Shotokan for self defence.

[Flying Crane]

I don't think I've ever said I see no value in kata. If you insist it has value, I believe you. I just don't think anyone has ever done a very good job explaining the path from kata to application.

I don't know why you're getting defensive with me. If it doesn't matter to you whether I get it or not, why are you busting my chops about it? If you can't explain it, just say so. But I don't believe that, just because you can't articulate it, no one can. Or, conversely, if it can't be explained, that speaks volumes, in itself.

Edit to add, I'm very open to any kind of training. While I've never done, I don't think I've ever said I never would. I don't want anyone to think I'm anti anything. The reverse is much more accurate. Given unlimited time and money, I'd probably give everything a try.

Well I appreciate if you are open to it, and I definitely understand that time and resources are limited so I do not expect you to just go out and join another school in order to get educated in kata. It's a lengthy process when done correctly, not something you will understand in a weekend or week or month or year. It takes embracing the complete process.

However, you suggested it borders on mysticism because I suggested you might need direct experience to really understand it. You don't understand why I might find that irritating? Overall your participation in these discussions tends to be more respectful and reasonable than some of the others and I appreciate that. That's why I am willing to continue to discuss with you. You might notice a different kind of response that I make towards certain others.

But in the end, you may never really understand it without some direct xperience of a certain quality.

 

[ShotoNoob]

Well I appreciate if you are open to it, and I definitely understand that time and resources are limited so I do not expect you to just go out and join another school in order to get educated in kata. It's a lengthy process when done correctly, not something you will understand in a weekend or week or month or year. It takes embracing the complete process.

However, you suggested it borders on mysticism because I suggested you might need direct experience to really understand it. You don't understand why I might find that irritating? Overall your participation in these discussions tends to be more respectful and reasonable than some of the others and I appreciate that. That's why I am willing to continue to discuss with you. You might notice a different kind of response that I make towards certain others.

But in the end, you may never really understand it without some direct xperience of a certain quality.

|
I feel that this is exactly the case.
|
I believe this is precisely why the Taikyoku kata were created, to simplify and isolate out basic kata training so one could gain an understanding of what kata is for and does, without out lengthy moves & complexity, involvedbunkai masking or distracting from the fundamentals of traditional karate training....

 

[Steve]

Well I appreciate if you are open to it, and I definitely understand that time and resources are limited so I do not expect you to just go out and join another school in order to get educated in kata. It's a lengthy process when done correctly, not something you will understand in a weekend or week or month or year. It takes embracing the complete process.

However, you suggested it borders on mysticism because I suggested you might need direct experience to really understand it. You don't understand why I might find that irritating? Overall your participation in these discussions tends to be more respectful and reasonable than some of the others and I appreciate that. That's why I am willing to continue to discuss with you. You might notice a different kind of response that I make towards certain others.

But in the end, you may never really understand it without some direct xperience of a certain quality.

Thanks for the chance to explain myself better. I don't think it's mysticism BECAUSE I believe that it should be explainable. It's only when you say that it cannot be explained that we start hedging toward this area where I don't believe we should be.

When we talk about how people learn, we are talking about a process that is deliberate. We accumulate knowledge and experience in a very predictable manner, and while there are a ton of great ways to deliver information and teach skills, the transfer of information shouldn't be a mystery. If the process is deliberate, it should be predictable and well defined.

In this case, we have kata, which is a step in a process for teaching people skills. It's not (or shouldn' be) a mystery. When you suggest that it isn't describable and that it must be experienced, you're getting very close to suggesting that it's a matter of faith. That's what I meant when I said that we're getting close to suggesting that it's mystical. Ineffable is the term for something that is too big or too abstract to describe with words.

In contrast to kata, a term I've heard used is "mushin." THAT I can believe is something that must be experienced to understand. It's a term that describes a mental state. That I can believe is something that must be experienced to be understood. I get it. Makes sense. The learning/teaching structure of kata/bunkai, including a predictable and logical path to proficiency, isn't like that. It should be concrete and articulatable (if that's a word.)

All of that said, we may not be able to get to a point where the above is described in a way that it's clear. But that is not the same as saying, "You can't understand it until you do it." That last, I don't buy it. Because, as I said before, if you must experience it to understand it, we're entering into a squishy area where the skills development is a product of mysticism and not part of a concrete and definable learnin structure.

I hope all that makes sense. I'm killing time here while waiting for my car to get worked on at the dealership, so this isn't a work of art.

 

[Flying Crane]

Thanks for the chance to explain myself better. I don't think it's mysticism BECAUSE I believe that it should be explainable. It's only when you say that it cannot be explained that we start hedging toward this area where I don't believe we should be.

When we talk about how people learn, we are talking about a process that is deliberate. We accumulate knowledge and experience in a very predictable manner, and while there are a ton of great ways to deliver information and teach skills, the transfer of information shouldn't be a mystery. If the process is deliberate, it should be predictable and well defined.

In this case, we have kata, which is a step in a process for teaching people skills. It's not (or shouldn' be) a mystery. When you suggest that it isn't describable and that it must be experienced, you're getting very close to suggesting that it's a matter of faith. That's what I meant when I said that we're getting close to suggesting that it's mystical. Ineffable is the term for something that is too big or too abstract to describe with words.

In contrast to kata, a term I've heard used is "mushin." THAT I can believe is something that must be experienced to understand. It's a term that describes a mental state. That I can believe is something that must be experienced to be understood. I get it. Makes sense. The learning/teaching structure of kata/bunkai, including a predictable and logical path to proficiency, isn't like that. It should be concrete and articulatable (if that's a word.)

All of that said, we may not be able to get to a point where the above is described in a way that it's clear. But that is not the same as saying, "You can't understand it until you do it." That last, I don't buy it. Because, as I said before, if you must experience it to understand it, we're entering into a squishy area where the skills development is a product of mysticism and not part of a concrete and definable learnin structure.

I hope all that makes sense. I'm killing time here while waiting for my car to get worked on at the dealership, so this isn't a work of art.

How do you describe the taste of peanut butter to someone who has never had it, and has never tasted peanuts? You can talk about it all you want, but until it is tasted, the other guy will not know it.

Kata is describable. Several people here have been patient enough to do it over and over, explaining the process and the theory and the benefits. But others here dismiss it because it doesn't fit their pre-conceived notion of what a fighting art should look like and should work like. There is a generation of people here who have been raised on a healthy diet of MMA, and believe that is the definition of what a fighting art should look like and how it ought to be trained. But that is only one method, and these people can't accept that another method has merit because it's different from their own experiences.

At some point these people need to be able to either accept that something they do not understand might have merit and other people just might know what they are talking about, or simply agree to disagree and then stop hijacking threads over and over. People like Hanzou don't get it and don't seem to want to get it? That's fine, he's made his point and now it's time for him to shut the love up. Honestly I thought he'd been banned, I hadn't seen him around for quite a while, and martial talk is a better place without him.

You seem more willing to discuss without being such an *** about it, so I think some discussion can happen.

But the bottom line is, this is an approach to training that you have not experienced. It's been described and explained over and over. If you don't get it, that's fine but you may never get it without some quality experience with it. And no, that's not mystical even if you think it doesn't fit within your understanding of how people learn.

 

[Hanzou]

. But others here dismiss it because it doesn't fit their pre-conceived notion of what a fighting art should look like and should work like. There is a generation of people here who have been raised on a healthy diet of MMA, and believe that is the definition of what a fighting art should look like and how it ought to be trained. But that is only one method, and these people can't accept that another method has merit because it's different from their own experiences.

It's pretty hard to accept that kata is what fighting is supposed to look like, when even the hardcore practitioners of kata aren't fighting that way.

I await the time when someone will show an example of a karateka fighting a non-compliant opponent with techniques that resemble the kata. Until then, I have to accept that MMA, and other firms of combat sports is what skilled MA fighting looks like.

And we have to accept that skilled karate fighting looks like Tom Hill's Karate.

 

[Flying Crane]

It's pretty hard to accept that kata is what fighting is supposed to look like, when even the hardcore practitioners of kata aren't fighting that way.

I await the time when someone will show an example of a karateka fighting a non-compliant opponent with techniques that resemble the kata. Until then, I have to accept that MMA, and other firms of combat sports is what skilled MA fighting looks like.

And we have to accept that skilled karate fighting looks like Tom Hill's Karate.

Keep waiting. Hold your breath.

 

[drop bear]

Thanks for the chance to explain myself better. I don't think it's mysticism BECAUSE I believe that it should be explainable. It's only when you say that it cannot be explained that we start hedging toward this area where I don't believe we should be.

When we talk about how people learn, we are talking about a process that is deliberate. We accumulate knowledge and experience in a very predictable manner, and while there are a ton of great ways to deliver information and teach skills, the transfer of information shouldn't be a mystery. If the process is deliberate, it should be predictable and well defined.

In this case, we have kata, which is a step in a process for teaching people skills. It's not (or shouldn' be) a mystery. When you suggest that it isn't describable and that it must be experienced, you're getting very close to suggesting that it's a matter of faith. That's what I meant when I said that we're getting close to suggesting that it's mystical. Ineffable is the term for something that is too big or too abstract to describe with words.

In contrast to kata, a term I've heard used is "mushin." THAT I can believe is something that must be experienced to understand. It's a term that describes a mental state. That I can believe is something that must be experienced to be understood. I get it. Makes sense. The learning/teaching structure of kata/bunkai, including a predictable and logical path to proficiency, isn't like that. It should be concrete and articulatable (if that's a word.)

All of that said, we may not be able to get to a point where the above is described in a way that it's clear. But that is not the same as saying, "You can't understand it until you do it." That last, I don't buy it. Because, as I said before, if you must experience it to understand it, we're entering into a squishy area where the skills development is a product of mysticism and not part of a concrete and definable learnin structure.

I hope all that makes sense. I'm killing time here while waiting for my car to get worked on at the dealership, so this isn't a work of art.

Which is why I liked the explanation I got. Because it holds up to that idea.

Kata as sort of yoga if you can move through the deep stances and over emphasised technique. You will be more fluid,stronger and more balanced when fighting.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Until then, I have to accept that MMA, and other firms of combat sports is what skilled MA fighting looks like.

You should try looking at it in slow motion and see how sloppy some of the technique is. I often see strikes with the wrong part of the fist, wild swings, strikes to least vulnerable areas, guards down and other problems.

 

[K-man]

My question is, if your bunkai involves completely different body movements from those you are actually making in the kata, then how does it matter what you are doing in the kata? You could just as easily perform a Choi Li Fut form but imagine in your head that you are actually performing Judo techniques.

I know this wasn't in response to my post but can I say the movement should be substantially the same as the kata but there can be variation depending on the interpretation. Of course what has been largely ignored in these discussions is that all the kata shown had been the kihon kata. I did try to point out some time back is that there are advanced forms of the kata as well. Kata can be 'unpacked' and performed in a straight line which is far more like real fighting and if you watch some of Masaji Taira's videos you will see that being demonstrated.

As to your comment that in your head you could be performing Judo techniques, you are actually spot on. Some forms of kata are either two man kata where the intent is obvious and others were developed in relatively recent times where the originator of the kata actually passed on the meaning of the kata. The older kata, those with Chinese origins, come without the explanation. There are many ways of interpreting the techniques and as long as you follow the simple rules of kata it can mean whatever works for you. If it is a sequence of Judo techniques then to me that is absolutely acceptable. However, those Judo techniques should fundamentally be the same physical movement as shown in the kata.

One mistake Hanzou makes, IMHO, is thinking that fighting will or should necessarily look like (a certain kind of) sparring. I understand there are reasons and circumstances why that may not be the case. What I'm trying to figure out is the discrepancy between the fundamental body mechanics and movement principles used in the kata of some systems vs those used in the sparring of those same systems.

And that is one of many mistakes Hanzou is thinking. Worse than thinking, he is actually rejecting even the training that has been posted to show he doesn't understand bunkai, all this from someone who in one of his first posts asked what the difference is between kata and bunkai.

I can only answer from my own experience. When I was training Goju Kai I trained on many occasions with one of the men who developed the Goju Kai bunkai back in around 1985. To be honest, it was very basic bunkai and didn't fulfil the basic requirements of kata bunkai, but it did look like the kata. What we did had absolutely no resemblance to the way we sparred or fought in tournaments. It was pretty much the same as the Tom Hill video. That doesn't show anything more than a video of the sort of sparring that developed through competition. Obviously it is totally different to bunkai which is close quarter fighting at grappling range, exactly what point sparring is not?

When I was introduced to Okinawan karate and it's accompanying bunkai, I changed my training. That is why I get annoyed when someone with no knowledge of bunkai continues to post comments that are so far from the truth. The fact is that he and many others have not seen the bunkai that we now train does not mean it doesn't exist. It just means that it is not widely trained. It is interesting that my original organisation is moving toward the same training now.

So again, I can't speak for other styles but George Dillman was training proper bunkai at least 25 years back. I'm not sure when Iain Abernethy started but that would be at least 12 to 15 years back. I know Taira Sensei had been exploring the bunkai for decades.

It doesn't really answer anything for me to say "well, kata is different from sparring." Presumably both forms of training are intended to help the practitioner become more able to apply the skills of his/her art in a real situation. How does it help the practitioner to reach that goal if the body mechanics are so different?

(Note - I'm not claiming that all kata practitioners spar using totally different body mechanics from those they use during kata. I am saying that it is extremely common to do so.)

If you dropped in to my training you won't see any sparring like Hanzou is claiming to be 'Goju sparring'. If I was preparing guys to compete in tournaments I would have to use that type of sparring. Our sparring consists of one person attacking another where the person being attacked will respond instinctively to defend. That involves entering and engaging, hopefully in the way that the bunkai is trained, but that is not always possible or even desirable. What the bunkai does give you is the next technique when your first technique fails. From the outside you may not see that it is from bunkai because a fight doesn't happen that way and bunkai is not designed to fight beyond one or two techniques. I have explained all this before in great detail if anyone is interested and it annoys me greatly when people who have never seen my training say we don't pressure test. (I haven't seen them in person either but if what they say appears true, I am happy to accept what they say.)

Very cool. I like the teacher's movement. I can see the CMA influence in the art.

That is representing the origins of the style, hard and soft. Taira looks as if what is doing is hard but when you feel his hands his technique is amazingly soft. I mentioned in an earlier post a time spent with Dr Tetsuhiro Hokama where he spent a lot of time showing what Goju isn't, and that is exactly what so many think it is.

Getting back to my original question - can you post some video of a) the kata those applications were taken from and b) some sparring as performed by practitioners of that system? I'll take your word that what Hanzou posted is not representative of how you spar.

Strangly enough, Taira actually is demonstrating the kata before showing the bunkai. Of course Hanzou again misrepresented what was being shown. It was not a seminar. It was part of the training in Okinawa with most of the world's top Goju guys (Kenkyukai) in attendance. As I have said time after time we don't spar but you will see at one part of the video one of my mates was kicked to the chin.

As I said before, taking out some specific techniques from your sparring shouldn't change the fundamental body mechanics and movement patterns. If it does, then maybe you should consider allowing those techniques in your sparring.

Again, not a comment that was addressed to me. I am not aware of any techniques that were illegal in our sparring although many of them would be illegal in competition. But what it points out yet again, you can't practise these techniques at full power in training unless you are wearing full protective gear, then again, that isn't realistic either.

 

[K-man]

Okay, so what is the essence of a karate style? What is the essence underlying, behind all these styles of traditional karate (which as I wrote) that all advocated & contain kata training? Please defined karate's essence. Flesh it out please....

Wow! There are books written on that and you expect a short answer?

OK, I'll try. For a start you will have a accept that my answer comes from a different position to yours. With the exception of Wado Ryu, I don't see any Japanese styles as 'traditional'. Despite the fact that they contain kata they all have a major focus on competition, something that never existed in traditional karate. In traditional karate the focus was on kata and, in the styles that I consider traditional, it still is. Now we get to another fundamental difference between what I consider traditional karate and the more modern styles. Traditional karate is close quarter fighting and the kata is designed around that. If that is not the case kata cannot work as intended because fighting is not choreographed. Bunkai works on a predetermined response, ie block with the only arm available or get hit. Unless you have seen bunkai trained this way you probably won't understand what I am saying but both Iain Abernethy and Masaji Tiara use this all the time.

Now I am not going to discuss styles that I am not familiar with so these comments are purely for Goju Ryu. Goju means 'hard' and 'soft'. Until I started training Aikido I did not understand 'soft'. A lot of the guys on MT practising traditional CMAs will know exactly what I am describing. So, to me, one of the parts that fall under 'essence of Goju' is the differentiation between 'hard' and 'soft'. Each traditional style had its own kata. In Goju we have two kata that are especially important to our style. These are Sanchin and Tensho kata. Within these kata you can find almost everything that is Goju. At a higher level Goju has Kyusho and at the highest level Kiko. To a major extent these are non existent in modern karate styles.

Here's my correction to your position. Martial conditioning is actually what the karate training is for. So what understanding do we need in order to do that conditioning properly, to reap the benefits of kata, kihon training, kumited, etc.?

We'll just have to agree to disagree. In Okinawan dojos there are stacks of training aids for conditioning.

You are just restating the video in words. What's the why behind the how? In your opinion...

I don't know what video you are talking about. All I said was that what were posted were kihon kata. How would any of us know what those people know about kata beyond what is in the videos?

Yeah, but a lot of that is semantics. In person demo which has been suggested clear this up as much as possible. No substitute for such.....

Nothing about semantics. From your posts you seem to think kihon is what karate is all about. That is why Hanzou is so critical of karate. His arguement is that kihon is not the way you fight and if kihon was the be all and end all I would agree with him. Again, we will just have to disagree because what we train is way beyond kihon. (Of course we still practise kihon.)

Bunkai appears in the Heian kata after one progress from the beginner level Taikyoku kata. So, from my perspective, I start looking @ bunkai when I start the Heian kata. However, I was introduced to fighting combinations of kihon technique right away at my first karate school. That's the same general concept as bunkai, IMO, TMU. I was also introduced to Ippon Kumite, 1-steps, right away. That's similar / concept as bunkai, IMO. So I don't see any controversy in looking at bunkai, fighting combinations, etc.

Without seeing your training I have no idea what you are training but it sounds more like oyo bunkai to me.

My guess is that some, perhaps yourself, are very focused on technical applications. Fine. Technical applications are a part of traditional karate training. So is kihon, kihon kata, kata in general, which does not necessarily focus on technical applications. WHY?

We train technical applications but not within bunkai. If you want to use chokes and locks you have to learn how to perform them properly. That has nothing to do with bunkai. Bunkai is mostly gross motor skill. Unless you have trained to a very high level, fine techniques are likely to fail. Punches, knees, forearms etc are much more likely to be effective and that is what bunkai is about.

A. My view is: What was the relevance of the Master's who originated traditional karate see in the training? What truths, what principles did they discover? Not start with my opinion, then decide how to make the karate master's program fit my initial opinion.
|
B. My answer: how & why is breathing trained in traditional karate? Then that's how and why you train kata, to develop the benefits of proper breathing.
|
C. My answer: How & why do we condition the legs in traditional karate. Then that's how & why you train kata, to develop the benefits of that training...
|
D. My answer, How & why do we practice for movement & balance in traditional karate, then that's how we train in kata, to develop movement & balance.
E. Same thinking for kihon, self defense applications-bunkai, kumite skills. You seem to want to change, substitute, modify your understanding of traditional karate activities as it was presented to you for the better--by your own research & thinking.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the most important step (and most difficult) is to master the understanding of what the traditional karate model is trying to do. I think the traditional karate model is very good as presented. It's in people short-cutting the understanding part and trying to monkey with it to make it better, to jump to practical fighting before the requisite skills are built, that is the greater folly. That is the very sound point made in the Loren Frank, Black-Belt Mag article, IMO, TMU.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's cool, that is your understanding. My understanding, based on my training, is quite different. Your karate works for you, my karate works for me.

TYING TO SHOTOKAN FOR SELF DEFENSE: I think if one practically master's the Shotokan base, they will have a self-defense capability above the average non-traditional martial art practitioner. The fact that I can find faults, find aspects of Shotokan karate that I could change, is secondary in importance, IMO.

I don't disagree at all. In fact that was my reason for the OP.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

If you dropped in to my training you won't see any sparring like Hanzou is claiming to be 'Goju sparring'. If I was preparing guys to compete in tournaments I would have to use that type of sparring. Our sparring consists of one person attacking another where the person being attacked will respond instinctively to defend.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your sparring is similar in concept to "one-step sparring" or the way most aikidoka approach randori in that there is a clearly defined attacker who comes in with a fully committed attack which the defender must counter. Can you give more details on how exactly you structure this kind of sparring? (If you can find footage of someone from your system doing this type of sparring, that would be great too.)

Of course what has been largely ignored in these discussions is that all the kata shown had been the kihon kata. I did try to point out some time back is that there are advanced forms of the kata as well.

I've seen you make this point repeatedly, but it gets a little confusing because even the experienced karate practitioners in these threads are using the terminology differently. Could you post a clip of what you would consider kihon kata and another clip of what you would consider advanced kata so I could get a better sense of the difference?

 

[K-man]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your sparring is similar in concept to "one-step sparring" or the way most aikidoka approach randori in that there is a clearly defined attacker who comes in with a fully committed attack which the defender must counter. Can you give more details on how exactly you structure this kind of sparring? (If you can find footage of someone from your system doing this type of sparring, that would be great too.)



I've seen you make this point repeatedly, but it gets a little confusing because even the experienced karate practitioners in these threads are using the terminology differently. Could you post a clip of what you would consider kihon kata and another clip of what you would consider advanced kata so I could get a better sense of the difference?

Kihon kata is pretty much every video of kata you find on YouTube. Advanced kata is a variation of that with change of emphasis which shows as faster and maybe changes of direction. I have just spent a lot of time trying to find examples of advanced kata. There used to be some snippets of it on Paul Enfield's instructional videos but they seem to have been taken down. I have posted some of them in the past. There is a wealth of material of our type of training if you search 'Taira Bunkai'. I purchased DVDs of advanced bunkai in my early stages and it is available online for members of Taira's Kenkyukai members.

As to the relationship to one step sparring. Not really. That sort of sparring is more of a Japanese type of training that we used to do. The type of training I am describing is like the video I posted earlier. Nothing at all like randori in Aikido.

If I can find a clip of advanced kata I will post it for you.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

As to the relationship to one step sparring. Not really. That sort of sparring is more of a Japanese type of training that we used to do. The type of training I am describing is like the video I posted earlier. Nothing at all like randori in Aikido.

Well, aikido randori and karate one-step sparring are very different from each other. The commonality I was getting at is that one participant is charged with being the attacker and delivering a committed attack which the other participant counters using the appropriate techniques from that system. Is this a feature of your system? I'm still not clear.

If we can leave aside the specific details of body mechanics and techniques for a moment: in any form of sparring the participants have immediate* goals they are trying to achieve and rules which constrain how they may attempt to reach those goals. For example, in boxing sparring the immediate goal is for each participant to punch the other person as much as possible while being hit as little as possible. Rules include: participants must wear boxing gloves, punch above the waist, no kicking, no throwing, yadda, yadda, etc.. What are the goals and rules in your form of sparring? If you have a student who has never sparred before, what instructions do you give them before their first sparring session so they know what they are supposed to be doing?


*(I say immediate goal, because the ultimate goal is always to learn and improve. We just reach that goal through the experience of trying to accomplish the immediate goals vs resistance.)

 

[K-man]

Well, aikido randori and karate one-step sparring are very different from each other. The commonality I was getting at is that one participant is charged with being the attacker and delivering a committed attack which the other participant counters using the appropriate techniques from that system. Is this a feature of your system? I'm still not clear.

Aikido randori is continuous but in most I have seen, both in person and on video, is telegraphed. I'm not using that as a criticism but in telegraphing the attack you can easily use an appropriate defence. The one step sparring we did was more set up and a predetermined attack with a predetermined response. I don't use the one step approach at all although you could argue that the way we train against a known attack is similar. Bearing in mind that we have been talking about bunkai here and this sort of training really is totally different to training bunkai.

In our training, to use bunkai would be to enter and engage with a preemptive attack as you might find within a kata or from a form of sticky hands that we use for training many of our techniques (It can be used as a follow up to a de-escalation scenario), or from an unscripted random attack where you will just engage instinctively and use the techniques from the bunkai as appropriate. You can't just say, "Here comes a fight, I think I'll use Saifa bunkai this time". You use what you are given and continue accordingly.

If we can leave aside the specific details of body mechanics and techniques for a moment: in any form of sparring the participants have immediate* goals they are trying to achieve and rules which constrain how they may attempt to reach those goals. For example, in boxing sparring the immediate goal is for each participant to punch the other person as much as possible while being hit as little as possible. Rules include: participants must wear boxing gloves, punch above the waist, no kicking, no throwing, yadda, yadda, etc.. What are the goals and rules in your form of sparring? If you have a student who has never sparred before, what instructions do you give them before their first sparring session so they know what they are supposed to be doing?

Good question. Our 'sparring', for want of a better word begins very slowly and builds up. Depending on the skill of the guys the intensity will be be determined by the experience. Rules? None really apart from common sense. No hard strikes to the head, even with head gear, take care of your partner when applying locks and holds, don't injure your partner. We very rarely use protective gear except in gradings. But again, this is nothing to do with training bunkai or the value of bunkai. Unscripted sparring is just that, unscripted. If you get into a position where you can use techniques and sequences from the bunkai, great, that's what the bunkai is for. But none of us a near the level of proficiency of someone like Taira. He is amazing with his speed and agility, bearing in mind he is now in his sixties.

So to the first time student sparring. No instructions at all apart from "don't lose contact with the hands" as it all begins from the sticky hands. This might seem incredibly vague but we have more black belts than kyu grade so the beginner is normally being guided by someone with years of experience.

*(I say immediate goal, because the ultimate goal is always to learn and improve. We just reach that goal through the experience of trying to accomplish the immediate goals vs resistance.)

Exactly, and the more experienced the guys training the greater the resistance and the greater the intensity.

 

[ShotoNoob]

I know this wasn't in response to my post but can I say the movement should be substantially the same as the kata but there can be variation depending on the interpretation. Of course what has been largely ignored in these discussions is that all the kata shown had been the kihon kata. I did try to point out some time back is that there are advanced forms of the kata as well. Kata can be 'unpacked' and performed in a straight line which is far more like real fighting and if you watch some of Masaji Taira's videos you will see that being demonstrated.

|
Wow. You have written some extensive commentary conveyed @ the expert level. I just want to convey on point of agreement @ this time.
|
Your lead in was in response to Tony D.'s question about movement in karate kumite not resembling kata movement. I think the shift to sport competition in Shotokan when it evolved in Japan really muddied the water about how traditional karate moves in fighting. Without getting into a discussion of what you call traditional karate versus what I do (and your detailed response to me above really helps me understand your position), I generally believe in what you have described above for kata movement versus kumite movement.
|
In looking at kata, critical people typically look at the form and then conclude that you basically regurgitate that in fighting This is where your points about advanced kata & 'unpacking' kata performance when coming to application--shed light. My point, in taking a look at kihon kata, is that how you practice the kata build a skill base that then can be enacted with greater speed, power, alternatives to the exact techniques, variations on the angles & transitioning into stances presented by the forms.
|
The purpose of kata is NOT a fixed mold one cuts & pastes physically onto a fighting or here, self defense application or situation. The abilities developed in kata are in stark contrast to say repetitively punching a heavy back with a boxing jab / cross with full power that you then expect to go out and automatically impose that athletically on a resisting opponent. Someone, such as typical boxers, who only believe in the latter, will not / never see the value in kihon kata....

 

[ShotoNoob]

Wow! There are books written on that and you expect a short answer?

OK, I'll try. For a start you will have a accept that my answer comes from a different position to yours. With the exception of Wado Ryu, I don't see any Japanese styles as 'traditional'. Despite the fact that they contain kata they all have a major focus on competition, something that never existed in traditional karate. In traditional karate the focus was on kata and, in the styles that I consider traditional, it still is. Now we get to another fundamental difference between what I consider traditional karate and the more modern styles. Traditional karate is close quarter fighting and the kata is designed around that. If that is not the case kata cannot work as intended because fighting is not choreographed. Bunkai works on a predetermined response, ie block with the only arm available or get hit. Unless you have seen bunkai trained this way you probably won't understand what I am saying but both Iain Abernethy and Masaji Tiara use this all the time.

|
Well, your answer is really in the form of a manual or book, chapters if your will. Your response contains certain groundwork explanations that are missing from --what I call--traditional karate manuals.
|
I can also know see clearly how you conclude my version of defining traditional karate is wrong. From your perspective, I am wrong. Your perspective, however, presumes and hinges heavily on the form of the training curriculum. My perspective starts above that. It starts with the concepts of traditional martial arts training which then the form of the curriculum is built on.
|
For instance. I believe that you are entirely correct when you state that modern karate, principally the Japanese and post-Japanese versions had placed greater emphasis on kumite, competitive kumite. Moreover, certain conventions for kumite then evolved around that. By your view, kata presented the means for kumite through it's bunkai. The modern karate version of kumite moved to high mobility, distance fighting relying on basic technique & speed. The traditional karate model in Okinawa proposed infighting relying on the technicals of bunaki contained in the kata. The applications evolved for competitive karate turned more to being able to achieve a ruleset, ie., scoring points. the applications of your traditional Okinawan karate were centered on self defense purposes, attacking the opponent in a way that disabled him physically.

... In Goju we have two kata that are especially important to our style. These are Sanchin and Tensho kata. Within these kata you can find almost everything that is Goju. At a higher level Goju has Kyusho and at the highest level Kiko. To a major extent these are non existent in modern karate styles.

|
So I can agree, using your perspective, that the Japanese karate, and the Korean-karate based arts fail to meet the traditional karate standards as you've defined. These failures would then include the omission of the specific katas you have mentioned in your entire response.

 

[ShotoNoob]

FOLLOWING ON....
|
Your lengthy book-chapter explanation would also suggest to your wisdom in moving from Japanese Goju Kai to Okinawan Goju Ryu. For self defense purposes. I always believed the applied goal of traditional karate was self defense. Though I have only encountered Goju ryu karate,, I believe it to be a more powerful & more sophisticated karate style than those typically practiced on the Japanese karate platform.

 

[drop bear]

You should try looking at it in slow motion and see how sloppy some of the technique is. I often see strikes with the wrong part of the fist, wild swings, strikes to least vulnerable areas, guards down and other problems.

What are you basing your interpretation of correct technique on?

 

[RTKDCMB]

What are you basing your interpretation of correct technique on?

Hitting with the correct part of the fist, not wildly swinging, not striking to areas that have little effect (forehead, stomach etc) having your guard up when striking etc.

 

[drop bear]

Hitting with the correct part of the fist, not wildly swinging, not striking to areas that have little effect (forehead, stomach etc) having your guard up when striking etc.

Are these "incorrect" methods knocking people out in real situations?