Chufeng:
Thank you for taking the time to come to RyuShiKan's defense. Why do you think he is so unwilling to clarify something he said. He has criticized this medium for not being nuanced enough, and when I ask him to give me a sentence or two of more nuance, there is just silence.
Your latest post is clearly antagonistic...
I think RyuShiKan has done the same thing throughout this and other threads...I don't think you are giving him a fair assessment. He doesn't OWE anybody here an explanation about anything... he is not your sensei so stop acting like he has to spoon feed you stuff...he stated his own students have to EARN what they learn. Why, then, does he owe you or anyone else MORE than his own students get.
You think I am not giving RyuShiKan a fair assessment? I wonder what some posters who have been at the other end of RyuShiKan's "fair assessments" will think of that statement.
There seems to be an implication in your statement above that I think RyuShiKan has something to offer me in terms of martial arts. Well, I didn't make myself clear. I would like to challenge a bizarre statement he made and was looking for more ammunition. He crafts his posts vague enough so that his darts reach their target , but when challenged he always has an opening. (I didn't mean that, you misunderstood me.) He is a fine wordsmith. Am I surprised he hasn't obliged me? Clearly no.
I began participation in this forum with a request to exchange Naihanchi bunkai. From the start RyuShiKan was a thorn in that discussion. (He has been accused of arrogance on another thread and drawn the moderators into the threads more than once. For such a "friendly discussion" site, it surprises me they have tolerated the complaints, of which I know there have been at least two to date.)
After once asking if he wanted to participate in the exchange, I have never repeated a request for technique. To imply that I am asking him for some "knowledge" he may have is, I believe, a misreading of my post. I have merely asked for a clarification. He knows what I am after, just a bit more information so I can tell him how misguided some of his statements are.
Let's review how this all started.
RyuShiKan stated: As my teacher has explained to many different martial arts people from various styles the kata are just like the alphabet. Just as ABCDEF......doesn't spell anything and has no meaning, kata too has no meaning if you think of the moves as merely ABCDEF or as I have stated above first A technique then B technique and so on.
This statement is beyond wrong. It is patently absurd. Before I point out the obvious to everyone, first let me clarify something that has been misrepresented. No one on this, or other threads have ever said that one MUST use sequential movements from the kata to have applications with meaning. And nowhere in any of the threads has there been an implication that the only approach to kata analysis is by using sequential movements. On the contrary, my immediate response to RyuShiKan's statement above was:
Sensei Mike stated: I am familiar with the alphabet soup approach to kata taught by Master Oyata. It is a fine approach. But it too is limiting. It is not the ONLY approach, it is but one approach.
But the statement from RyuShiKan, above, pretty clearly states that sequential movements HAVE NO MEANING. Here is the catch. They do. Plain and simple. So the RyuShiKan is incorrect. And if Master Oyata has been accurately quoted, he is too.
Now let's think about how truly bizarre this statement is. The great masters have created kata, but the techniques done, in the order that the appear in the kata, have no meaning. Now, we all know that the kata are designed to be done in massive repetition. It builds speed, power, and makes the execution of the movements reflexive, to be done without any thought: just stimulus and response.
But the kata movements, in the order they appear, simply don't work, because they have no meaning, at least according to Oyata. You have to pull out a technique from here and there and cobble together something that will work. So when you are practicing kata, you really aren't practicing useful combinations. You have to go pull that piece and this piece together. Now here is the catch. In order for any application to be truly reflexive, it has to be done thousands of times.
So according to RyuShiKan, and Oyata, it is up to us to pick and choose, craft new combinations and then I guess go and practice those sequences thousands of times. Sounds to me a lot like this means we are to make our own mini-kata out of the kata we have. Remember, we are talking about essentially unconscious reactions to attacks. The argument simply doesn't hold that if I practice this movement from over here and want to go to another piece of some other sequence from before or much later, that this skill comes simply through the practice of kata.
For moves to work you have to practice the whole move thousands of times, some (like Yabu Kentsu) might say 10,000 minimum. And you have to practice it extensively with lots of partners. So if you craft combinations outside of the sequential movements of the kata, they too must be practiced, the same way that kata is practiced.
I am not denigrating in any way this approach by Oyata. For those that want to pursue it, wonderful. Many systems practice combinations without any kata. What I am taking issue with is RyuShiKan's approach to discussing ideas on this forum. When he disagrees, he lets you know you are wrong. And as noted above, he is a master wordsmith so that he can always plead that he was misunderstood, taken out of context. When asked for clarification, then silence.
I am not sure he could have been more creative than in this one barb to me:
RyuShiKan stated: Thinking techniques from the kata are sequential like the moves in the kata is not wrong.........in fact in some cases it is correct........but not in many cases. It depends on the kata and which move in the kata you are doing. Referring back to the Alphabet analogy from the other thread. Doing movements/techniques in sequential order is OK........example. ABCDEFGHIJ. Those are the basic building blocks for words. But why limit yourself to the Dick & Jane books like "See spot run." when you can expand on it to more advanced levels of thought and learning like "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" - Nietzsche.
Very clever. He can say he was just quoting Nietzche. However could I interpret this statement by Nietzsche as directed at me. Very clever indeed.
Let's review one last issue.
RyuShiKan stated: The 3 upper blocks of Pinan Nidan...........the last 2 are connected the first one is not.
For RyuShiKan, if he wants to consider them unconnected, that is fine. So for anyone else as well. This is a basic way of breaking down the kata, and is done in many karate systems with limited bunkai. Keeping sequences separate is the norm. But it is not the only way to break down kata, and RyuShiKan's implication (though he can deny it since he has declined to clarify and pin himself down) is that if he considers sequences separate, then they are, period.
This breaking up kata into separate sequences is a useful approach, but a basic one. A more thorough analysis of the Pinans and many other kata clearly reveals that EVERY movement throughout is connected to its previous and following movement in a seamless whole. I can verify this for kata I have analyzed including Pinans, Naihanchis, Bassai Dai, Kusanku Sho and Dai, Jutte, Seinchin, Seipei. For these kata, there is no place where one cannot link a movement with its predecessor. This steps beyond the basic approach of advocated by RyuShiKan.
RyuShiKan has never commented on my detailed explanations of the movements in Naihanchi. All he has to say is that if you use sequential movements, then that is basic. And if you show useful movements to your students you are spoonfeeding them. What is basic? It is techniques taught to beginners. My applications are basic as I teach them to beginners. They use them learn how to defend themselves with them. And they work. They are not my techniques, they are Itosu's, or some long-dead Chinese master's. They work.
There is has been much discussion by RyuShiKan of spoonfeeding. Let me go on record: if teaching my students how to defend themselves is spoonfeeding, if giving them movements that motivate them to appreciate the endless repetitions of kata we do in class, if all this motivates them to do kata on their own, for life, then guess what, I am spoonfeeding them. And you know what I need? More spoons.
I wonder what his response will be to this post. Much to be commented on, corrected and attacked. Will his comrade join the fray? Likely. Much to be written and criticized. But regarding my initial three requests for clarification from the ever voluble RyuShiKan, for just a brief sentence or two, there was but silence.
