Discussion in 'Karate' started by Acronym, Sep 29, 2020.
Sounds like the Martialtalk community has shown tremendous patience with you.
I guess I don’t understand why some people seem to feel that they need to have a strict definition of what a particular style is or is not, or what techniques may be found in it.
There is no such standardization. All that someone can say is what their own experience has been.
Also I don't understand why one's training should be restricted by his style tournament rule. Sanda doesn't allow groin kick, but I train groin kick everyday.
Sport is the path. Combat is the goal.
I don't do shotokan and I have never trained in a Ginchin style of Karate, but I do know katas that show sweeps. To the untrained eye, they can resemble kicks. Two of my students thought, in one of our katas, there was a front kick until I showed them the application and they learned that front kick, was actually a sweep.
Knowledge and proper training at that, is important.
When I here people talk about the lack of applications, it really surprised me. In our system we have 10 forms to black belt.
Nifanchi (all 3 as one)
With these forms at least 75 applications must be known before you get your BB. You do not advance, if you do not know the bunkai for the form.
I have been doing these same forms and applications for at least 36 yrs. Although basic, they are the first step in understanding the kata. But, they are not set in stone in there delivery, it is the student, that determines the changes for whatever situation that arises.
Sip Su? You do Tang Soo Do or some variant? Arguably, you have some Gichin Funakoshi lineage though in a roundabout way.
But yes, I imagine we have similar approaches to kata applications. It is the detail that matters. People that don't train in the method can look at just the kata performance and say "it's not there." And that is fine and all... but they are not seeing the full of what happens in the training within the dojo.
Yes, it came down through Korea, but no not through the Gichin line, through the Toyama line a senior of Gichin according to Itosu's student records.
It's a common mistake though, the creator of Tang Soo Do, admittedly, learn from Gichins book.
My lineage is through the Kwon Bop Bu and the Kang Duk Won through Byung In-Yoon, who trained with Toyama directly.
Cool. I had some friends that trained with Kim Soo in Houston. He's from the Kang Duk Won. Do you still do the Chuan Fa forms like Escaping into the Mist, etc., ?
Speaking of kata, Is it just my school or is Bunkai non existent? How can they expect kata joint locks to be ingrained in your muscle memory if it's banned in sparring and never applied expect on thin air?
This is assuming that kata joint locks actually work, let's assume for argument sake that they do. Even if they do, you don't transfer it to muscle memory unless it's applied....
Yes, he is the closet thing to a GM (if such a thing exist) and I have spoken with him through email a few times. As a matter of fact, he knew and trained with Dr. Norman Rha (also known as Rha Jong-nam) that brought Kang Duk Won to the west coast.
He was happy to learn that the line still existed...I did the research, when I was varifying my instructors lineage through Robert J Babich and the Kwon Bup (the name chosen by Robert J, after he chose not to join the Tae Kwon Do federation being formed at the time.) And really, after that it became more of an Americanized style of Karate.
Robert J was also an early BB of Don Buck. It is still a mystery as to why he moved from Kyokushin Karate to Kang Duk Won.
As for the kung fu fighting forms, the Jang Kwon and Dan Kwon, yes.
It is hard to do well and safely. And most styles don't have the proper grounding to understand how they work.
Bunkai won't really help you.
Short answer is learn to wrestle.
Their argument is that joint locks in conjuction with striking to loosen them up do work. Still, if you never fight that way then you won't do it when push comes to shove.Even more illogical is Aikido which doesn't teach striking at all.
OK. Every time you do a style or a rule set you create an environment where some things work really well and some do not.
By changing the style or rule set you change what works well and what doesn't. This then forces you to engage in things that you might have otherwise overlooked.
So let's look at standing arm bars for example.
So you may train standing arm bars in kata or bunkai. And certain elements will make those arm bars work. (Catching punches out of mid air or double beats on the arm and that sort of stuff)
Then you spar or fight and literally none of that works. And so you are forced to adopt changes.
Then you wrestle and you don't get to do arm bars at all. But you do engage in clinching, arm control and realistic timing.
Then you go back to sparring and suddenly realise that with good entries, good clinching and being able to break someone's structure. You might be able to actually get that arm bar you have been practising in kata.
Then technically you should change the kata to reflect reality.
It is a very unhelpful argument from people who don't understand the concept very well.
Striking does make opportunities available for grappling. But grappling makes opportunities available for striking.
If you are to engage in both you need to understand both.
Not that you literally can't win a grappling engagement until you have basically knocked the other guy out.
With regards to small joint manipulation against an equally strong opponent, you probably have to loosen him up first with a strike.
Juijitsu operates on a different principle of using leverage=your entire body. Karate katas operate on the assumption that you land a straight right, and then twist the persons arm.
So I buy it, but to do it in practise is different.
Yeah, not really.
You land a strike which creates an opening. Which let's you close off a section of your oponant. Which let's you gain positional dominance, which lets you control a limb or joint, which lets you perform your snazzy manipulation.
In a striking joint locking exchange. You will get punched five times before you crank an arm if you try to cut corners.
I would have to disagree with this, I have used them successfully myself, but you have to stay in the fight and understand the entering concept.
Most people believe that Karate is not a close quarter combat style, they couldn't be more wrong.
Bunkai, have saved my butt more times than can be imagined.
Ditto, untill I encountered people who understood the concepts of grappling. And then none of it worked.
And I am talking months. As soon as someone understood the basics it throws years of Bunkai out the window.
Depends entirely on how good the strike your threw was. If he just eats the punch, then you can forget about applying a joint lock. If he gets groggy, then you do have a split second to apply it.
I would agree though that Karate is idealistic and beautiful, whereas real fighting is dirty and rushed..
Both sides have their arguments, The truth is probably in the middle... It might work, sometimes...
No, in order to use a small joint manipulation, you need to break the other guys structure and take his balance. It also helps to separate the joint you are manipulating from the body. Striking is one way to start this process, but there are other ways as well and striking is just the start.
Not true. Karate katas operate on the same principle of using leverage and your entire body. If the kata has you landing a punch first and then twisting the arm, it has you using your entire body and leverage for the punch, and then it uses your entire body and leverage for the twist. And if you pay attention, there are details that happen between the punch and the twist, that break his structure and take his balance. Those katas also help you practice moving while keeping your own structure and balance.
Even Funakoshi said that to do kata is one thing and to fight is another. Kata is a way to refine your techniques and to work on details. Sparring, rolling, randori... (full resistance training) is where you learn how to make it work. The idea has always been to use both. Take what you think you are learning in kata and try against full resistance. Fail. (you will) Then, figure out how to make it work against full resistance. Go back to the kata, focus on the details you needed to change to make it work against full resistance. Emphasize and train those details in the kata. Then go back to full resistance and evaluate. Are you better at it? Do you need more work on the same details? Is it time to work on other details? They both work together. Training should never be either or with kata and resistance. It should be yes and yes.123
Separate names with a comma.