Classical v. Reality?

[Hudson69]

I think that I have seen more than a little and less than a lot of the martial arts world. Now I am on a search for what systems out there started out from a very classical system/art and was later "updated" or changed in order to be a more reality based system of self defense.

I am not trying to jump start any trash talk or raise anyones ire but I know that there are countless systems like this such as:EPAK from Kenpo Jujutsu, Combat Ninjutsu or To Shin Do from the Bujinkan. Even the Army's Combatives come from somewhere and were designed with the current modern warrior in mind.

I would just like to hear "My system was originally ?-Ryu but in the 60's and 70's my Sensei/Sifu/Sobam/Instructor changed it so that we could..."

I am not implying that a classical system does not have "combat" value, far from it but there are systems that might have simply dropped the sword and bow for the club/bo and gun. There is nothing wrong or right in either event I would just like to see what is out there for the history of it if nothing else.

 

[Touch Of Death]

What's the question again?

 

[Telfer]

My question is...when did chambering die?

Was there ever a time when Karate used a chambered stance in full contact sparring?

 

[Xue Sheng]

One of my systems was CMA in general but in the 50s possible 40s the Chinese government decided it took to long to learn if you wanted to train your military and there were to many flashy and unnecessary movements so after much comparison and research Sanda was born

EDIT:
the sports stuff came later and is very different

 

[Flying Crane]

My question is...when did chambering die?

Was there ever a time when Karate used a chambered stance in full contact sparring?

Are you referring to the chambered fist at the hip?

If so, I don't believe it is a matter of when it "lived" and "died", so much as people don't understand the purpose of it. Lacking an understanding of it, people don't recognize what it has to offer and so change how they do things to something that makes more sense to them.

 

[seasoned]

(Originally Posted by Telfer
My question is...when did chambering die?

Was there ever a time when Karate used a chambered stance in full contact sparring?)

I am not sure how this question got into this thread, but it died when people stopped considering the possibilities of self defense applications, and focused on the sparring aspects.

 

[Telfer]

I am not sure how this question got into this thread, but it died when people stopped considering the possibilities of self defense applications, and focused on the sparring aspects.

Was a chambered stance used in traditional Okinawan kumite?

Or was it only employed in Kata?

 

[K-man]

I think that I have seen more than a little and less than a lot of the martial arts world. Now I am on a search for what systems out there started out from a very classical system/art and was later "updated" or changed in order to be a more reality based system of self defense.

I am not implying that a classical system does not have "combat" value, far from it but there are systems that might have simply dropped the sword and bow for the club/bo and gun. There is nothing wrong or right in either event I would just like to see what is out there for the history of it if nothing else.

IMHO you may be looking at the wrong angle. The question is not "when did the MA change from a very classical system/art to a later "updated" or changed MA in order to be a more reality based system of self defense", but rather "when did it change from a reality based system of self defense to a 'classical' system/art?"
The answer IMO is that it changed when karate was introduced into the Japanese schools in the early 1900s and was further changed to accommodate competion from the late '50s on.
Most people have only seen the superficial form of karate. As FC said, "Lacking an understanding of it, people don't recognize what it has to offer and so change how they do things to something that makes more sense to them." I know that this comment referred to chambering but is just as applicable to the entire MA scene. I love the comment of a highly regarded karateka called David Oddy who refers to 'advanced beginners'. This term is applied to those amongst us who have trained the basics for the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years and now have the basics perfect but have never actually seen the advanced forms of the MAs.
The advanced forms were always there but not openly taught.
As for chambering, when you understand what it is you see how important it is in the RBSD scenario. :asian:

 

[Telfer]

This term is applied to those amongst us who have trained the basics for the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years and now have the basics perfect, but have never actually seen the advanced forms of the MAs.

The advanced forms were always there but not openly taught.

If these advanced forms are not openly taught to people with 20+ years of experience...who then are they taught to?

 

[seasoned]

Was a chambered stance used in traditional Okinawan kumite?

Or was it only employed in Kata?

It was employed in kata because the implication was greater, then it just being used as a chamber. During kata, things are not always what they appear to be. If you practice the technique just as your Sensei teaches, with no variation, when you understand the real application, your technique is solid, and muscle memory is locked in. In kumite, I would teach that half way between chamber and full extension, is the sparring chamber, with elbows in, and fists at chin level. The chamber is becoming lost because the emphasis is on sparring, and not the multitude of grappling, locking up, and throwing techniques that are in the kata forms.

 

[Telfer]

The chamber is becoming lost because the emphasis is on sparring, and not the multitude of grappling, locking up, and throwing techniques that are in the kata forms.

Was grappling, locking and throwing a part of traditional Okinawan sparring?

Perhaps these things were dropped from Karate when it came to Japan as a way of differentiating it from the Judo that was already there???

 

[K-man]

If these advanced forms are not openly taught to people with 20+ years of experience...who then are they taught to?

They were taught to local Okinawans who trained for 10+ years ... not Japanese and certainly not Westerners. Things have changed a little in more recent times. :asian:

 

[Telfer]

not Japanese and certainly not Westerners.

How did David Oddy feel about going to Okinawa for three years without ever learning these advanced techniques?

 

[MJS]

IMHO you may be looking at the wrong angle. The question is not "when did the MA change from a very classical system/art to a later "updated" or changed MA in order to be a more reality based system of self defense", but rather "when did it change from a reality based system of self defense to a 'classical' system/art?"
The answer IMO is that it changed when karate was introduced into the Japanese schools in the early 1900s and was further changed to accommodate competion from the late '50s on.
Most people have only seen the superficial form of karate. As FC said, "Lacking an understanding of it, people don't recognize what it has to offer and so change how they do things to something that makes more sense to them." I know that this comment referred to chambering but is just as applicable to the entire MA scene. I love the comment of a highly regarded karateka called David Oddy who refers to 'advanced beginners'. This term is applied to those amongst us who have trained the basics for the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years and now have the basics perfect but have never actually seen the advanced forms of the MAs.
The advanced forms were always there but not openly taught.
As for chambering, when you understand what it is you see how important it is in the RBSD scenario. :asian:

Man, you hit the nail on the head with this post! Right on! I think that understanding the art is the important thing, and in many cases, people dont understand it, so they change it. Now, this shouldn't be mistaken for updating and keep up with the times. If we look at the never ending Bujinkan vs. Steven Hayes debate, you'll hear defenders of his art, ToShinDo, make the claims that he (Steve) updated the art from the original Buj, making it more effective for what people would face today. Kenpo guys like Jeff Speakman changed his version of Kenpo, coming out with the 5.0 stuff, adding in alot more grappling, and techs. to address more street type/boxing type punches, rather than the typical step thru punch. Does this mean that traditional Buj is not effective? Is TSDO the more effective? Dont know as I dont train either one.

MMA is very popular today. That being said, I think that it would be wise to update your art in the grappling sense, making sure that you have some grappling basics. *when I say "you' I dont mean YOU, just a general figure of speech*

 

[K-man]

Was grappling, locking and throwing a part of traditional Okinawan sparring?

Perhaps these things were dropped from Karate when it came to Japan as a way of differentiating it from the Judo that was already there???

As I understand the history, the Okinawans didn't spar as such. Instead of sparring, the Okinawans developed and practised bunkai, or two man application drill. Grappling, locking and throwing is part of the traditional Okinawan system. It is included in the kata in such a way that muscle memory is developed but the application may be obscured. Think of Karate Kid, 'wax on, wax off!' Now think of the carriage position. No one in their right mind is going to hold a hand down low, beside their chest, in a fight. Your hand will be held in a position enabling a quick defence or counter. The carriage position is developing muscle memory for a grab.
A lot of karate application was removed from the teaching when it was taken into the schools in the early 1900s. As you say, Judo was already there having developed from Jujutsu. Similarly Karate-do developed from karate-jutsu. :asian:

 

[K-man]

How did David Oddy feel about going to Okinawa for three years without ever learning these advanced techniques?

As I said, times have changed. I don't know David, I have his e-book which is a very good training aid. He obviously has learnt the advanced forms. I would love to spend some time with him some day.
What I meant by the Westerners not being taught more than basics was more the GIs after the war stationed in Okinawa and Japan. They trained with the locals but were only shown the basics. On returning home they taught what they had been shown believing it to be the 'real deal'. Even though they were very proficient at what they learnt and what they taught, I don't believe they were aware of the advanced aspects of the Okinawan MAs.
Now, from a personal perspective, I feel that my MA training has been a little bit like 'Snakes & Ladders'. Every time I think I am getting somewhere I hit a square with a snake. Recently I encountered the biggest 'snake' of all time and really felt I was back at square one. That was when I discovered that I was just an 'advanced beginner'.
David has an excellent analogy. As we study kata, it is as if we travel in a circle. Eventually we return to our starting point. Then we see a different aspect to the kata and follow that. As before, we eventually return to the same spot on the circle. Now, we need to look at a third dimension. As our knowledge grows and we return to the start point on the circle, we have actually moved up a level, as on a spiral staircase. That understanding has, for me, opened up an infinite field for exploration. Learning the moves of any given kata is to complete the first circle. :asian:

 

[Omar B]

I just love the title of this thread, "Classical v. Reality?" As if there is a difference?

The same moves taught in class can be applied in reality because well, they were developed to work in reality. In class stances may be wider, you may chamber your fist further back, but it's all in place to drill proper form into your head so in an actual conflict when your form goes to crap it's still effective. Wide stances make legs stronger, teach balance, proper movement (so you don't trip yourself up), etc.

 

[xfighter88]

This is a very interesting thread. any good recommended reading? Also there is a lot of talk about Adv beginner stuff and the real advanced stuff. does anyone on here know ther "real" advanced stuff. It seems to just be hinted that there is a whole other level that is known to select few. You don't have to list techniques or anything. I am just curious what the difference is or if it is a matter of performing the basics to perfection.

 

[K-man]

This is a very interesting thread. any good recommended reading? Also there is a lot of talk about Adv beginner stuff and the real advanced stuff. does anyone on here know ther "real" advanced stuff. It seems to just be hinted that there is a whole other level that is known to select few. You don't have to list techniques or anything. I am just curious what the difference is or if it is a matter of performing the basics to perfection.

It is not that there is another level known to the select few. There are many levels but these might not be taught by those who know them for any number of reasons. Performing the basics to perfection is the first level, and that level basically is Shodan. Unfortunately, from my observation, that is the level maintained as most practitioners learn the more advanced kata and progress through the ranks. Hence the term 'advanced beginner'.
What we have learnt here is to have a strong stance, good technique and muscle memory to cope in the adrenal dump scenario. Then we incorporate sport type sparring and, as many threads here have discussed, IMO this detracts from our ability the strike through the target as we learn to pull our punches. To this stage most of what we have learned won't cut it against a seasoned street brawler. In fact, our confidence in our ability to 'look after ourselves' is likely to get us hurt.
If you look at any kata performed in competition, or otherwise, on YouTube or DVD, can you honestly say you would use any of it, as the kata is performed, in any street situation? The answer is NO! Now we know that the martial arts are effective, so what is missing in the bulk of today's training? The answer is simple. We are not taught the martial application and that is the difference between karate-do and karate-jutsu.
I am not aware of any book that will tell you all there is to know. That would be too easy. But, if you look around there are numerous MAs who sell their DVDs or books on the internet. Most of these are SD not MA. I have spent a small fortune on these. From each DVD I analyse the technique to see where similar body movement appear in the kata. That gives me a new insight. Then I cross train whenever possible. It is amazing how often the movement to apply a lock or throw switches on that big lightbulb over the head. I am training aikido and have done for the past three years. This has lifted my understanding of karate to a whole new level. I take every opportunity to talk to MAs who I believe have lifted themselves above the base level and finally I train with like minded friends to test new applications.
I believe that any MA is a journey of discovery. There are many who will assist you to the first level. The rest is up to you to explore and discover for yourself. :asian:

 

[seasoned]

As I said, times have changed. I don't know David, I have his e-book which is a very good training aid. He obviously has learnt the advanced forms. I would love to spend some time with him some day.
What I meant by the Westerners not being taught more than basics was more the GIs after the war stationed in Okinawa and Japan. They trained with the locals but were only shown the basics. On returning home they taught what they had been shown believing it to be the 'real deal'. Even though they were very proficient at what they learnt and what they taught, I don't believe they were aware of the advanced aspects of the Okinawan MAs.
Now, from a personal perspective, I feel that my MA training has been a little bit like 'Snakes & Ladders'. Every time I think I am getting somewhere I hit a square with a snake. Recently I encountered the biggest 'snake' of all time and really felt I was back at square one. That was when I discovered that I was just an 'advanced beginner'.
David has an excellent analogy. As we study kata, it is as if we travel in a circle. Eventually we return to our starting point. Then we see a different aspect to the kata and follow that. As before, we eventually return to the same spot on the circle. Now, we need to look at a third dimension. As our knowledge grows and we return to the start point on the circle, we have actually moved up a level, as on a spiral staircase. That understanding has, for me, opened up an infinite field for exploration. Learning the moves of any given kata is to complete the first circle. :asian:

If I may, this is a very good post, and very insightful. A gentlemen by the name of John Roseberry has said many times, kata is like a book. Open it up, read the pages, set it down when your done. If you pick that same book up again and read it, there will always be something you missed the first time around. I like the circle analogy also, it may be Davids, but you presented it here. Thanks. If I may add, over hundreds of years, weaponry has changed, and a warrior needs to change also, but I feel that we should add to our base, not change it. There is also one constant that should never change and that is the warrior spirit, because without that all else are just tools that anybody can pick up and use against you.:asian: