheather placed in there intentionally or unintentionally is still there. If someone wishes to learn it, this is fine, if they do not wish to learn it, this is fine also. What counts is that they do it right either way.
> 
> I believe that a Master level Instructor should know as much as he/she can. In this way his system will never travel down the wrong path.
> :ultracool



I agree with LawDog--I think. 

I guess I would just add that for myself and my students, I want to shoot for that 'knowing as much as' we can outlook, rather than the, It works so my understanding is good enough. Not saying that the latter is not OK for other instructors or how they wish to run their schools--just for myself, want to be sure we 'never travel down the wrong path' by settling for a 'good enough' mindset. 

Anyway, been a long day, so hope that makes some kinda sense...


----------



## jason scaduto (Mar 29, 2007)

hello, awesome forum!! awesome topic!! i was wondering if anyone felt as though our kenpo/kempo forms lacked congruency.[ i train under professor tom sotis who is now mostly known  as a knife-fighting  instructor but has spent a great deal of his life training in kenpo]. professor sotis presented me with many questions regarding our forms and it always came back to congruency. his point being-- the forms for any given level are suppose to have self -defense applications known as bunkai, but those applications from the kata are not the required self-defense criteria. it is a direct contradiction to teach that kata hold the techniques/secrets of the art and then resort to other techniques when it comes time to apply them.  that being said it really got me thinking as to why the original 26 combinations aren't in our forms ??or maybe why our forms don't better match the way we fight?? we really don't fight the way we practice our kata.  i understand and enjoy the benefits of practicing our kata however i do feel as though this is 1 area that the forms come up a little short. i have been viewing this forum for months  you guys do an awesome job !! i am very impressed with the feedback on all the topics and enjoy it very much.  jason scaduto


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 29, 2007)

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that I was viewed as being argumentative. I really wasn't. If that's how I came across, I apologize to all involved. That really wasn't my intention. I've always been interested in the evolution of the material. I also love to hear about what people find, and their view of the stuff. But, what also interests me is the founders. We hear that this is there and that is there, and technically speaking it is. You can't argue that. That's the beauty of the styles, everything overlaps. What I was getting at was for example, say pinion #1. From what I got Oyama created it with the Kyokusinkai system. I might be mistaken, but I've looked at their forms, and they are almost identical to the SKK pinions. I believe Mr. Cerio brought them into the system from Mr. Oyama's style (?) ( Master shuras?) For the sake of argument, let's say I'm right. We've found all this stuff in the movements, and keep finding stuff. But, would Mas Oyama, if asked just say, He was just turning, blocking a punch, and punching the opponent? Nothing more?

Not trying to argue, I would just love to know from the founders what they were thinking.


----------



## stickarts (Mar 30, 2007)

At times I have wondered too how the forms were originally done and the thinking behind them. I think a lot can be traced back but also a lot will never be known. When you trace back from student to teacher you can see what their backround was and can usually understand why things were changed the way they were based on their influences.

In my experience, I have seen people teaching "secrets" as a great marketing strategy to get students interested in attending classes or seminars.This reminds me of people who claim to be the only ones teaching the "true" art.

I always have lots of questions that I seek the answers to but i don't see that there are any secrets. That's just my way of approaching it.


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 30, 2007)

stickarts said:


> In my experience, I have seen people teaching "secrets" as a great marketing strategy to get students interested in attending classes or seminars.This reminds me of people who claim to be the only ones teaching the "true" art.
> 
> I always have lots of questions that I seek the answers to but i don't see that there are any secrets. That's just my way of approaching it.



Well, I was always the class nerd. :uhyeah: So no one is going to tell me the secret anyway. :uhoh: 

But whether intended as secret or just not yet discovered by me, doesn't matter; as stickarts says, I always have lots of questions. And I don't care if the answers come from my own training, one of my students (look what I found I can do!!), this forum, or my heavy diet of background reading and DVD watching. Learning is learning, and a deepeer understanding or broader range of application is always a good thing. :ultracool


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 30, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I might be mistaken, but I've looked at their forms, and they are almost identical to the SKK pinions. I believe Mr. Cerio brought them into the system from Mr. Oyama's style (?)



Hi Hand Sword. I'd love to see some of Oyama's forms for comparison. Can you recommend a DVD of Oyama's forms, or maybe even youtube links? Thanks.


----------



## Joe Shuras (Mar 30, 2007)

I believe Gm. Al and myself are on the same page, Jesse also. I was always told that as long as the movement in the form has a legitimate or practical meaning (application) that you understand and it's not put in there just for show, it's valid.

Hand Sword (Mike), no, I didn't see him being argumentive or 'stirring the pot' as we say at all. He brought up a good point for discussion that I totally agree with.

Stickarts makes a good point in that some use this 'secret stuff' for commerical means, as a marketing ploy. I totally agree with that also.

We must remember, the Hawaiian derived Kenpo/Kempo arts were all technique based, not form based like traditional Japanese/Okinawan/Chinese arts. Mitose passed on one form that everyone can agree on and that was Naihanchi. Although we have seen  video that Prof. Bishop has contributed, we now know that Prof. Chow practiced forms BUT, obviously, very limited as compared to his emphasis on the basics, hardcore training and of course, his system was also technique based with the the 12 lines or master key movements. Same with Ed Parker, started as technique based and added the forms later. He, however, created his forms to go hand and hand with his techniques.

Prof. Thomas Young (Mitose's first black belt) only had Naihanchi and then went to Edward 'Bobby' Lowe (formerly of  Mitose's Kosho ryu and later went to Oyama's Kyukoshinkai) with permission of Mitose to add the 5 pinan series to Kosho ryu.

Kajukenbo created their forms also with I believe only one based on the Naihanchi.

John Leoning and Sonny Gascon added their own personal perspectives to the mix along with the drilling of strong basics and hardcore training methods.

George Pesare followed this type of training method and took four of these forms from the the Gascon school and created his own additions and also borrowed a few, the most popular being, Taikyoku Shodan (also known as #1 pinan in SKK & NCK), Statue of the Crane and Bassai. After Mr. Pesare created the 5th form, he did began putting his system's techniques into the kata, first example was #6, which was essentially the early KGS combinations interwoven along with some of SGM. Pesare's personal contributions.

Nick Cerio, took what George Pesare taught him and added and/or created more forms to the system that he taught to Fred Villari and Mr. Villari, in turn, added his from what Mr. Cerio taught him. Nick Cerio then went into an overhaul of his original teachings and by 1974 put his name to it, Nick Cerio's Kenpo. *Note:*  Just a correction here, if I may, SKK & NCK's #1 pinan is not a Mas Oyama created form (neither are #3, 4 and 5 which Cerio also adopted-there's your relationship to Kyukoshinkai). These came from Oyama's study of Shotokan (he also studied Goju ryu, Chinese Kenpo - southern kung fu style, not the karate kenpo and Kodekan Judo). Mr. Cerio did created SKK's #2 pinan from a study of the Taikyoku shodan, nidan and sandan with some innovations he learned for his Chow/Chun connection. The Taikyyoku series was not created by Gichen Funakoshi but by his son, Gigo, as 'the student's first look at Shotokan'.

 As Gm. Cunningham stated, it is important to understand the movements of your kata, it's tactical application. You must have thorough understanding of it's intention and practicality from a self defense aspect. Back when I started ('73), we hated froms, they were something to do for rank, we thought the self defense techniques and heavy sparring were the balls, the total means to the end. Later on, I began to truly understand the value of kata. Is it an 'end all' like some traditonalists say, no, I don't believe that but it is a serious part of training, another piece of the puzzle to your training. 

In closing, our primary goal is to teach self defense, not 'fighting' although fighting can be a by product of self defense if one chooses to go down that road. Some may ask, isn't fighting and self defesne the same thing? No, fighting is just that fighting, the goal is to successfully defeat your opponent such as in boxing, kickboxing or mixed martial arts as in UFC. So, those in MMA may not see a need for forms training at all, that's fine but also remember this, a boxer shadow boxes, doesn't he? Self defense is, as the Japanese say in the term Goshinjutsu, 'protection of the self or body'. You use whatever means neccessary to protect your butt and escape with *'minimal' *and hopefully *NO* injury but I'm being a realist here. You have to expect to get hit, hense, the reason for contact in your training. - Joe


----------



## Joe Shuras (Mar 30, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Hi Hand Sword. I'd love to see some of Oyama's forms for comparison. Can you recommend a DVD of Oyama's forms, or maybe even youtube links? Thanks.


 
Sir, if you check out Mas Oyama's very early books, you will see exactly where they came from. Prof. Cerio told me he did not train with Oyama but got the froms from one of Oyama's book. I have one of his books, Mastering Karate, and the forms a very, very close, angles are different in SKK and few other minor stuff but you can definitely see the strong relationship from what I was originally taught in the 70's.

Also, I forgot to add this in my last post in regards to forms based arts of the Japanese/Okinawan/Chinese systems and the technique based arts of the Hawaiian derived Kenpo/Kempo systems. In my study of Northern Wah Lum Tam Tui Praying Mantis system of Master Chan Poi (also spelled Pui Chan) in the late 80's to around 1990, Poi's training was all forms (or sets as the Chinese call them) orientated, not technique. You would do a form and then you would be asked, 'okay, now show me self defense techniques from that form'. You were first expected to find them yourself before anything was divulged to you. - Joe


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 30, 2007)

Joe Shuras said:


> Sir, if you check out Mas Oyama's very early books, you will see exactly where they came from. Prof. Cerio told me he did not train with Oyama but got the froms from one of Oyama's book. I have one of his books, Mastering Karate, and the forms a very, very close, angles are different in SKK and few other minor stuff but you can definitely see the strong relationship from what I was originally taught in the 70's.
> 
> Also, I forgot to add this in my last post in regards to forms based arts of the Japanese/Okinawan/Chinese systems and the technique based arts of the Hawaiian derived Kenpo/Kempo systems. In my study of Northern Wah Lum Tam Tui Praying Mantis system of Master Chan Poi (also spelled Pui Chan) in the late 80's to around 1990, Poi's training was all forms (or sets as the Chinese call them) orientated, not technique. You would do a form and then you would be asked, 'okay, now show me self defense techniques from that form'. You were first expected to find them yourself before anything was divulged to you. - Joe



Thank you, Sir. While I studied SKK at one time, wasn't taught any real background knowledge. so am trying to go back and fill that in since I still practice much of what I learned. Your posts go a long way in aiding my quest. :asian:


----------



## LawDog (Mar 30, 2007)

I totally agree with Professor Shuras post # 27.  Most of the older SKK guard are on the same page.
:ultracool


----------



## Joe Shuras (Mar 30, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Thank you, Sir. While I studied SKK at one time, wasn't taught any real background knowledge. so am trying to go back and fill that in since I still practice much of what I learned. Your posts go a long way in aiding my quest. :asian:


 
You're welcome, sir. I noticed in one of Jesse's post, he stated that the forms had changed several times in SKK. I had switched from Goju in '73 to SKK in '74, although it was called Chinese Kenpo Karate back then and left in '81 and by then it was SKK. (Although there was period in the 80's it was called American Shaolin Kempo, not reflected on the patches or certs but in Gm. Villari's first book and various lineage trees of that era). The forms were very consistant, even from school to school, not just Dedham where Mr. Villari's headquarters was moved to from Waltham early on. There may have been a few very, very minor differences amongst schools but nothing to lose sleep over. 

I remember Gm. Villari having a black belt workout in the late's 70's where he went over all the forms up to the Nenglis set. This included Honsuki and Shou Tung Kwok. He also covered all combinations up to 39. Myself and my friend from Waltham, Rick Modica, paid very close attention, made sure we had everything down so we could fall back on one another for reference later on because our goal was to keep everything the way he showed us. I have done that. In my years of training with others plus my own perspective of the art, I have altered a few things and added to others but I don't feel it's enough to now call it my own system, per se. However, I always retained what we went over at that workout, so I could show a student the original I was taught and then any modification or addition I had made. 

I don't know if SKK consistency has changed in the many years after my depature but my guess would be this. Perhaps, Mr. Villari's organization kept the forms 'essentially' the same but the different break away groups changed things somewhat, hense, the diversity in some of these forms. Can anyone add to that? - Joe


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 30, 2007)

Master Shuras,

Thanks for the clarification. I had heard that Mr. Cerio got the pinians, except for #2, from an Oyama book. I assumed it was Kyokushinkai. Then I saw a link in another thread that went to youtube, where it was listed as kyokushinkai forms. That's why I went with that in my post. Sorry to all, my Bad! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 So, they are really Shotokan forms? The book Mr. Cerio got it from was Mr. Oyama doing Shotokan?


----------



## Joe Shuras (Mar 30, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Master Shuras,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I had heard that Mr. Cerio got the pinians, except for #2, from an Oyama book. I assumed it was Kyokushinkai. Then I saw a link in another thread that went to youtube, where it was listed as kyokushinkai forms. That's why I went with that in my post. Sorry to all, my Bad!
> 
> ...


 
No Mike, it was Oyama doing Kyokushinkai. I think it would be more accurate to say they were Shotokan forms modified by Oyama for the Kyukoshinkai system, although I think Taikyoku shodan was used pretty much out of the box. - Joe


----------



## Joe Shuras (Mar 30, 2007)

LawDog said:


> I totally agree with Professor Shuras post # 27. Most of the older SKK guard are on the same page.
> :ultracool


 
*After all, us 'fossils' have to stick together, lol.*:ultracool


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 30, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Hi Hand Sword. I'd love to see some of Oyama's forms for comparison. Can you recommend a DVD of Oyama's forms, or maybe even youtube links? Thanks.


 
If you find the movies "Karate Bull Fighter" and "Karate Bear Fighter", starring Sonny Chiba as Mas Oyama, the opening credits of both movies show the real Oyama performing kata.  In Bear Fighter he is doing Sanchin.  I don't remember what he was doing in Bull Fighter.


----------



## LawDog (Mar 30, 2007)

We are the fossill fuel of the future.
iratesku


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 30, 2007)

LawDog said:


> We are the fossill fuel of the future.
> iratesku


   :lol:

Seriously, though, I'm learning a lot from some of the SK seniors who have been posting recently. And by senior, I don't mean age but experience and been-there-done-that observations.


----------



## marlon (Mar 31, 2007)

jason scaduto said:


> hello, awesome forum!! awesome topic!! i was wondering if anyone felt as though our kenpo/kempo forms lacked congruency.[ i train under professor tom sotis who is now mostly known as a knife-fighting instructor but has spent a great deal of his life training in kenpo]. professor sotis presented me with many questions regarding our forms and it always came back to congruency. his point being-- the forms for any given level are suppose to have self -defense applications known as bunkai, but those applications from the kata are not the required self-defense criteria. it is a direct contradiction to teach that kata hold the techniques/secrets of the art and then resort to other techniques when it comes time to apply them. that being said it really got me thinking as to why the original 26 combinations aren't in our forms ??or maybe why our forms don't better match the way we fight?? we really don't fight the way we practice our kata. i understand and enjoy the benefits of practicing our kata however i do feel as though this is 1 area that the forms come up a little short. i have been viewing this forum for months you guys do an awesome job !! i am very impressed with the feedback on all the topics and enjoy it very much. jason scaduto


 


I have to say that you are right concerning the pinans and skk fighting there is an inconsistancy but this does not hold true of the kata's.  The kata's and forms that are unique to skk are the way skk fights.  I must note that Prof. Ingargiola states that he was told by GM Villari to do his pinans with a guard rather than fist on ribs position and bring every block and strike back to the guard position (the hands i mean) and this immediately gives a more skk flavor to the pinans.  The pinans are not of skk therefore do not fight like skk.  However, i see a great benefit in stance training and basics in the pinans and use them as such.  From the begining we examine applications from the forms and at the advanced level...green and up the student is called on to find techniques.  Initially they see mainly defenses against punches but we get them up to seeing knife, club, grab defenses and grappling moves.  While it is true that i can come up with many applications for the same moves in forms fairly easily...some of the stuff i imagine is just crap. Some stuff is great hopefully by now i come up with more great stuff than crap...  The best thing though is to try it against an uncooperative attacker or partner.  Taking techniques from forms is a good idea because the forms are built on sound basics and principles  this increases the chance of your techniques making sense and having solid basics and principles...but first you have to undeerstand and know your forms well and have those things they teach worked / practiced into your muscle memory.  These same thouhgt apply to the mini forms we call counter techniques or combinations or animal techniques...
i explore, make mistakes, learn and hopefully grow with the material...the best of it...grows with me, also.

respectfully,
marlon


----------



## MJS (Mar 31, 2007)

Just a note:

I split some posts from this thread.  This thread is for the history of the SKK katas.  You will find the posts on the breakdown of movements here.

Thanks,

Mike


----------



## LawDog (Mar 31, 2007)

MJS,
I think that you splitting the threads in this way is a good idea.
:ultracool


----------



## marlon (Mar 31, 2007)

for the record i teach and practice the pinans the way i learned them from masters self defense centers, not the way Shiahn Ingargiola does.  i like them this way and i use the guard with the katas
marlon


----------



## RevIV (Mar 31, 2007)

marlon said:


> for the record i teach and practice the pinans the way i learned them from masters self defense centers, not the way Shiahn Ingargiola does. i like them this way and i use the guard with the katas
> marlon


 
Masters Self-Defense Centers took the Villari Pinans and then did kindof a mix and match. The two top people at Masters both know the Shotokan versions and had the higher black belts learn them as well.  There were some moves than taken out of the SKK pinans and the older more traditional moves put back in.  So in the Masters Self-Defense Versions you had a little SKK and a little traditional put together.  As stated before, i do like these forms but like others have said they do not mix with what we teach so i have taken them out of my schools curriculum.. If i were to ever teach them again i would do the straight shotokan versions so as not to mix principal based forms with technique based.
Jesse


----------



## LawDog (Mar 31, 2007)

RevIV,
What are the major differences between these different versions?


----------



## RevIV (Mar 31, 2007)

LawDog said:


> RevIV,
> What are the major differences between these different versions?


 
Just to answer you the best.
are you talking the different versions between FVSSD and MSDC --  or all the differences between these two and the shotakan forms?
Jesse


----------



## marlon (Apr 1, 2007)

RevIV said:


> Masters Self-Defense Centers took the Villari Pinans and then did kindof a mix and match. The two top people at Masters both know the Shotokan versions and had the higher black belts learn them as well. There were some moves than taken out of the SKK pinans and the older more traditional moves put back in. So in the Masters Self-Defense Versions you had a little SKK and a little traditional put together. As stated before, i do like these forms but like others have said they do not mix with what we teach so i have taken them out of my schools curriculum.. If i were to ever teach them again i would do the straight shotokan versions so as not to mix principal based forms with technique based.
> Jesse


 

Jesse, do you see techniques as defense based or priniciple based or both?
respectfully,
marlon


----------



## LawDog (Apr 1, 2007)

RevIV,
Just between the FVSSD and the MSDC. I know the Shotokan version. Thanks,


----------



## RevIV (Apr 1, 2007)

marlon said:


> Jesse, do you see techniques as defense based or priniciple based or both?
> respectfully,
> marlon


 
In the versions that we do it is hard to tell.  Because Teachers have put techniques into the Heians and changed them into what we know as pinans.  I still teach Heian Nidan at my intermediate level as well as a simple short kung fu form that i added.  Now both of these forms help my intermediate students develop their stance work.  Between those two forms we have - Cat stance/ back stance/forward stance/ dragon stance(deep twist)/ exagerated crane stance/ and Bow stance(bow and arrow).
Jesse


----------



## RevIV (Apr 1, 2007)

LawDog said:


> RevIV,
> Just between the FVSSD and the MSDC. I know the Shotokan version. Thanks,


 
Ok-

3 pinan - 
FVSSD - after the first hand sets left and right - they do a #2 block thrust punch then the parry spear
MSDC - went back to the midlevel block of shotokan
FVSSD - I had the movements for coming back up the middle with the kick cranes wing block and then a back punch to face and tiger to groin
MSDC - had no tiger went back to the check position.

4 pinan
FVSSD -  after the simo. kick back fist then head grab elbow - Villaris did a high block and ridge low to the groin with a few other flowing moves.
MSDC - went to the original/ after 2nd elbow they do the straight shotokan version. Right knife hand straight out in front of neck/ Left hand near left ear. Right Ball kick / grab / twist stance and recon strike down --
the rest is the same

5 stayed pretty similiar
except after the grab Right Crescent kick and then Right Elbow i believe FV did a #1 block and left thrust punch than right back punch where masters put back the right midlevel (reinforced) block
well off to NH to open up the cottage - yeah - dust and dead mice -  but what a great day for a road trip and relaxing.
Jesse


----------



## LawDog (Apr 2, 2007)

RevIV,
Thanks for the follow up. It seems to be a very tangled web.


----------

