Ko Sutemi Seiei Kan

[Gene Williams]

your MO is crystal clear gene........its the second time you have mentioned the link to the MACS page.
it doesnt hurt my feelings in the least.
but the fact remains that you do not exhibit the qualities that make someone the real deal.
you seem to be more interested in showing people how negative and closed your mind is to the possibility that anything other than traditional is worth a crap.
i would wager that a good many people see your ego, even if you dont.
if being good means being a good jerk.....keep it up, sensei

So, what is my MO, as you like to put it? Questioning BS mutual rank societies? Raising legitimate critical questions about homemade karate wannabees? Apparently, anyone who doesn't want to play "let's make up a karate style" is "close minded and a jerk. I'll wager, and I could be wrong (and if I see evidence that I'm wrong I'll be the first to apologize), that in any traditional Okinawan karate dojo you'd look about like a green belt.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

see thread

 

[BlackCatBonz]

So, what is my MO, as you like to put it? Questioning BS mutual rank societies? Raising legitimate critical questions about homemade karate wannabees? Apparently, anyone who doesn't want to play "let's make up a karate style" is "close minded and a jerk. I'll wager, and I could be wrong (and if I see evidence that I'm wrong I'll be the first to apologize), that in any traditional Okinawan karate dojo you'd look about like a green belt.

maybe you should make a new thread, gene.
it seems like you're still under the impression that this forum is used as your personal bashing site.
real mature, sensei.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

All right, guys...take it outside.

 

[Randy Strausbaugh]

Egg, we were also taught to maintain consistent shoulder/head level. The eye notices vertical movement much easier than lateral movement. Changes of height are telegraphing a change in position.

This would seem to be a component of Seiei Kan that is slightly different than that of Shorin Ryu. And, I daresay, one could analyze either principle with equal validity regardless of where it came from.

Yes, the changes in height are one of the more obvious differences between Matsubayashi Shorin-ryu and Seiei-kan. The difference (I believe) lies in the bunkai taught in the respective systems. Shorin-ryu often teaches that the rise in stance which accompanies an upper block in some places indicates not a block, but a joint attack. Essentially, the chambering hand holds the attacker's wrist, and the other arm strikes up under the attacker's elbow. The raise in stance augments the upward striking motion of the arm. In Seiei-kan, it's usually taught as a block with (as stated) no change in stance height.
Of course, I could be wrong. I don't study Shorin-ryu and only studied Seiei-kan briefly in the mid 70s.
Anyway, it's something to mull over .

 

[tshadowchaser]

I am going of subject for a minute.
Every one who develops a new style/system changes it a little using the information they have learned from some previous training. They may combine techniques from various training , they may add techniques that where not in the systems previously studied, the may change karta(forms) a little because they wish to emphasis feet not hands or low stance vs. high, etc.
the Okinawan forms and stances are not exactly what theChinesee did and theJapanesee andKoreann forms are slightly different than the Okinawan. Each was based on something else but different in ways because of the understanding of the form by the person teaching it or because the person wanted to emphasis some thing different.

now no where in the original post of this thread do I see any reference to
sokeship councils or to the discussion of such or their validity. so that being said


Mod Warring
Keep to the subject

Sheldon Bedell
mt mod

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

now no where in the original post of this thread do I see any reference to sokeship councils or to the discussion of such or their validity. so that being said


Mod Warring
Keep to the subject

Sheldon Bedell
mt mod

Thank you.

 

[Navarre]

Yes, tshadowchaser, as I thanked flatlander I also extend my thanks to you. This not because I am from the system in question but simply because I want to talk about martial arts, not argue. I have a wife for that. Sorry you have to be involved.

Randy, I understand what you mean. If the Shorin-ryu technique is a strike under the elbow then the change in level makes sense.

You are right that it is solely a block in Seiei Kan. One of the things I've never liked quite as well about Seiei Kan katas is that the technique seem so separated. They make sense but they are in many places isolated from the subsequent technique instead of incorporated. I still believe in the concept of maintaining shoulder level but would agree that the level change works best for the technique as you described it.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

One of the things I've never liked quite as well about Seiei Kan katas is that the technique seem so separated. They make sense but they are in many places isolated from the subsequent technique instead of incorporated. I still believe in the concept of maintaining shoulder level but would agree that the level change works best for the technique as you described it.

Navarre:
I've noticed a little of this, myself; eg: kata or practice punch vs. kumite punch, specifically. The practice punch is a rotating strike, fist is knuckles down at side and rotates to knuckles up for the strike. In kumite, thee fist is held thumb side up and strike is direct, only extending the arm.

Should there not be a more direct relationship between kata and kumite?

 

[BlackCatBonz]

hmmm...Gene is all cancelled. I thought it was a little quiet around here.



Navarre:
I've noticed a little of this, myself; eg: kata or practice punch vs. kumite punch, specifically. 1.The practice punch is a rotating strike, fist is knuckles down at side and rotates to knuckles up for the strike. In kumite, thee fist is held thumb side up and strike is direct, only extending the arm.

2.Should there not be a more direct relationship between kata and kumite?

1. "corkscrewing" your punch helps with penetration.....some people may want to disagree with me on this point, however it is all in "when" you corkscrew your hand. the moment your hand makes contact is when the motion should take place.
2. that all depends on what you mean....the techniques in kata are applicable to kumite, but IMO their most important value lies in teaching correct "form". there isnt a single movement in a kata that should be overlooked, it represents harmony and efficacy in motion.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

1. "corkscrewing" your punch helps with penetration.....some people may want to disagree with me on this point, however it is all in "when" you corkscrew your hand. the moment your hand makes contact is when the motion should take place.
2. that all depends on what you mean....the techniques in kata are applicable to kumite, but IMO their most important value lies in teaching correct "form". there isnt a single movement in a kata that should be overlooked, it represents harmony and efficacy in motion.

1) I can see that effectiveness. This was the point I was considering when I posted. In competition and sparring, Sensei wants us to through a straight punch. In kata, the corkscrew...

2) I do not minimize or marginalize kata. I'm really serious about it and I practice them thoroughly. I was just noticing the difference between kata and kumite, specifically the punch and I was wondering if that sort of divergence is typical or common.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

i guess the divergence all depends on your teacher......in theory and practice i perform the punch the same way.
performing the punch with the corkscrew though is a specific type of weapon for specific types of jobs and should be used accordingly.
a straight punch is a different type of weapon....different type of job. straight punches are great for subterfuge or off balancing before you throw a good gyaku-zuki to the stomach.
the best thing would be to ask your sensei why the differences ......his explanation might be far different.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

i guess the divergence all depends on your teacher......in theory and practice i perform the punch the same way.
performing the punch with the corkscrew though is a specific type of weapon for specific types of jobs and should be used accordingly.
a straight punch is a different type of weapon....different type of job. straight punches are great for subterfuge or off balancing before you throw a good gyaku-zuki to the stomach.
the best thing would be to ask your sensei why the differences ......his explanation might be far different.

I will do that. I will extrapolate his reason will be along the lines of competition effectivess and, as you said, subterfuge. The economy of movement between the two is easily seen.

 

[Navarre]

The reverse punch as you described in the kata is a different technique than the one used in sparring. I think the separation on usage has a lot to do with Seiei Kan's focus on tournament kumite.

A point is given for contact with the puch regardless of rotated or not. Therefore, economy of motion becomes key.

However, in a real situation one must be cognizant of the desired target and effect of the punch.

For example, a solar plexus strike would benefit more from a rotating punch. This would bring the knuckle deeper into the solar plexus, leaving less chance to catch on the xyphoid process (the small bone projection at the bottom of the sternum). Also, because the rotating punch is designed to be thrown at solar plexus level (on the mid-punch) it will naturally strike at a slight downward angle, thus creating the desired effect on a solar plexus strike.

Conversely, we have the "blitz-punch". This is just my term for it because I throw this punch a lot when I blitz the opponent. It is short, effective, and harder to detect or divert. That alone creates certain advantages for it.

A rotating punch, because of the rotation, is easier to bypass than a rotating punch. This is because the elbow ends up on the outside of the arm, which is easier to divert than the bottom elbow of the blitz punch.

The blitz punch is quick to the target which makes it good for the surprise strike as well as a lead-in strike. Since I use it to blitz, I strike with it but am prepared to fire off the next technique. The rotating punch works well when the opponent is coming to you instead because of the extra penetration.

The blitz punch works well on vertical targets such as the brachial nerve centers underneath the arm. For this reason I also sometimes sweep an arm not only away from me (enough to miss me anyway) but also at an upward angle. This opens up the nerve center for the quick strike as well as removing most potential counter-movements of that opponent's arm except an elbow strike.

Both are useful strikes, just different. In kata I consisitently see the rotating punch. I believe this is most likely because it is the more traditional strike and so was incorporated into the kata. In kumite, I say it's whatever gets the job done.

 

[The Kai]

If I may...,
Your corkscrew punch and your "kumite" punch are in reality the same punch. They happen to have different points of origin. With your hand at your hip the path/motion would be as the punch "rockets" forward your arm starts its rotation. Freeze frame half into the punch you have a half exrended and half rotated punch. Line your body up in a kumite dachi and Bam there is your sparring posture , Right?

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

If I may...,
Your corkscrew punch and your "kumite" punch are in reality the same punch. They happen to have different points of origin. With your hand at your hip the path/motion would be as the punch "rockets" forward your arm starts its rotation. Freeze frame half into the punch you have a half exrended and half rotated punch. Line your body up in a kumite dachi and Bam there is your sparring posture , Right?

Close. The insistence in kumite is fists loose and up, defending the face, elbows drawn in almost tight with the abdomen. Fist to elbow line perpendicular to the floor.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

If I may...,
Your corkscrew punch and your "kumite" punch are in reality the same punch. They happen to have different points of origin. With your hand at your hip the path/motion would be as the punch "rockets" forward your arm starts its rotation. Freeze frame half into the punch you have a half exrended and half rotated punch. Line your body up in a kumite dachi and Bam there is your sparring posture , Right?

while this is entirely true, the point at which the hand is to be twisted is debated a lot.
im a believer in the twist at point of contact, other people teach that the twist is done as the punch moves from its chambered position on its way to the intended target because it increases the distance the punch is travelling to gain more energy and momentum.
i personally think the twisting contact causes more damage even though it elongates contact somewhat.

these are my opinions though

 

[Navarre]

Although at some stage in the rotating punch you would have the half punch, it is still utilized as two different strikes. I'm almost in agreement with BCBonz about the rotation.

Rotating the punch entirely prior to striking is wasting the point of the rotation. If the punch is no longer rotating then the rotation itself served very little purpose.

However, I don't think the punch should rotate after it hits either. Once again, the rotation becomes a separate movement.

In the same way a rising block completes its rotation as it makes impact, a punch should do the same. The full impact and rotation of the punch should occur simultaneously, not separately.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Although at some stage in the rotating punch you would have the half punch, it is still utilized as two different strikes. I'm almost in agreement with BCBonz about the rotation.

Rotating the punch entirely prior to striking is wasting the point of the rotation. If the punch is no longer rotating then the rotation itself served very little purpose.

However, I don't think the punch should rotate after it hits either. Once again, the rotation becomes a separate movement.

In the same way a rising block completes its rotation as it makes impact, a punch should do the same. The full impact and rotation of the punch should occur simultaneously, not separately.

thats precisely what i was trying to say.

 

[Navarre]

thats precisely what i was trying to say.

Then I'm with ya!