New Journey to an Old Style

[Badhabits]

Smilar confusion exists here I just noticed if you see reader comments

Sanchin. The Three Battles of Kyokushin Karate

Sanchin no Kata made it’s way into Kyokushin Karate through the founder, Sosai Masutatsu (Mas) Oyama. Sosai Oyama had a background in various arts, including 4th Dan in Shotokan, 4th Dan in Judo, Taikiken, Aikijujutsu, as well as a 7th Dan Black Belt in Goju-ryu, under Gogen Yamaguchi. Sanchin...

the-martial-way.com

Indeed on the picture of Sosai himself (and I habe seem that before)

it looks like that shotokan sanchin, not the current kyokushin version.
I know they change things, perhaps they change things from the picture to present?
But there has to be a reason for this. Someone must know why.

Even in the "The shodan" kyokushin book, by shihan Howard Collins the prescription there is both feet angled. But it does not seem consistent with how Oyama himself did it.

(I have also another related question here about the stability of uchi uke, when i play with this myself, my feeling is that the distance from body where to "lock" your arms, should be related to where your lower arm muscles meet your lattisimus dorsi? - that is a natural stopper, or so it seems ot me?

At least it maximum stability is a design princiuple? And then people have different muscles sizes, so guides about elbow one fist from the body, referring to which part of hte body, the side or the front? It's quite ambigous. I have received corrective feedback in class, where I feel that the arm and lattisimus dorsi loose contact and this I loose ALOT of stability. To the point where the only sensible solution would be an morote uchi uke, to compensate. Then I can't helpt wondering, what I am missing. Or is it perhaps the individual adjustements that the instructor is missing?? What do you think? It is ALOT esier to learn something if you get solid explanations.

All these similar small things in about everything is going on in my head, and I am honestly a bit annoyed to only get superficial teachings similar to "watch me, mimic me". I think there must be someone, somewhere that can explain constructing principles for moer techniques. Is there perhaps a good book for this, that focus on such principles rather than historical developments? The books I have mainly DESCRIBE, in words and pictures, but you can you read from a PICTURE of VIDEO, these constructing principles. Especially when practitioners wear baggy gi's that conceals precise body relations and contact points.

But this can be for another thread... )

Your lattisimus play a major role in connecting your upper body to your core. I believe arm techniques in general gain stability and power from engaging the lats properly.

 

[Gyakuto]

Smilar confusion exists here I just noticed if you see reader comments

Sanchin. The Three Battles of Kyokushin Karate

Sanchin no Kata made it’s way into Kyokushin Karate through the founder, Sosai Masutatsu (Mas) Oyama. Sosai Oyama had a background in various arts, including 4th Dan in Shotokan, 4th Dan in Judo, Taikiken, Aikijujutsu, as well as a 7th Dan Black Belt in Goju-ryu, under Gogen Yamaguchi. Sanchin...

the-martial-way.com

Indeed on the picture of Sosai himself (and I habe seem that before)

That looks like Wado Ryu’s yoko Seishan dachi.

 

[Gyakuto]

 

[Fungus]

That looks like Wado Ryu’s yoko Seishan dachi.

Yes! Except it seems like sanchin is narrower, and yoko seishan is wider? And the angles are less than 45 degrees

 

[Gyakuto]

Yes! Except it seems like sanchin is narrower, and yoko seishan is wider? And the angles are less than 45 degrees

Yes, perhaps….the width is to accommodate Wado Ryu exponents larger kahoonas

 

[Badhabits]

Yes, perhaps….the width is to accommodate Wado Ryu exponents larger kahoonas

I'm stealing this one

 

[O'Malley]

I'm piggy backing off another thread with a similar name (excuse the plagiarism, Simon) but from a completely different direction.

As a kid we may have read the adventurous entertaining tales of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn or The Little Prince. But if we picked them up many years later after years of experience, additional education and a with a better understanding of life, we see beyond the simple plot and discover what is not clearly written. Reading them again now, these books offer keen observations of society and human nature. It's almost like reading a new book!

TMA is much like this, I think. Once we have gotten 2nd, 3rd or 4th dan the TMA book is well familiar to us, perhaps even a little boring. It's just the same words and basic plot over and over. But if we read it again with new eyes, as if it's the first time we're turning the pages, a different story emerges offering new insights and excitement. It's like learning a new style.

I think if we start from scratch sort of like a white belt in a new style (but with the internalized experience we've gained over the years of study and practice), we may discover things we didn't notice on the first go-around. "Re-read" the stances, punches, blocks, kicks, stepping, combinations, kata, etc. But just don't do them by rote the same way you always did. Do it with the spirit that they're brand-new moves. Doing this kind of revision every 6-10 years or so will invigorate your "old" style, molding it into something fresh, better, "new." A good book is meant to be re-read.

Have you done something similar? What insights did you gain?

I haven't had any big "re-read" moments but I regularly try to bring new insights into what I know. For example, my understanding of the attack in this clip (diagonal cut to the temple) went like this:

- (1st aikido teacher) It's a diagonal sword cut, or it can be a hook punch;
- (1st eskrima teacher) In eskrima, we use the concept of "angles of attack" because sword, stick and unarmed strikes come from similar angles;
- (exchanges with boxers) Hey that's not how hooks work!
- (personal reflection) Must just be a sword/bottle strike;
- (exchanges with sword guys) Hey that's not how swords work!
- (personal reflection) Must just be a training device to help you feel incoming energy;
- (exchanges with daito ryu guys) Hey that's not how aikido works!
- (personal reflection) Dang useless move;
- (famous aikido teacher) A cut is harder to block than a hook punch because the impact can happen anywhere from the elbow to the hand (as opposed to just knuckles), and it also tends to be more powerful;
- (other famous aikido teacher) O'Malley, you should be able to break bones with a cut! (proceeds to demonstrate on the mitts);
- (kenpo and eskrima teachers) That hammerfist wasn't half bad, where did you learn it?
- (personal reflection) Ok so aikido comes from sumo. In that context, it would make sense to be able to strike without bringing out your elbow (to prevent underhooks/mawashi grabbing), and the angle looks appropriate for temple/back of the head/neck strikes. Also, you can strike and then immediately go into a neck tie. Also:

Some of what I learned was right, some less. Still trying to tell those apart.

I see you guys interpreted the posts differently that I did.

I didn't see a contradiction between such repetition and creativity.

Once you have found the right tweaked technique after playing. Then I would still think training it "thousand times" is the way to get it into muscle memory and body. This is how I train some techqniues where I had to adapt, I found some ways to do it, that re a bitt off standard, but they work for me. Then I try to train that variant on the heavy back. If do the same same technique say 40 times weekly, then after a 6 months I have trained this around 1000 times, then I may start to feel confident and fluent about it.

I used this method for some tweaked version of ushiro geri, and spinning heel kick. I do this every single time at the heavy bag. The purpose is to get fluent and this, increase speed, power and balance when doing it. I am getting better and better. Every now and then I try the "standard method as well" but find that it gets me pain and does not work for me.

It would be pointless for me to train the "standard version" 1000 times when i feel it does not float my boat.

I was not talking about creativity but skill development. Practice is necessary, but for optimal practice (best results in the shortest amount of time) you need to have a clear goal, receive expert feedback on your performance and, if you want the skill to transfer outside of the specific context of the drill, you need to progressively alter/add variables and increase the difficulty. Rote repetition lacks those elements so the learning process is much less effective. Just take a look at all the martial artists that only do drills/kata and never spar and you will see that their skills tend to transfer poorly.

Yes you’re probably right…

Iaido is very traditional and these new methods of teaching have yet to filter through, perhaps.

Ah yes, that’s something I read about in the excellent ‘Koryu Bujutsu’ edited by Diane Skoss (p.26)

Like everything, the middle way is usually best.

I mean, it depends on your goals. I'm not familiar enough with iaido and the way you test skill (beyond observation and one's faithful reproduction of an ideal form). Some people practice martial arts more as a way to train the body and spirit by "forcing" themselves into specific positions or movements, and in that case I can see the value of rote repetition. In the example below, the point is not really to swing the bell:

 

[Fungus]

Just take a look at all the martial artists that only do drills/kata and never spar and you will see that their skills tend to transfer poorly.

100% agreed, then maybe I overinterpreted your post. One can even call this "tweaking" beyond specific drills a pressure testing in that the method ir robust, say if the angle is 2% off, does it still work, or does it work on spherical cows?

 

[Leam_Hall]

I love the concept of returning to our roots, whatever they may be. I would suggest that it can be difficult, though, if who we were back then, and what our goals were, have significantly changed.

When I was a white belt I wanted to be good at whatever the instructor said was the course of instruction. I have moved a lot over they years, and thus changed schools and styles when options were limited. Each time, though, I wanted to excel in whatever the instructor said was important.

Then I read Miller's "Meditations on Violence" and it totally changed my thought processes and martial goals. Now I mostly focus on Wing Chun's foundational form because it teaches the principles of successful self-defense in the "up close and personal range". Since I am focused on self-defense, I need to deal with opponents "arms reach and closer" and the operant conditioning that will let me respond without conscious interpretation of the opponent's actions. Most of my previous training hasn't covered that; I'm terrible at it.

To learn this well isn't practicing a pattern hundreds our thousands of times. That provides some conditioning, but without the play of interaction the learning is not deep. You can learn to do a form perfectly, but perfect forms do not translate directly to self-defense. I would suggest it translates very little, since how your palm faces or how your front toe lines up to your rear heel will be impossible to think about while defending yourself on uneven or everyday ground.

If kata is your goal, then repetition enlightened by experiential wisdom will make you awesome. If self-defense is your goal, 20% kata and 80% practice with lots of environmental variables and different training partners will be a better use of your training time.