Does one's skill flow from the kata?

[exile]

Many, many good points here which deserve their own recognition and comment. But since as Exile and Tellner have said, we've been down this road a few times already, just wanted to say: Exile, the sequence you describe sounds very similar to the opening of Pinan 3 in Shaolin Kempo; and it's pretty much agreed that the Pinan series is taken from Shotokan. So, you chose a very good example with generalizable applicability across at least several major arts/styles, thus giving your argument that much more credence. :ultracool Case closed?

Hi, kdswrrr, thanks for the support and the additional info. This is indeed a classic (I'm almost tempted to say `timeless', but that's verging into melodrama, eh?) sequence of movements that probably have several alterative, plausible and effective interpretations as combat moves. The one I gave is one that I worked out when I was first experimenting with the Abernethy/O'Neil movement-to-move `translation' rules; but I'm sure there are some potent apps implied in those movement I've simply never seen.

You're dead right—we have been down this road many times. And one reason, I think, is that people make a kind of fundamental error in confusing the combat content of kata with the combat training of kata applications. Yes, you can certainly attain that `no-mind mind' state, but not on the basis of the combat roadmap that the kata reveal to you. That roadmap is a very specific guide to actions; the kata are telling you, for any given attack launched against you, here is one of several stories which have a happy ending for you. But practicing the combat moves and reactions that those stories consist of—actually doing them under realistic conditions, making on-the-fly modifications (as people like Itosu, Motobu and Funakoshi constantly urged their students to do) in the face of errors, or unexpected developments, so that the overall tactical plan holds together—that's where mushin no shin comes in, and it's not restricted to martial arts. When I was a skier and ski racer, this happened to me on a few—very few—occasions, and the only way to describe it is something like, being in a state of grace, where, as the computer techs used to say, there are no problems, only solutions. Everything is transparent and you don't need to think, any more than you need to think about walking or breathing. If you train the combat plans that the kata are offering in real time, with a noncompliant opponent who's trying to simulate as much as possible a hostile, violent and maybe pathological assailant, and you do it often enough, then you may eventually be able to condition yourself to that level of immediate, reflexive response so that when it happens for real, you genuinely react without having to think. But that's not something that's ever gonna happen simply by practicing the performance of kata; it's the payoff from practicing the application of the kata techs, as revealed by bunkai, under pretty stressful conditions. Realistic training is great, but it's not necessarily much fun for anyone, especially uke.

An analogy that comes to mind is musical performance. The kata are like the score that tells the soloist what notes to play, but that effortless flow of virtuosity that you see in the greatest of the great (I'm thinking now of a performance that Midori gave in Columbus last autumn; there are no words for what she did, except maybe `perfection') doesn't come from the note-sequence that the score tells the soloist to play, but rather from decades of practicing twelve or more hours a day and endless effort to understand what the composer was up to in changing the dyamics here or repeating the tonal there... that state of perfect synthesis of performer and the work performed comes from endless work in actually producing real music in real time. But what the composer had in mind was not that `state of grace' for the performer, but rather a particular musical structure that embodied something that the composer wanted to say in the vocabulary of harmony and melody. Itosu may have applauded you being in such a state when you successfully defended yourself in that parking lot a couple of weeks ago, but your being in that state is not why he designed the kata that particular way. He designed the kata so that you would know what to do, what specific actions to carry out, in order to defend yourself successfully. BIG difference!

 

[cstanley]

I'm still having a lot of trouble following your reasoning here. Kata were certainly primarily about fighting for Matsumura, Itosu, Motobu, Egami and the other founders of linear, combat-ready karate. Exactly what does it mean to say `the techniques in kata are only the surface, the omote'? The techniques in kata—properly understood, analyzed via realistic translations of the kind Itosu explicitly told us to seek out—are exactly what the fight is about. They inform you of how to respond to the habitual acts of violence that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, initiate a violent attack, and how to terminate that attack.

Let me give you an example, and you tell me exactly what is `on the surface' about the techs. There is an elementary form, which comes from Shotokan and was copied literally into TKD as Kicho Il-Jang. It begins in ready position, and involves a 90º turn to the left into a left front stance, with a left down block and a right fist retraction. Tori steps forward into a right front stance with a middle lunge punch retracting the left fist. Then tori pivots 180º into a right down block/front stance, with left fist retracted, and steps forward into a left front stance/middle lunge punch, retracting the right fist. Finally, tori pivots 90º to the left, into a left down block/front stance.

OK—this is a specific sequence of moves. You can assume they were thrown together willy-nilly, the weakest possible hypothesis, or you can assume they were put together in that sequence for a particular reason—that they contain information which is different from any other given sequence of moves, which is a much stronger hypothesis. Let's stick with the stronger hypothesis, OK? So then, why this specific sequence? What is the point of it? Neither Itosu nor Matsumura had much time for anything but business—they were royal bodyguards forbiddent to have weapons, they were the King of Okinawa's chief LEOs. What use would this particular sequence, or similar sequences, have been to them?

Well, if you understand the message that Itosu told us more than a century ago (and that was echoed in writings by Funakoshi, Motobu, Egami and just about every one of the karate pioneers) that the schoolchild labels `block' and `punch' were not the actual content of the movements depicted, and if you follow the well-worked-out translations rules that people like Iain Abernethy, Lawrence Kane & Chris Wilder, Simon O'Neil and others have provided on the basis of serious research and experimentation under `live', realistic conditions—then the following corresponds to a very useful, practical application:

The assailant (A) grabs the defender (D)'s shirt, or arm/wrist/etc, standing close-up and face to face with D. D countergrabs A's gripping wrist with his right hand, turns 90º so his left side faces A's centerline, turning A's wrist to establish a lock and pulling it hard toward his own left side (`retraction') while slamming his left forearm into A's extended elbow (`chambering' to coming down `block') to establish an armlock, which D then moves his own bodyweight into (the initial `front stance') to drive A's upper body, with locks at wrist and elbow, way down so that A's head is expose. D quickly brings the locking forearm all the way up past his own right ear (maybe smashing an elbow into A's lowered head on the way) and then slams his closed right fist down into A's carotid sinus, or face, or collarbone (the `down block' itself, lol). The striking left hand grips A's ear, or right shoulder, or whatever gripping surface seems best at the moment as part of a muchimi move to anchor A while D steps forward with a middle punch to A's still lowered, trapped head, then by another muchimi move grips A's ear immediately with the punching hand and pivots 180º to throw A towards the floor—the 180º turn typically explained away as just a `symmetry' move to do the form mirror-image on the other side, and the `down block' now a crucial component of the throw—and steps forward to punch A's head at the temple, or possibly the throat with the left fist. Another 90º pivot, to D's left, corresponds to a final throw, and again, the `down block' a strike to A's neck. By now, A is probably wishing he'd stayed home.

I've used this particular bunkai for the first five-move subsequence of the form under fairly rough training conditions, and it is almost bombproof. It works with instinctive reactions, it's robust—there's plenty of room for error, because only large motor skills are involved, and it depends in no way on a compliant uke. It's a simple, `classic' sequence illustrating the huge discrepancy between the Itosu-style packaging of the kata/hyung as per my first description and the actual combat use of the sequences in a typical situation—according to Patrick McCarthy and others who've compile extensive studies of the habitual actions which attackers use in initiating assaults, the grab/punch sequence is extremely frequent and effective if no counteraction is taken. The kata gives you a principle-based approach to the problem posed by the imminent attack: go for A's weak point, pull him into close range, project your own bodyweight (the various `front stance') to force his head into striking range without him having any choice in the matter, and attack the weakest points on his head: throat, temple, face around the eyes, etc.

This is only one a number of techs that are available from these elementary kata; and the more advanced forms contain many more `atomic SD sequences'—subsequences of movements which translate into principle-driven tactical applications that take you from A's first pre-attacking moves to him lying on the ground, no longer a threat. That's what kata are about. In place of this kind of useful, specific information, your comments about mushin and zanshin have virtually no information at all, because they do not distinguish this particular sequence of movements, which replect a particular tactical application of general SD principles, from any other. Your comment about kata being all about mushin and zanshin is a generalization which fails to make it clear why we have these movements and not some others. Itosu had specific things in mind for you to do as a result of learning the Pinan kata, or Naihanchi; Matsumura recorded the Chinto kata because he wanted a record of what the guy, Chinto, had been able to do so effectively. He didn't write down that particular sequence to teach you mushin/zanshin or anything else like that; he wrote it down because it was something he himself needed to learn to enhance his own combat effectiveness. You give only generalities, but generalities cannot explain particularities. I think, myself, that someone like Matsumura or Chotuko Kyand or Motobu would have chuckled, quietly, up their sleeve, at the thought that kata were anything but a record of effective, battle-tested combat techniques. They weren't, in those days, part of a martial art; as Abernethy and Burgar in their books amply document, they were regarded as martial arts in themselves. Mushin/zanshin... all of that is just mystification.

No, mushin and zanshin are not mystification to anyone who has been practicing kata long enough to understand what it is about. You are still focusing on the concrete. Your explanation of Taikyoku Shodan is one of several similar scenarios, most of which will get you punched in the head a few times before you are done.
You site Abernathy and McCarthy, both of whom are not really taken too seriously by many of us who have been in Okinawan karate a long time. Quit trying to "figure the kata out" and practice them for a few more years. Allow bunkai to be a secondary focus for a while. Every monkey butt in town is on a bunkai craze trying to outdo his neighbor with a new application. It is getting like a circus. The kata are of value aside from concrete applications. If that is all you focus on, or if you focus on applications too early in learning the kata, you miss a lot.
You seem to know the minds of Kyan, Motobu, and Matsumura very well. When did you meet with them and discuss these things? What is an "atomic" self defense sequence? How about those "principle driven tactical applications...sounds like Kuchi Kata to me.

 

[exile]

You seem to know the minds of Kyan, Motobu, and Matsumura very well. When did you meet with them and discuss these things?

When did I meet with them? When I read their writing about kata, about the point of kata and keeping childhood and adult application separate. Here's an interesting fact about the Okinawan pioneers: they actually wrote down their thoughts in books, essays and letters!

What is an "atomic" self defense sequence?

A stand-along sequence that takes you from an attacker's initial move to the end of the sequence with him on the ground. I actually did mention this in my posts to you. Interestingly, I was just at a Combat Hapkido seminar with Gm. John Pelligrini who illustrated some basic techs of CH that overlap remarkably with the bunkai I described in the post you quoted for that elementary kata/hyung sequence, and wind up terminating with the incapacitation of the attacker along just the lines I sketched. And to the best of my knowledge, Gm. Pellegrini does not have a reputation for getting hit on the head very often.

How about those "principle driven tactical applications...sounds like Kuchi Kata to me.

Ah, but you see, it's not, CS. It simply refers to combat moves which are guided by sound general principles of self defense. Don't get hit, for example. Close the distance with the assailant. Use his attack to open him up while closing yourself. Basic, sound principles of self defense that show up in Karate, TKD, Combat Hapkido...

Abernethy's bunkai will get you hit in the head? Maybe you could explain exactly how that will happen given the application I cited. I know it's fun to make snide comments about monkey butts and so on instead of providing content; it does keep you from having to say anything, and it allows you to go on talking—a bit vaguely—about how you shouldn't look for anything concrete in kata about how a fight should be conducted, without having to address the fact that a fight is about as concrete as you can get. If that's the best you can do, you might as well do it, eh?

No, CS, the fact is that on the basis of what you've said, you seem to be pretty deep in mystification. You think the bunkai of guys like Abernethy, who trains `alive' with the best of them, (including guys like Geoff Thompson, another one who doesn't get hit on the head all that often and is a particularly enthusiastic proponent of Abernethy's view of kata), who has a extensive body of published analyses and DVDs illustrating every aspect of kata applications, from close-in H2H to grappling techs are inferior? Well, convince us. There's his work; show the holes in it. You and various unnamed others are of the opinion that he's got it wrong? Well, what's the basis of your opinion—the specific basis? Provide a better analysis of the simple kata fragment I brought up. Explain what's wrong with the one I offered. Say something with some substance, like explaining why the katas contain certain subsequences of movements but not others. So far your comments have been somewhat light on any of that. Mostly, what you've said reminds me a bit of a comment that Abernethy makes in Bunkai-Jutsu:

When a movement is attributed a physical or spiritual significance, as opposed to a combative one, it is a sure sign that the person espousing that significance has no idea of what that movement is actually for! But rather than be honest and admit that they do not understand the movement's purpose, they prefer to bluff their way around it.... Every single movement within kata is for use in combat. We should never try to attribute other meanings simply because we do not understand how a movement is to be applied.

(pp. 32-33). Excellent advice, I'd say.

 

[cstanley]

When did I meet with them? When I read their writing about kata, about the point of kata and keeping childhood and adult application separate. Here's an interesting fact about the Okinawan pioneers: they actually wrote down their thoughts in books, essays and letters!



A stand-along sequence that takes you from an attacker's initial move to the end of the sequence with him on the ground. I actually did mention this in my posts to you. Interestingly, I was just at a Combat Hapkido seminar with Gm. John Pelligrini who illustrated some basic techs of CH that overlap remarkably with the bunkai I described in the post you quoted for that elementary kata/hyung sequence, and wind up terminating with the incapacitation of the attacker along just the lines I sketched. And to the best of my knowledge, Gm. Pellegrini does not have a reputation for getting hit on the head very often.



Ah, but you see, it's not, CS. It simply refers to combat moves which are guided by sound general principles of self defense. Don't get hit, for example. Close the distance with the assailant. Use his attack to open him up while closing yourself. Basic, sound principles of self defense that show up in Karate, TKD, Combat Hapkido...

Abernethy's bunkai will get you hit in the head? Maybe you could explain exactly how that will happen given the application I cited. I know it's fun to make snide comments about monkey butts and so on instead of providing content; it does keep you from having to say anything, and it allows you to go on talking—a bit vaguely—about how you shouldn't look for anything concrete in kata about how a fight should be conducted, without having to address the fact that a fight is about as concrete as you can get. If that's the best you can do, you might as well do it, eh?

No, CS, the fact is that on the basis of what you've said, you seem to be pretty deep in mystification. You think the bunkai of guys like Abernethy, who trains `alive' with the best of them, (including guys like Geoff Thompson, another one who doesn't get hit on the head all that often and is a particularly enthusiastic proponent of Abernethy's view of kata), who has a extensive body of published analyses and DVDs illustrating every aspect of kata applications, from close-in H2H to grappling techs are inferior? Well, convince us. There's his work; show the holes in it. You and various unnamed others are of the opinion that he's got it wrong? Well, what's the basis of your opinion—the specific basis? Provide a better analysis of the simple kata fragment I brought up. Explain what's wrong with the one I offered. Say something with some substance, like explaining why the katas contain certain subsequences of movements but not others. So far your comments have been somewhat light on any of that. Mostly, what you've said reminds me a bit of a comment that Abernethy makes in Bunkai-Jutsu:

When a movement is attributed a physical or spiritual significance, as opposed to a combative one, it is a sure sign that the person espousing that significance has no idea of what that movement is actually for! But rather than be honest and admit that they do not understand the movement's purpose, they prefer to bluff their way around it.... Every single movement within kata is for use in combat. We should never try to attribute other meanings simply because we do not understand how a movement is to be applied.

(pp. 32-33). Excellent advice, I'd say.

No one is attributing "spiritual" significance" to kata applications, and no one is denying that all, or most, kata sequences have practical applications. I think you are deliberately missing my point. Again, my point is that focusing only on the practical applications and trying to "reverse engineer" kata in order to find currently popular techniques causes people to miss much of what kata is about.
Taikyoku Shodan is about oi zuki and everything that goes with it...stepping, hip thrust, leg drive, the hara, hiki te, etc. The initial gedan barai (not gedan uke) becomes less and less important as time and training progress. I often tell my students, repeating what Kuniba and Utsuri said many times, at senior levels, "the barai or uke sometimes just go away."
If a senior wants to "find" a jujutsu application in Taikyoku Shodan, well, fine. But, it was not intended that way for beginners. Karate is primarily about atemi. Most jujutsu applications will not work without some kind of kuzushi applied simultaneously. In karate, atemi is most often the kuzushi.
The goal of karate is to grow to the point at which every technique flows from mushin. This is not some abstract "spiritual" concept. One of the purposes of kata training (serious long term kata training) is to develop mushin. You find it in kenjutsu and other arts as well. Rather than try to find as many "techniques" or applications in kata as possible, just do the kata and let the applications become secondary for a while. They will still be there later on. "Perfection is not when there is no longer anything to add; it is when there is no longer anything to take away."

 

[exile]

No one is attributing "spiritual" significance" to kata applications, and no one is denying that all, or most, kata sequences have practical applications. I think you are deliberately missing my point.

No, I'm not deliberately missing your point. Let's take a look, why don't we, at exactly what you said in you first post in this exchange, in the context of a previous discusion documenting the combat applicability of kata moves in general.

Kata is not about fighting; it is about mushin and zanshin.

You recall writing this, I take it? And now we have you saying

...no one is denying that all, or most, kata sequences have practical applications.

I'm not making up either of statements: you wrote both of them. In the first you deny that kata are about fighting; in the second you assert that they do have, um, something to do with fighting (what else would `practical applications' be except applications to combat??) and complain that I'm deliberately missing your point. But what's happened is, you've changed your story, haven't you, and are in effect denying your first statment, which was what I was responding to. So no, CS, I've not missed your point at all.

Let's stick with your first statement, rather than your unacknowledged 180º turn in the second statement I've quoted. Kata isn't about fighting, eh? Well, in that case, kata moves are not relevant to fighting, but to something else. And that was what Abernethy was talking about—people who make statements asserting that kata are about things other than combat effectiveness. It doesn't matter whether they're saying that kata are about phyiscal conditioning, or spiritual growth, or mental tranquility, or the distribution of craters on the surface of the moon: his explicit point is that denying that the primary purpose of kata are to guides to combat. And so your first statement falls neatly under the class of cases he's talking about in the quote I gave.

Again, my point is that focusing only on the practical applications and trying to "reverse engineer" kata in order to find currently popular techniques causes people to miss much of what kata is about.

The optimal techniques for conducting a fight successfully are `currently popular techniques'? Not on planet Earth, CS. I have a dozen books on karate and taekwondo (whose hyungs are just mixmastered version of Shotokan kata, with the `atomic' combat subsequences preserved intact but mixed up with respect to the kata) sitting in front of me, written in the last ten years, that give `sparring-based' bunkai that look as though they were written by a reporter specializing in martial sports ring competitions. What's the percentage of karateka, do you figure, who know that a retracted fist in kata typically grips the attacker's hand or wrist. Don't take Abernethy's word for it? Then check out Kand & Wilder's The Way of Kata, or Bill Burgar's Five Years, One Kata or Simon O'Neil's Combat TKD[/QUOTE] newsletters, or Stuart Anslow's new book on the Ch'ang Hon tuls, or just about anything by Rick Clark, or Javier Martinez (yes, I know, CS, these guys are in your words `monkey's butts') for analysis, illustration and argumentation—something you've yet to provide for any of the pronouncements you've made—that the bunkai they present are among the most optimal. These bunkai are well-defended in this work, but poplular? What are you talking about?

Taikyoku Shodan is about oi zuki and everything that goes with it...stepping, hip thrust, leg drive, the hara, hiki te, etc.

Ah yes, another pronouncement. `Kata are not about X... Taikyoku Shodan is about Y'. All these statements delivered ex cathedra, and unlike the extensive and carefully argued work that's the target of your casually nasty cracks, you offer nothing to support them. But let's see what your statement here actually says: Taikyoku Shodan is about [lunge punches] and everything that goes with [them]......[retraction], etc.' You're taking the set of movements that the kata present and telling us that the kata are about those movements? I.e., that the kata is about its parts? Similar to saying that the Ruy Lopez chess opening is `about' the moves P-K4/P-K4, Kt-KB3/Kt-KB3, etc; or that Einstein's famous equation about the energy content of mass is `about' the letters E, m, and c and the number 2? That, in effect, the kata is about... the kata? THIS is your alternative to the detailed exploration by the (admittedly `monkey butt') authors I've cited earlier on how the movements in kata correspond to an integrated effect response to the gestures that typically initiate a violent physical attack??

The initial gedan barai (not gedan uke) becomes less and less important as time and training progress. I often tell my students, repeating what Kuniba and Utsuri said many times, at senior levels, "the barai or uke sometimes just go away."

OK, I'm going to leave it to other readers of your post to find some content to this vagueness. I can't see any, and since you seem unwilling to provide any—this is no better than what you first posted about mushin and zanshin—it seems to me to add zero information to the discussion.

If a senior wants to "find" a jujutsu application in Taikyoku Shodan, well, fine. But, it was not intended that way for beginners. Karate is primarily about atemi.

Another ex cathedra pronouncement without support. Maybe you should take up the matter with Gichin Funakoshi, who wrote (in Karate-Do Kyoban), `in karate, hitting, thrusting and kicking are not the only methods; throwing techniques and pressure against joints are also included', and in the same volume he provides a number of throwing techs and specifically tells the reader that these should be studied by reference to the basic kata. There's more, CS: in Rentan Goshin Karate Jutsu he explicitly discusses the role of hitike as a controlling movement established by twisting the wrist in to unbalance the opponent. and bring them helplessly into range of the defender's fist or knifehand attack. Shigeru Egami, in The Heart of Karate-Do, chimes in as well with the observation that `there are also throwing techniques in karate... throwing techniques were practiced in my day and I recommend that you reconsider them.' So what are they doing in the system, if Karate is `primarily about atemi'? Suppose indeed that strikes are typically the finishing moves in a katate-based defense against an assault—how on earth does this preclude the scenario I depicted in my little bit of form analysis which takes locks and traps to be crucial set-ups for the finishing strikes? If they don't play this role, than what were Funakoshi and Egami going on about? What I'm saying is that your comment `Karate is primarily about atemi' is a red herring—what you're calling `jiu-jutsu' techs were indeed integral parts of Okinawan karate and its Japanese variant, and are part of karate's Korean variants (TKD/TSD), as controlling moves to provide high-value targets for atemi, and so are crucial parts of the complete system—but are still rarely taught in dojos and dojangs. And since you practice Okinawan karate, CS, I assume you're aware that the Minamoto bujitsu that the Satsuma overlords contributed to Okinawan thinking on combat philosophy included an approach to combat movement intended to be applicable to either weapon combat or empty-hand combat—and that this approach was incorporated into the tuite that Matsumura combined with chuan fa techniques and a few ideas of his own to produce modern linear karate.

Most jujutsu applications will not work without some kind of kuzushi applied simultaneously. In karate, atemi is most often the kuzushi.

Ah, so striking is the usual way that balance is broken, is that what you're saying? Well, see the previous references for comments from the founders of modern karate apparently to the effect that breaking balance is a crucial preparation for striking. The two are perfectly compatible; it's you who seem to be insisting that you can only have one or the other. This is simply Kane & Wilder's third principle of kata application: strike to disrupt, disrupt to strike. And nothing in my little bunkai script, or the more extensive bunkai that Abernthey gives for the Pinans, say, or Burgar for Gojushiho, are incompatible with that principle in the least.

The goal of karate is to grow to the point at which every technique flows from mushin. This is not some abstract "spiritual" concept. One of the purposes of kata training (serious long term kata training) is to develop mushin. You find it in kenjutsu and other arts as well. Rather than try to find as many "techniques" or applications in kata as possible, just do the kata and let the applications become secondary for a while. They will still be there later on. "Perfection is not when there is no longer anything to add; it is when there is no longer anything to take away."

And this is suppose to be informative, and substitute for an explanation of why the particular moves we find in the kata are there, and not some other? This is why, according to Nagamine and others, Matsumura wrote down the moves of the Chinto kata when recording just what it was that Chinto seemed to be doing that had been so effective in defending himself when confronted by Matsumura? In my last couple of posts I complained that you were trying to explain particularities—the kata are not just any old sequences of moves, but only certain sequence—on the basis of vague generalities, a major type of reasoning error that explains nothing. And here you're still doing exactly the same thing. Well, you can go on repeating it, but that isn't going to improve it...

 

[cstanley]

No, I'm not deliberately missing your point. Let's take a look, why don't we, at exactly what you said in you first post in this exchange, in the context of a previous discusion documenting the combat applicability of kata moves in general.



You recall writing this, I take it? And now we have you saying



I'm not making up either of statements: you wrote both of them. In the first you deny that kata are about fighting; in the second you assert that they do have, um, something to do with fighting (what else would `practical applications' be except applications to combat??) and complain that I'm deliberately missing your point. But what's happened is, you've changed your story, haven't you, and are in effect denying your first statment, which was what I was responding to. So no, CS, I've not missed your point at all.

Let's stick with your first statement, rather than your unacknowledged 180º turn in the second statement I've quoted. Kata isn't about fighting, eh? Well, in that case, kata moves are not relevant to fighting, but to something else. And that was what Abernethy was talking about—people who make statements asserting that kata are about things other than combat effectiveness. It doesn't matter whether they're saying that kata are about phyiscal conditioning, or spiritual growth, or mental tranquility, or the distribution of craters on the surface of the moon: his explicit point is that denying that the primary purpose of kata are to guides to combat. And so your first statement falls neatly under the class of cases he's talking about in the quote I gave.




The optimal techniques for conducting a fight successfully are `currently popular techniques'? Not on planet Earth, CS. I have a dozen books on karate and taekwondo (whose hyungs are just mixmastered version of Shotokan kata, with the `atomic' combat subsequences preserved intact but mixed up with respect to the kata) sitting in front of me, written in the last ten years, that give `sparring-based' bunkai that look as though they were written by a reporter specializing in martial sports ring competitions. What's the percentage of karateka, do you figure, who know that a retracted fist in kata typically grips the attacker's hand or wrist. Don't take Abernethy's word for it? Then check out Kand & Wilder's The Way of Kata, or Bill Burgar's Five Years, One Kata or Simon O'Neil's Combat TKD

newsletters, or Stuart Anslow's new book on the Ch'ang Hon tuls, or just about anything by Rick Clark, or Javier Martinez (yes, I know, CS, these guys are in your words `monkey's butts') for analysis, illustration and argumentation—something you've yet to provide for any of the pronouncements you've made—that the bunkai they present are among the most optimal. These bunkai are well-defended in this work, but poplular? What are you talking about?



Ah yes, another pronouncement. `Kata are not about X... Taikyoku Shodan is about Y'. All these statements delivered ex cathedra, and unlike the extensive and carefully argued work that's the target of your casually nasty cracks, you offer nothing to support them. But let's see what your statement here actually says: Taikyoku Shodan is about [lunge punches] and everything that goes with [them]......[retraction], etc.' You're taking the set of movements that the kata present and telling us that the kata are about those movements? I.e., that the kata is about its parts? Similar to saying that the Ruy Lopez chess opening is `about' the moves P-K4/P-K4, Kt-KB3/Kt-KB3, etc; or that Einstein's famous equation about the energy content of mass is `about' the letters E, m, and c and the number 2? That, in effect, the kata is about... the kata? THIS is your alternative to the detailed exploration by the (admittedly `monkey butt') authors I've cited earlier on how the movements in kata correspond to an integrated effect response to the gestures that typically initiate a violent physical attack??




OK, I'm going to leave it to other readers of your post to find some content to this vagueness. I can't see any, and since you seem unwilling to provide any—this is no better than what you first posted about mushin and zanshin—it seems to me to add zero information to the discussion.



Another ex cathedra pronouncement without support. Maybe you should take up the matter with Gichin Funakoshi, who wrote (in Karate-Do Kyoban), `in karate, hitting, thrusting and kicking are not the only methods; throwing techniques and pressure against joints are also included', and in the same volume he provides a number of throwing techs and specifically tells the reader that these should be studied by reference to the basic kata. There's more, CS: in Rentan Goshin Karate Jutsu he explicitly discusses the role of hitike as a controlling movement established by twisting the wrist in to unbalance the opponent. and bring them helplessly into range of the defender's fist or knifehand attack. Shigeru Egami, in The Heart of Karate-Do, chimes in as well with the observation that `there are also throwing techniques in karate... throwing techniques were practiced in my day and I recommend that you reconsider them.' So what are they doing in the system, if Karate is `primarily about atemi'? Suppose indeed that strikes are typically the finishing moves in a katate-based defense against an assault—how on earth does this preclude the scenario I depicted in my little bit of form analysis which takes locks and traps to be crucial set-ups for the finishing strikes? If they don't play this role, than what were Funakoshi and Egami going on about? What I'm saying is that your comment `Karate is primarily about atemi' is a red herring—what you're calling `jiu-jutsu' techs were indeed integral parts of Okinawan karate and its Japanese variant, and are part of karate's Korean variants (TKD/TSD), as controlling moves to provide high-value targets for atemi, and so are crucial parts of the complete system—but are still rarely taught in dojos and dojangs. And since you practice Okinawan karate, CS, I assume you're aware that the Minamoto bujitsu that the Satsuma overlords contributed to Okinawan thinking on combat philosophy included an approach to combat movement intended to be applicable to either weapon combat or empty-hand combat—and that this approach was incorporated into the tuite that Matsumura combined with chuan fa techniques and a few ideas of his own to produce modern linear karate.





Ah, so striking is the usual way that balance is broken, is that what you're saying? Well, see the previous references for comments from the founders of modern karate apparently to the effect that breaking balance is a crucial preparation for striking. The two are perfectly compatible; it's you who seem to be insisting that you can only have one or the other. This is simply Kane & Wilder's third principle of kata application: strike to disrupt, disrupt to strike. And nothing in my little bunkai script, or the more extensive bunkai that Abernthey gives for the Pinans, say, or Burgar for Gojushiho, are incompatible with that principle in the least.




And this is suppose to be informative, and substitute for an explanation of why the particular moves we find in the kata are there, and not some other? This is why, according to Nagamine and others, Matsumura wrote down the moves of the Chinto kata when recording just what it was that Chinto seemed to be doing that had been so effective in defending himself when confronted by Matsumura? In my last couple of posts I complained that you were trying to explain particularities—the kata are not just any old sequences of moves, but only certain sequence—on the basis of vague generalities, a major type of reasoning error that explains nothing. And here you're still doing exactly the same thing. Well, you can go on repeating it, but that isn't going to improve it...[/quote]

You talk like someone who hasn't had much experience in karate. I also notice that your background is TKD and maybe Shotokan, both of which are, at best, poor derivatives of Okinawan karate. Your knowledge of karate and its traditions seems to be based primarily on things you have read (and not the best sources, either) rather than upon any significant number of years training. Plus, you really seem to like to argue and hear yourself talk.

You are missing a lot, but that can't be helped. One day you may stumble over the truth of what I am saying. I fully expect you to pick yourself up and keep right on going, however. Good luck.

 

[exile]

You talk like someone who hasn't had much experience in karate. I also notice that your background is TKD and maybe Shotokan, both of which are, at best, poor derivatives of Okinawan karate. Your knowledge of karate and its traditions seems to be based primarily on things you have read (and not the best sources, either) rather than upon any significant number of years training. Plus, you really seem to like to argue and hear yourself talk.

I don't know if you are aware of it, CS, but this comment is exactly of a piece with all of your previous posts. It doesn't actually contain one bit of information. I've made a number of specific statements, given my sources and support, explained in detail why I think what I do. Your response consists, in effect of name-calling. I've pointed out among other things exactly where you've contradicted yourself, thrown out red herrings in place of arguments, made vague and contentless statement in response to actual arguments, and trash-talked people who I'm willing to bet any amount of money have spent a lot longer, and thought much harder, about the content of karate kata than you have (based on what you yourself say about them). And all you can do is observe—irrelevantly—that my background is in the Shotokan-based arts. I had to chuckle at this; you clearly don't realize how cooperative you're being in helping me make my case, by making so clear just how unfamiliar you are with the basic literature in this area—for as it happens, Kane & Wilder, among the leading exponents of the approach I'm supporting, are both practitioners and instructors of Okinawan Goju-Ryu, and their kata examples and interpretations come on Goju-Ryu. Javier Martinez, one of the leading lights in this area, with special expertise on the joint manipulation component of karate, is a distinguished Okinawan karate expert, with a solid knowledge of its history, who's devoted a good deal of his work to joint manipulations and trapping/locking techs in the Okinawan styles. Shotokan only, eh? (The great irony, of course, is that it's the standard bunkai for Shotokan, and the diluted Japanese styles generally, which omit the trapping/locking/controlling components and insist on kick-punch-block, pure and exclusive atemi, completely in accord with your assertion that karate is `primarily' atemi... but that's sort of par for the course here).

You are missing a lot, but that can't be helped. One day you may stumble over the truth of what I am saying. I fully expect you to pick yourself up and keep right on going, however. Good luck.

I know, CS; it's hard when you've stepped in it and have no substantive counters—not much else to do, I suppose, except issue vague condemnations exactly like what you've just said. I think readers can figure it out for themselves: I offer detailed support from authorities who've studied the problem far more than you; therefore I like to hear myself talk. You switch stories in the middle and make claims that are contradicted by basic literature in a martial art in which you're godan; therefore I'm missing a lot. You make assertions about karate which are explicitly contradicted by the work of the founding masters of karate; therefore my knowledge is primarily based on things I've read in books, and not the best sources at that (e.g., Funakoshi, Egami). You actually say nothing of substance—not even to respond to any of my numerous requests for some specific critiques of the work you trash-talk—therefore `one day [ I ] may stumble over the truth of what [you're] saying'. Basically, you've provided a clinic on how not to argue about anything.

Well.... I guess it can't be helped, eh? :wink1:

 

[cstanley]

I don't know if you are aware of it, CS, but this comment is exactly of a piece with all of your previous posts. It doesn't actually contain one bit of information. I've made a number of specific statements, given my sources and support, explained in detail why I think what I do. Your response consists, in effect of name-calling. I've pointed out among other things exactly where you've contradicted yourself, thrown out red herrings in place of arguments, made vague and contentless statement in response to actual arguments, and trash-talked people who I'm willing to bet any amount of money have spent a lot longer, and thought much harder, about the content of karate kata than you have (based on what you yourself say about them). And all you can do is observe—irrelevantly—that my background is in the Shotokan-based arts. I had to chuckle at this; you clearly don't realize how cooperative you're being in helping me make my case, by making so clear just how unfamiliar you are with the basic literature in this area—for as it happens, Kane & Wilder, among the leading exponents of the approach I'm supporting, are both practitioners and instructors of Okinawan Goju-Ryu, and their kata examples and interpretations come on Goju-Ryu. Javier Martinez, one of the leading lights in this area, with special expertise on the joint manipulation component of karate, is a distinguished Okinawan karate expert, with a solid knowledge of its history, who's devoted a good deal of his work to joint manipulations and trapping/locking techs in the Okinawan styles. Shotokan only, eh? (The great irony, of course, is that it's the standard bunkai for Shotokan, and the diluted Japanese styles generally, which omit the trapping/locking/controlling components and insist on kick-punch-block, pure and exclusive atemi, completely in accord with your assertion that karate is `primarily' atemi... but that's sort of par for the course here).



I know, CS; it's hard when you've stepped in it and have no substantive counters—not much else to do, I suppose, except issue vague condemnations exactly like what you've just said. I think readers can figure it out for themselves: I offer detailed support from authorities who've studied the problem far more than you; therefore I like to hear myself talk. You switch stories in the middle and make claims that are contradicted by basic literature in a martial art in which you're godan; therefore I'm missing a lot. You make assertions about karate which are explicitly contradicted by the work of the founding masters of karate; therefore my knowledge is primarily based on things I've read in books, and not the best sources at that (e.g., Funakoshi, Egami). You actually say nothing of substance—not even to respond to any of my numerous requests for some specific critiques of the work you trash-talk—therefore `one day [ I ] may stumble over the truth of what [you're] saying'. Basically, you've provided a clinic on how not to argue about anything.

Well.... I guess it can't be helped, eh? :wink1:

You are the only one "arguing" here. I attempted to make a point about some aspects of kata that go beyond technique. You are the one who ran in with all the wind and verbiage. I never "switched stories." To assert that there is far more to kata than fighting applications, then to acknowledge that the moves do, indeed, have fighting applications is not a contradiction. Funakoshi and Egami I do not consider "good sources" for Okinawan karate. By the way, Itosu and Matsumura were not bodyguards for the King. Itosu was a school teacher, and Matsumura served in the court as an envoy to China. You must have read this in Bruce Clayton's book...another dubious offering.

I stand by my statements regarding oi zuki and the concepts that underlie the kata applications. Once again, you are focusing way too much on technique and things you have read. You need to practice the kata yourself for a long time in order to put the techniques and the reading in the proper context. I've been in karate for 31 years under some pretty knowledgeable Okinawan instructors and their shihan. The things I am saying are not just things I made up or read in books. They come from training in kata AND its applications for many years.

 

[exile]

You are the only one "arguing" here. I attempted to make a point about some aspects of kata that go beyond technique. You are the one who ran in with all the wind and verbiage. I never "switched stories." To assert that there is far more to kata than fighting applications, then to acknowledge that the moves do, indeed, have fighting applications is not a contradiction.

`Wind and verbiage'... true to form, CS!

I don't see why this should be necessary, but apparently it is. So we'll go back and reread (again) just what you said, in your own words, OK?

Kata is not about fighting; it is about mushin and zanshin.

This is the passsage about which you want us to take your words to mean that `there is far more to kata than fighting applications.' (quoting your current post'.) But that's not what you say, CS. Stop dissembling. You, I and anyone else who can read can see that you aren't saying that kata is about more than fighting. You are saying that it's—to quote you, again—not about fighting. Period. There it is, your own words. I'm sure you would prefer to have written something else now, but you didn't, so it might be better to stop pretending that you did, eh?

...no one is denying that all, or most, kata sequences have practical applications.

And this is where you change your story. Now you are indeed saying that kata is at least in part about fighting. You never get around to saying specifically what it is beyond that. And you still aren't. Right now, it looks to me as though you're simply trying to deny saying something any native speaker of English can see quite clearly that you did say. You really think that people can't tell?

Funakoshi and Egami I do not consider "good sources" for Okinawan karate.

Ah, no. After all, Funakoshi wouldn't have learn Okinawan karate from Itosu—where would one get that idea?? But the problem is, CS, that even if that were true, you introduced the Okinawan issue as a total red herring. I gave a detailed bunkai for a fragment of a well-travelled elementary kata; you brought in the Okinawan issue, which so far as I can see has nothing to do with what I was saying at all; and you've carefully avoided the fact that Javier Martinez, who's probably explored Okinawan kata bunkai in at least as much detail as anyone else, gives interpretations for kata in numerous publications which make full use of the the range of tuite techniques, including wristlocks, armbars, joint manipulations and all the rest. And again, all you can do is offer unsupported trash-talk about Funakoshi and Egami.

By the way, Itosu and Matsumura were not bodyguards for the King. Itosu was a school teacher, and Matsumura served in the court as an envoy to China. You must have read this in Bruce Clayton's book...another dubious offering.

No, actually, the information comes from Mark Bishop, the leading historian of Okinawan karate, from the Shotokai website, the Wikipedia website, and about a dozen other publsihed and Internet sites.

At http://www.shotokai.com/ingles/bios/matsumura.html :

Born in the city of Shuri (there is a bit of uncertainty on the exact year) on the island of Okinawa, early in his life he was sent to train to the Master Sakugawa school. He furthermore was taught directly by Master Kushanku. There is also enough information to believe that he also was taught by a Chinese Master called Iwah and on the other hand some master of the Jigen sword school of the Satsuma clan, most surely a Master called Yashuhiro Ijuin.

He worked as a bodyguard for three different kings. He lived in China around the year 1830, when he returned he forms his school and starts teaching a modified Chinese form he calls Passai.

Among his most important students we can count Yasutsune Itosu and Yasutsune Azato. From time to time he would teach Gichin Funakoshi directly but his greatest influence was surely indirectly through Azato and Itosu.


At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokon_Matsumura :

[/I]Sokon Matsumura (?? ?? Matsumura S?kon?, 1809 - 1899) was one
of the well-known original karateka of Okinawa.
He studied Chuan Fa (Kempo in Japanese) in China as well as other martial arts and brought what he learned back to Okinawa, where he taught a select few students and became a well known master. After Japan assumed full control of Okinawa 40 years later however, Matsumura Sensei moved to Tokyo and taught and developed karate for the rest of his life.
Matsumura was recruited into the service of the Sho family (Royal family of Okinawa) and eventually became the chief martial arts instructor and bodyguard for the Okinawan King. [/I]

From Mark Bishop's state of the art Okinawan Karate: Teachers, Styles and Secret Techniques (1999, Tuttle):

Sokon Matusumura was born into a well-known shizoku family at Yamagawa village, Shuri.... whilst working as a bodyguard for the last three successive Ryukyuan kings, Sho Ko, Sho Iku and Sho Tai, Matsumura twice visited Fuchou and Satsuma as an envoy on affairs of state.

(p. 53.) Just to help you see what I'm referring to, I've bolded the relevant passages. I could go on, but you seem to have an aversion to posts that challenge your unsupported assertions with detailed evidence. So instead, CS, maybe you'll tell us what your authority for saying that Matusumura was not a bodyguard to the Kings of Okinawa, including the last one. Bishop also makes it clear that Itosu, who had trained under Matsumura from the time he was a youngster and was considered Matsumura's most accomplished pupil ever, worked for Matsumura while the latter was the chief of the King's security at Shuri Castle. So give us a source, CS. What is your factual basis for saying that Matsumura was not a bodyguard for the Kings of Okinawa?? You state it as fact. What's the source of that `fact,' CS?

I stand by my statements regarding oi zuki and the concepts that underlie the kata applications.

Um... try reading my post again. What you are `standing by' is that the kata are `about' the movements in the kata, which is either a tautology, or has the status of the analogies I offered before.

Once again, you are focusing way too much on technique and things you have read. You need to practice the kata yourself for a long time in order to put the techniques and the reading in the proper context. I've been in karate for 31 years under some pretty knowledgeable Okinawan instructors and their shihan. The things I am saying are not just things I made up or read in books. They come from training in kata AND its applications for many years.

Let me translate: I've trained in kata for a long time, so I know better than any of the people who've presented their knowledge publically. I don't have to defend my position or even state what that position, in its details, consists of. `Things I've read?' Well, that's part of it. I've also trained hyungs, mixmastered kata as I say, under fairly realistic conditions with noncompliant oppos. What I found dovetails very nicely with what Abernethy, Burgar, Clark, Kane & Wilder, O'Neil, Anslow, McCarthy and many others have detailed explicitly in their books, and which many of them have trained under brutally realistic conditions. You give no reason to be skeptical of their results, or my own training, other than that you say so. And the problem is, CS, that—as our last five or six exchanges show—by now you've said so many vague, contradictory, equivocating, and out and out factually wrong things—what I've mentioned in this post and the last three or four, with documentation—that I really see little or no credibility at all in your unsupported pronouncements. And I got a feeling I'm not the only one.

 

[cstanley]

`Wind and verbiage'... true to form, CS!

I don't see why this should be necessary, but apparently it is. So we'll go back and reread (again) just what you said, in your own words, OK?



This is the passsage about which you want us to take your words to mean that `there is far more to kata than fighting applications.' (quoting your current post'.) But that's not what you say, CS. Stop dissembling. You, I and anyone else who can read can see that you aren't saying that kata is about more than fighting. You are saying that it's—to quote you, again—not about fighting. Period. There it is, your own words. I'm sure you would prefer to have written something else now, but you didn't, so it might be better to stop pretending that you did, eh?



And this is where you change your story. Now you are indeed saying that kata is at least in part about fighting. You never get around to saying specifically what it is beyond that. And you still aren't. Right now, it looks to me as though you're simply trying to deny saying something any native speaker of English can see quite clearly that you did say. You really think that people can't tell?




Ah, no. After all, Funakoshi wouldn't have learn Okinawan karate from Itosu—where would one get that idea?? But the problem is, CS, that even if that were true, you introduced the Okinawan issue as a total red herring. I gave a detailed bunkai for a fragment of a well-travelled elementary kata; you brought in the Okinawan issue, which so far as I can see has nothing to do with what I was saying at all; and you've carefully avoided the fact that Javier Martinez, who's probably explored Okinawan kata bunkai in at least as much detail as anyone else, gives interpretations for kata in numerous publications which make full use of the the range of tuite techniques, including wristlocks, armbars, joint manipulations and all the rest. And again, all you can do is offer unsupported trash-talk about Funakoshi and Egami.



No, actually, the information comes from Mark Bishop, the leading historian of Okinawan karate, from the Shotokai website, the Wikipedia website, and about a dozen other publsihed and Internet sites.

At http://www.shotokai.com/ingles/bios/matsumura.html :

Born in the city of Shuri (there is a bit of uncertainty on the exact year) on the island of Okinawa, early in his life he was sent to train to the Master Sakugawa school. He furthermore was taught directly by Master Kushanku. There is also enough information to believe that he also was taught by a Chinese Master called Iwah and on the other hand some master of the Jigen sword school of the Satsuma clan, most surely a Master called Yashuhiro Ijuin.

He worked as a bodyguard for three different kings. He lived in China around the year 1830, when he returned he forms his school and starts teaching a modified Chinese form he calls Passai.

Among his most important students we can count Yasutsune Itosu and Yasutsune Azato. From time to time he would teach Gichin Funakoshi directly but his greatest influence was surely indirectly through Azato and Itosu.


At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokon_Matsumura :

[/i]Sokon Matsumura (?? ?? Matsumura S?kon?, 1809 - 1899) was one
of the well-known original karateka of Okinawa.
He studied Chuan Fa (Kempo in Japanese) in China as well as other martial arts and brought what he learned back to Okinawa, where he taught a select few students and became a well known master. After Japan assumed full control of Okinawa 40 years later however, Matsumura Sensei moved to Tokyo and taught and developed karate for the rest of his life.
Matsumura was recruited into the service of the Sho family (Royal family of Okinawa) and eventually became the chief martial arts instructor and bodyguard for the Okinawan King. [/i]

From Mark Bishop's state of the art Okinawan Karate: Teachers, Styles and Secret Techniques (1999, Tuttle):

Sokon Matusumura was born into a well-known shizoku family at Yamagawa village, Shuri.... whilst working as a bodyguard for the last three successive Ryukyuan kings, Sho Ko, Sho Iku and Sho Tai, Matsumura twice visited Fuchou and Satsuma as an envoy on affairs of state.

(p. 53.) Just to help you see what I'm referring to, I've bolded the relevant passages. I could go on, but you seem to have an aversion to posts that challenge your unsupported assertions with detailed evidence. So instead, CS, maybe you'll tell us what your authority for saying that Matusumura was not a bodyguard to the Kings of Okinawa, including the last one. Bishop also makes it clear that Itosu, who had trained under Matsumura from the time he was a youngster and was considered Matsumura's most accomplished pupil ever, worked for Matsumura while the latter was the chief of the King's security at Shuri Castle. So give us a source, CS. What is your factual basis for saying that Matsumura was not a bodyguard for the Kings of Okinawa?? You state it as fact. What's the source of that `fact,' CS?




Um... try reading my post again. What you are `standing by' is that the kata are `about' the movements in the kata, which is either a tautology, or has the status of the analogies I offered before.



Let me translate: I've trained in kata for a long time, so I know better than any of the people who've presented their knowledge publically. I don't have to defend my position or even state what that position, in its details, consists of. `Things I've read?' Well, that's part of it. I've also trained hyungs, mixmastered kata as I say, under fairly realistic conditions with noncompliant oppos. What I found dovetails very nicely with what Abernethy, Burgar, Clark, Kane & Wilder, O'Neil, Anslow, McCarthy and many others have detailed explicitly in their books, and which many of them have trained under brutally realistic conditions. You give no reason to be skeptical of their results, or my own training, other than that you say so. And the problem is, CS, that—as our last five or six exchanges show—by now you've said so many vague, contradictory, equivocating, and out and out factually wrong things—what I've mentioned in this post and the last three or four, with documentation—that I really see little or no credibility at all in your unsupported pronouncements. And I got a feeling I'm not the only one.

My information comes from Nagamine's book, "Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters." It is not clear that Matsumura was a bodyguard. We do know that he was an envoy to China. Itosu was not. You like to cite references to books. I've read a lot of books, too. They are not much help with what I was originally talking about. You have been so busy setting up straw men that you still miss my point.

You like to cite Egami...he wrote a book subtitled, "Beyond Technique." C.W. Nicol wrote a book about karate and kata called, "Moving Zen." Deshimaru wrote a book entitled, "Zen and the way of Martial Arts." These all indicate that there are aspects of kata that go beyond the applications you seem so concerned with. All agree that it takes decades to master kata. This, in itself, implies that there is much more to kata than the mere fighting applications. Certainly, you need to understand and be able to execute the bunkai. Most of my students are able to do that pretty well by sandan. Then, there is the rest of their karate life.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "mixmastered" kata. Sounds a bit like cut and paste. Do you make up your own? What is a "red belt with a black tip?"

TKD hyungs have no relation to Okinawan kata. For years, TKD students did not even know any applications for their hyungs other than the obvious. Lately, they have been trying to put back in what they never had through borrowing and reverse engineering. The Shotokan Heian, by their very nature, show a total lack of understanding of bunkai as embodied in the Okinawan Pinan from which they were lifted and changed. This is widely understood throughout the Okinawan karate community. It doesn't sound to me like you have much of a background for pronouncing about kata or karate. I'm sure that won't stop you, but you are focusing on the wrong things. I'm sure you have a lot of time and energy invested in this forum. You really should get out some. www.karate-budo.com

Also, leave the books on the shelf and practice kata for a while. Focus less on the applications, then come back to them after several years. You may be surprised at what you see then.

 

[Sukerkin]

Mr. Stanley, I wonder if it would be an impertinence to ask for a little more detail on your experience in martial arts? Your profile is a touch lacking in this regard so it makes it hard to add any gravitas to your words. I further wonder if you have checked Exile's profile before 'engaging' in verbal combat?

Also, a simple check of the 'header' that goes above each post would show that, here at least, it would be advisiable to be less belligerent. After all, it's not the most polite method in the world of making an argument to insult the person you're talking too, especially when that person is an established member of the 'club' you've joined. This is particularly true for a 'new kid on the block'.

At present, the approach you are taking does any credability your points may have no good at all. This is to the extent that you may as well not be making an argument in the first place - the lack of responses for your stance means that everyone else either has no interest or does not consider that what you are saying has merit and that Exile is doing a pretty good job of representing the point of view that they do hold.

Advise on the Net is, as ever, worth exactly what you paid for it, so feel free to disregard my words. I, it goes without saying, think that you would be better received if you changed your tack but, in the end, it's your choice.

 

[cstanley]

Mr. Stanley, I wonder if it would be an impertinence to ask for a little more detail on your experience in martial arts? Your profile is a touch lacking in this regard so it makes it hard to add any gravitas to your words. I further wonder if you have checked Exile's profile before 'engaging' in verbal combat?

Also, a simple check of the 'header' that goes above each post would show that, here at least, it would be advisiable to be less belligerent. After all, it's not the most polite method in the world of making an argument to insult the person you're talking too, especially when that person is an established member of the 'club' you've joined. This is particularly true for a 'new kid on the block'.

At present, the approach you are taking does any credability your points may have no good at all. This is to the extent that you may as well not be making an argument in the first place - the lack of responses for your stance means that everyone else either has no interest or does not consider that what you are saying has merit and that Exile is doing a pretty good job of representing the point of view that they do hold.

Advise on the Net is, as ever, worth exactly what you paid for it, so feel free to disregard my words. I, it goes without saying, think that you would be better received if you changed your tack but, in the end, it's your choice.

Funny, I didn't think I was the one being rude. yes, I checked Exile's profile. That is why I asked what is a red belt with a black tip. It also led to my surmise that he lacks experience in karate and kata.

I have been in karate since 1975. I began Shorin ryu under Koto Higoshi in '75 while in HS and continued in college with him. Higoshi was a student of Chibana. I began training in Motobu ha Shito ryu under Richard Baillargeon in '82, then in Seishin Kai under Shogo Kuniba while living in Virginia in the '80's. When I moved back to Georgia I opened a small dojo in Macon, but continued to attend camps and seminars under Kuniba or his shihan. I met Morio Higaonna in '85 and began training with him and his students in order to better understand the Naha kata of Shito ryu. But, my karate is Shito ryu. I have also been training in Omori/Eishin ryu iaido for 10 years. Okinawan kobudo is an integral part of Shito ryu, so I have been studying weapons as long as I have been doing karate. So, there is the pedigree.

I am really not concerned with whether anyone responds to what I am saying or not. The point was stated concisely enough...kata is about mushin and zanshin. It is also about bunkai, but that is only the surface. That seems simple enough. If Exile, or anyone else, can't get with that, fine. It is a fairly straightforward assertion. Hardly requiring the mountains of lugubrious horse **** that Exile spewed about it.

 

[tellner]

CS, you're just digging yourself in deeper here. The other guys, exile in particular, have used facts, history, experience, reproducible results and logic. You have added nothing besides bald assertions and a few vague insults. And we are supposed to believe that over the former for exactly what reason?

This is a problem I see with a lot martial artists, particularly teachers, who venture beyond the walls of their dojo. They're used to being The Authority. What they say goes. They transmit knowledge and wisdom to the students who sop it up like pyjama-clad sponges. The give and take between peers is a tad alien to them. So they tend to make pronouncements and take offense when they are received critically.

One of the advantages that cloistered academics like exile have is that they're used to this sort of thing. Ideas get exposed to intense criticism and are created, revised, thrown away and revived. It's all part of getting to the truth of a matter.

 

[exile]

Just one more thing, CS, since you ask. When you refer to my reference to `mixmastered' hyungs and then ask me if I've made up my own, you seem be asking if I've made up the TKD hyungs that I'm referring to. Bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say? Again, though, you're showing your own, um, lack of familiarity with the material, as when you say that there's no relationship between Okinawan kata and TKD hyungs (no idea why you keep insisting on the Okinawan-ness of the kata in terms of bunkai, though, but whatever turns you on, I suppose!) Chunks of Itosu's Pinans are all over the place in the Palgwes, for example; but the sequences are mixed up with pieces of other kata as well. So yes, cutting and pasting—by the Kwan founders who constructed the TKD hyung sets during the postwar era.

Red belt with black tip is 2nd gup. It means I have one more belt before my dan test.

And one other thing: I do practice hyungs, quite a bit. But I also experiment with the movements in settings which approach combat conditions, and I systematically check out what karateka with expertise in that kind of experimentation make of kata sequences which are identical to sequences in hyungs I'm familiar with. So far, as Tellner pointedly observes, you haven't supplied one fact, one piece of evidence, one result, to suggest that they aren't right and you are. I'd say the burden of proof is pretty much entirely on you, at this point...

Funny, I didn't think I was the one being rude. yes, I checked Exile's profile...Hardly requiring the mountains of lugubrious horse **** that Exile spewed about it.

Well, CS, in addition to self-contradiction, failure to acknowledge self-contradiction, setting yourself up as an oracle who gets even simple facts wrong (Bushi Matsumura was not a bodyguard for the Kings of Okinawa, say—I have a dozen sources plus who agree he was, you do not have a source who says he wasn't, therefore you state as fact that he wasn't—baaad move!) and inability to carry out a simple debate about your own assertions, we can now add failure to use English words correctly. My Webster's Encyclopedic dictionary defines lugubrious as mournful or dismal. And given that I'm debating someone who cuts his own throat in an argument as enthusiastically as you appear to've done, I'm hardly likely to be mourful, eh? :wink1: (Oh, and for the record, whatever obscenity was replaced by the profanity filter as the line of asterisks in what I've quoted from you will be considered rude by people who expect civil debate. `Spewing', too, is considered rude when referring to statements, queries and documentation by someone you're arguing with that contradict what you're saying, and that you have no other answer for. Just thought you'd like to know! )

I appreciate Tellner's and Sukerkin's comments—very much indeed!—but my feeling is, serious argument to a defensible conclusion just isn't your thing. Am I right? Unpleasant adjectives, nouns and verbs—well, that's a different story, eh? I know, it's very frustrating when you keep telling everyone you're right, and they should listen to you because you're right, and they keep bringing up these pesky facts and quibbles about you not making much sense. Unfortunately, that's how MT works. You say something that seems self-evident to you, and people ask you to justify it. You say things which are factually untrue, and they actually cite documentation to show you (and everyone else reading the thread) that they're untrue.

Not really what you expected, eh? But, as you say,

I am really not concerned with whether anyone responds to what I am saying or not.

The final resort when you're just getting shelled from all sides: I really don't care what other people think or say or don't say. Well, I understand—it is an awkward spot to be in. Might as well take that line and stick to it. I don't think there's much else you can do, at this point...

 

[Sukerkin]

That's a fair old pedigree, CS; if my maths is right, that's 32 years under instruction there. I started in '77, so we have a similar 'vintage' if rather different paths {and I certainly can't claim a godan, only a measly pair of shodans :blush:}.

Given that background, I can only think that Tellner has a glimmering of the cirumstance that has lead us here. With all that experience, as both student and teacher, it is hard sometimes to formulate an argument to back up a point you make that you hold to be self-evidently true (for the simple reason that you've held it to be true for a long time without it being contested).

I've done a little teaching (a mere fragment of your years) and I have encountered the same problem myself i.e. you tell a student a certain 'fact' and they say "Why?" or "I've been taught that ... " or even "I don't agree with that". It is very hard to step back from the 'hard-wired' defensive response when that happens and the 'format' of the Net means that statements that are meant as counter-arguments or firm ripostes can come across as much less civil than the author intended {accusing a Professor of 'straw man' arguments is just outright asking for trouble of the "I slap you in the face, sirrah, and challenge you to the field of logic!" kind :lol:}.

I don't believe it's too late for you to recover a little dignity and salvage a position from which to build a discourse and it's surely worth a try if this subject has meaning for you?

To extend a hand, as a student of MJER, I would say that your, edited, statment that kata is about mushin, zanshin and bunkai has a strong element of truth in it. It is from the practise of the bunkai of kata that the first two come about, wouldn't you say? Especially in an almost entirely kata based art such as iaido.

To say that bunkai is just the surface is somewhat dismissive, like saying the printed page is not the information. To my way of thinking, you can't have one without the other i.e. understanding of what a kata is intended to teach flows from the bunkai just as the information flows from the page

 

[seasoned]

The main question was “does one's skill flow from the kata“. My answer is, well of course it does. Every person I have ever talked with that did not see any value in kata is someone that studied it for years and then made that conclusion. But in there study of kata, before they saw no value, was the fact that if they practiced hard enough they learned the core principles of there art. And also the core principles of fighting itself and in some cases didn’t even know it. I came up through the ranks of GoJu in the early to mid 60s and as some of you old timers know there was not a whole lot of information around. There were12 kata with one way to do them and that is what you did. There were a lot of people that came back from Okinawa and opened dojos and taught what they knew and my Sensei was one of them. But what did the Okinawa’s teach them? In Okinawa the workouts were very hard and what you learned was taught very strict. When you would ask questions the answer was always “just train” Some dojos in Okinawa would spar but it was not the norm. Most of the older dojo just did kata and drills. Bunkai was kept very basic, but everything was very strict. In the eyes of a lot of the old masters sparring was a waste of time and kata was more important. In kata someone always died but in sparring you lived to see another day. In my early years in the USA we did a lot of sparring, I mean hard core, not bragging just telling you the way it was. Thursday was blood night and we sparred match after match and no matter who got hurt nobody quit. The rest of the week was kata and drills and to be honest with you they were like night and day. What we did in kata we didn’t do in sparring because it didn’t work. Now to my point, what we had in kata was a treasure of techniques that if we knew them at the time we would not have been able to use then anyway, just to darn dangerous. You see in Okinawa Goju as with other traditional arts you have a complete system from stand up to ground with joint locks and take downs. Did I enjoy sparring then “hell yes” do I enjoy kata now “hell yes”. Do I believe you need both as teaching tools yes, but not one over the other. Please remember “in every kata someone dies, is every sparring match you live to fight another day. Kataless karate, what’s the point.

 

[Carol]

Moderator Note:

Attention All Users

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.


Thank you,

- Carol Kaur -
- MT Moderator -

 

[Hand Sword]

Sorry for a late response (especially if it's been said already).

In terms of the question I would say Yes, skills flow from Kata execution. In general terms, You're practicing all of your basics while doing them, putting all of the elements together, rather than standing around in a horse stance, or moving in a choppy fashion while sparring. Practicing to apply your basics is what it's all about. The more you do it, the more comfortable and better you'll execute the basics. That's the real key in the overall picture. If it's a real self defense situation, there's already plenty of awkwardness, without any foundation to stand on. Being used to flowing from Kata practice, in the end doesn't hurt you. It's another tool to use. Think of it as shadow boxing. It works for boxers.

 

[tshadowchaser]

If you practice anything long enough you become proficient at it. Karta is no different than doing piano drills, or practicing double play drills in baseball, it is a practice drill that gives one the foundation and knowledge of movement combined with the muscle memory to execute without much or no thought. If one dose an exercise long enough the movements will eventually start to flow because you are familiar with the technique.

 

[exile]

Sorry for a late response (especially if it's been said already).

In terms of the question I would say Yes, skills flow from Kata execution. In general terms, You're practicing all of your basics while doing them, putting all of the elements together, rather than standing around in a horse stance, or moving in a choppy fashion while sparring. Practicing to apply your basics is what it's all about. The more you do it, the more comfortable and better you'll execute the basics. That's the real key in the overall picture. If it's a real self defense situation, there's already plenty of awkwardness, without any foundation to stand on. Being used to flowing from Kata practice, in the end doesn't hurt you. It's another tool to use. Think of it as shadow boxing. It works for boxers.

This is very apt, HS—very apt, especially in the historical setting where the kata were invented. In the original Okinawan setting where Matsumura, Itosu, Azato and other karate pioneers got their skills, the only way any techniques were transmitted was by the kata themselves. The kihon line drills through which virtually everyone in the West who learned MAs in the current era was taught—the bread and butter of dojo/dojang/studio teaching methods everywhere—were unknown. From all available accounts, including his own autobiography, Funakoshi's training for the first decade with Itosu consisted solely of practicing the Naihanchi kata set and working out their bunkai (even though Motobu didn't think much of Funakoshi's analysis and suspected that Itosu had withheld the most effective applications from him; but then again, Motobu seems to have loathed GF personally); where else would he have learned his techs from except Naihanchi?—that's all he had to work with! And as Abernethy notes, Motobu wrote in Okinawa Kenpo Karate-jutsu that `the Naihanchi, Passai, Chinto and Rohai styles are not left in China today and only remain in Okinawa as active martial arts'. The bolded material makes it pretty clear that these kata were not regarded as `parts' of a martial art, add-ons so to speak, but were thought of as complete stand-alone fighting systems on their own. In a way, `karate' corresonds to a general description (in much the same way that the generic term kung fu covers an enormous variety of specific CMAs regarded by their practitioners as quite different from each other.) And as Burgar points out in his book, `the fact is that before circa 1880 it was the norm for karateka to know a small number of kata. We also know that each master of karate was capable of defending himself. Therefore his one, two or three kata contained all of the knowledge that he would have needed to achieve that goal. This means that each kata (or small group of kata) was a `style' in its own right.' (p. 29). Motobu also mentions in the same 1926 book that `a master usually only had one kata in his style'. All this changed radically when karate was brought to Japan, taught to mass classes as part of a kind of calisthenics and discipline exercise to university students destined for military service, and broken up into individual, isolated techniques unconnected to the application sequences that they were originally constructed to communicate to the learner. That approach was the prototype for the current instructional model. But it's probably possible to reapproach, to some extent anyway, the earlier Okinawan teaching format.

So it seems to be the case that the kata we learn today, which are essentially just variants of the original Okinawan kata, contain the whole content of the fighting system. As Burgar argues at length in his book, they can be used as the entire core curriculum of a martial art—arts which were indended by their creators to be, first and foremost, effective fighting systems. So a full syllabus—including the use of throws, trapping and locking techs, nicely illustrated for example in Javier Martinez's book Okinawan Karate, which provides a number of photos of Funakoshi, Motobu, Chitose, Konishi and other great practitioners performing these techs both on their own and also in tandem with strikes—is already present in the kata.

One of the problems I see in current TKD is the backfeed from Olympic practice into training; a lot of time is spent drilling high, complex kicks, often with spins, that literally do not exist in any of the hyungs. People with heavy street-fighting/security work experience, such as Peyton Quinn, Loren Christensen, Geoff Thompson and Lawrence Kane, are unanimous in rejecting high complex kicks as practical street defense; as Gm. Pelligrini commented at one point in the seminar he gave this past weekend, when you're fighting at close quarters, which is where fights actually start, you simply cannot execute these kinds of kicks—you have no room! High kicks themselves are great for balance training; I do them (well, as high as as I can manage!) several hours a week. But the kicks that the hyungs themselves depict are typically middle or low kicks, and in realistic bunkai, of the kind that Stuart Anslow and especially Simon O'Neil offer, are unbalancing techniques, inflicting lower body limb damage, setting up the finishing strikes which are almost always hand/forearm/elbow techs. Competitors in poomsae competitions have been steadily increasing their height under the impression that higher is better, which doesn't always sit well with knowledgeable judges, according to my instructor. To the extent that training is going to be practical for street defense, it will look much more like kata/hyung-based techniques than sport-based, and one way to implement this would be to follow Abernethy's and Burgar's ideas about curriculum and make kata/hyung much more the basis of technical instruction than they currently seem to be.

If you practice anything long enough you become proficient at it. Karta is no different than doing piano drills, or practicing double play drills in baseball, it is a practice drill that gives one the foundation and knowledge of movement combined with the muscle memory to execute without much or no thought. If one dose an exercise long enough the movements will eventually start to flow because you are familiar with the technique.

Absolutely. One problem with practicing forms with this intent is worrying too much about how `pretty' the form looks when you do it. That I think interferes with training for effective application. It's like skiers who worry about keeping their skis locked together as though they were a snowboard, to create a `pretty' visual effect, when in fact stepping moves to correct your line and position yourself high in the gate are one of the three or four most important components of modern racing technique. Burgar and Abernethy both advise practicing kata as though you were applying the techs of each subsequence against an actual attacker engaged in as lifelike an assault as you can visualize, continuously until they become more like conditioned reflexes than the dancelike movements they start out as.