Logic of foot angles in sanchin dachi

[Same Trick49]

This is the kind of thing found in karate kata I feel is often neglected. My current instructor does a good deal of explaining how your legs affect the opponents structure as you change stances and such. Not very obvious stuff looking at kata, but once you start looking for it it's everywhere. Cool stuff.

Kung Fu Wang is a skillful shuaijiao(Chinese wrestling) master, “leg skills” such as “shin bite”, leg sweep , leg tripping, scooping…and so on…is a major part of the wrestling style, which the name of it also indicates .

As for karate, stories from the old masters in Okinawa tells how they used to participate in wrestling games competitions, so it would seem a correct conclusion that many of traditional karate kata would contain such exquisite leg skills too, sanchin stance and stepping show such leg skill quite clear, Naihanchi kata is another that clearly show wrestling maneuvers.
Yes it’s pretty cool stuff

As KungFu Wang points out these skills are often also neglected or even not understood in many Chinese martial arts too

 

[isshinryuronin]

Kung Fu Wang is a skillful shuaijiao(Chinese wrestling) master, “leg skills” such as “shin bite”, leg sweep , leg tripping, scooping…and so on…is a major part of the wrestling style, which the name of it also indicates .

As for karate, stories from the old masters in Okinawa tells how they used to participate in wrestling games competitions, so it would seem a correct conclusion that many of traditional karate kata would contain such exquisite leg skills too, sanchin stance and stepping show such leg skill quite clear, Naihanchi kata is another that clearly show wrestling maneuvers.
Yes it’s pretty cool stuff

As KungFu Wang points out these skills are often also neglected or even not understood in many Chinese martial arts too

I agree with your 1st and last paragraph. The middle one is the topic here.

While it's true that wrestling, tegumi, was an Okinawan folk sport/self-defense, I don't believe it substantially influenced the developing art of karate. This is not to say there isn't standup (mostly) grappling in the art, but whether it's tegumi based is debatable.

Most of the traditional karate kata were developed in China (including naihanchi, sanchin and Kusanku who's Chinese style provided the basis for the kata named after him) so Okinawan wrestling would have played little part. Being a rural folk art, it was popular amongst the lower classes while the early karate practitioners were of the aristocracy and studied fighting arts in China. It can't be ignored that kung fu has grappling in their various styles and can definitely be considered a major source of grappling in karate.

When you say the "old masters in Okinawa tell how they used to participate in wrestling games," the "they" may have been a general term and not them (the masters) specifically. It is possible that some of the pre-1900's practitioners engaged in tegumi as youths. This does not mean they integrated it into the karate "curriculum."

I have not read any account of any particular karate master studying/engaging in that sport/art. It's more likely that some judo/jiu-jutsu was incorporated into karate during the end of the 1800's and early 1900's. Indeed, whatever ground game (submissions) seen in karate resembles techniques from these arts. And possibly some grappling technique was independently developed by early karate practitioners (many who were professional enforcement officers).

At the beginning of this post, I used the word "substantially." Sure, it's possible some element of Okinawan wrestling made its way into karate's grappling - there is just no way to know for sure. But we can see influence from other more verifiable sources. It's all part of the obscure yet interesting history of karate.

 

[Same Trick49]

I agree with your 1st and last paragraph. The middle one is the topic here.

While it's true that wrestling, tegumi, was an Okinawan folk sport/self-defense, I don't believe it substantially influenced the developing art of karate. This is not to say there isn't standup (mostly) grappling in the art, but whether it's tegumi based is debatable.

Most of the traditional karate kata were developed in China (including naihanchi, sanchin and Kusanku who's Chinese style provided the basis for the kata named after him) so Okinawan wrestling would have played little part. Being a rural folk art, it was popular amongst the lower classes while the early karate practitioners were of the aristocracy and studied fighting arts in China. It can't be ignored that kung fu has grappling in their various styles and can definitely be considered a major source of grappling in karate.

When you say the "old masters in Okinawa tell how they used to participate in wrestling games," the "they" may have been a general term and not them (the masters) specifically. It is possible that some of the pre-1900's practitioners engaged in tegumi as youths. This does not mean they integrated it into the karate "curriculum."

I have not read any account of any particular karate master studying/engaging in that sport/art. It's more likely that some judo/jiu-jutsu was incorporated into karate during the end of the 1800's and early 1900's. Indeed, whatever ground game (submissions) seen in karate resembles techniques from these arts. And possibly some grappling technique was independently developed by early karate practitioners (many who were professional enforcement officers).

At the beginning of this post, I used the word "substantially." Sure, it's possible some element of Okinawan wrestling made its way into karate's grappling - there is just no way to know for sure. But we can see influence from other more verifiable sources. It's all part of the obscure yet interesting history of karate.

From interview with Hohan Soken -

“As a youngster on Okinawa (Soken), grappling was taken very seriously and it was not uncommon for individuals to suffer broken arms and legs as a result of taking part in this light form of entertainment. (Soken-sensei used the terms "te-kumi" (1) or "gyaku-te" (2) as identifying this old Okinawan art form)”

“Grappling is an old Okinawan custom that is commonly practiced in all villages. In America, the children played at "cowboys and indians." In Okinawa we played by grappling with each other. We would have contests for grapplers in every village and one village would pit their best grapplers against all comers. It was very exciting.

Some people see the grappling and call it Okinawan jujutsu but this is not right. It is the old method called "ti" (often written as ‘te.” When pronounced in the old dialect of Okinawa it sounds like the word "tea"). Ti practice was very common during the Meiji / Taisho era (turn of the century) but with the Japanese influences, these methods have almost disappeared.”

FightingArts.com - Interview With Hohan Soken: The Last Of The Great Old Time Karate Warriors ? Part 2

Also Gichin Funakoshi in his ‘ Karate-do, My way of life’ mentions how he regularly participated in wrestling games.

Choki Motubo mentions the same somewhere in his writings

——
Edit -



I should ad since you wrote judo/jujutsu may have crept in into karate practice, yes, some for sure, Gichin Funakoshi was good friend with Jigoro Kano, and it’s known they to some extent exchanged methods between them, the early editions of Funakoshis ‘ Karate do Kyohan”(I think it is?) he included throwing techniques similar to early Judo

 

[isshinryuronin]

From interview with Hohan Soken -

“As a youngster on Okinawa (Soken), grappling was taken very seriously and it was not uncommon for individuals to suffer broken arms and legs as a result of taking part in this light form of entertainment. (Soken-sensei used the terms "te-kumi" (1) or "gyaku-te" (2) as identifying this old Okinawan art form)”

“Grappling is an old Okinawan custom that is commonly practiced in all villages. In America, the children played at "cowboys and indians." In Okinawa we played by grappling with each other. We would have contests for grapplers in every village and one village would pit their best grapplers against all comers. It was very exciting.

Some people see the grappling and call it Okinawan jujutsu but this is not right. It is the old method called "ti" (often written as ‘te.” When pronounced in the old dialect of Okinawa it sounds like the word "tea"). Ti practice was very common during the Meiji / Taisho era (turn of the century) but with the Japanese influences, these methods have almost disappeared.”

FightingArts.com - Interview With Hohan Soken: The Last Of The Great Old Time Karate Warriors ? Part 2

Also Gichin Funakoshi in his ‘ Karate-do, My way of life’ mentions how he regularly participated in wrestling games.

Choki Motubo mentions the same somewhere in his writings
—
Edit -

I should ad since you wrote judo/jujutsu may have crept in into karate practice, yes, some for sure, Gichin Funakoshi was good friend with Jigoro Kano, and it’s known they to some extent exchanged methods between them, the early editions of Funakoshis ‘ Karate do Kyohan”(I think it is?) he included throwing techniques similar to early Judo

Very interesting article. I hadn't seen it before. Thanks for posting. Soken was perhaps the last bushi.

Still, the article does not definitely imply tegumi was a significant source of karate grappling. He speaks of it as a rather brutal rural youth activity as I mentioned in my post, and one he engaged in. Also mentioned was the art known as "ti," although he unfortunately doesn't make clear its relationship to tegumi. His use was a little confusing. My understanding is that ti is a generic term for native old Okinawan fighting and not a specific style. While it may have included some tegumi wrestling/grappling, it also included other types of techniques. Some of this is likely a part of karate.

No doubt native Okinawan fighting methods were included in karate's development. The question is how much of it was the wrestling. Soken mentioned tegumi was never systematized and so there would be little to no written info about it, and the same applies to ti. Very little written info of pre-WWII karate (and there was not much to begin with) survived. There were so many factors influencing early karate's development. Again, our TMA history is obscure.

Yes, Funakoshi did have throws in his karate before such moves were taken out by the gov't bureaucracy and reserved for judo. Wouldn't it have been great to have been in Okinawa in 1900 and studied toudi? If they would teach you, and if you could survive the training back then. So much was lost and changed since that time. I'm sure it was much different than today's karate. Probably less structured and with more variety of technique, as well as more deadly.

 

[Fungus94]

In AI, both the "breadth first search" and the "depth first search" will give you the same result.

If you don't account for time yes, but most real world infereces or searchers have limited computational resources and time. Often BFS is faster than DFS, because you may dig very deep in the wrong place, and it takes a long time to see. This is IMO the key issue.

 

[Fungus94]

Yes, THIS. I feel it's such a crucial part of development, getting quiet with yourself and really making it an experiential discovery. I feel that some teachers may even purposely  not express certain things, so that you develop your own intuitive and inquisitive ability to either problem-solve or discover things on your own. And then others may not really know it themselves and can't therefore teach it. But either way it doesn't overly matter. I feel it's important to take responsibility for our own journey, so with either way we still have the ability to own it and learn  how to explore and discover.

Martial arts can actually be a study in how to study. When it's all just given to us we miss something significant in our development. We can't put everything onto the teacher. Just like how people do the same with the guru and putting everything on them hehe. Taking what we learn from them and playing with it and finding ways to integrate it is our joy

I am all onboard with this, this is how I approach learning in general.

But as I am new to the MA journey, some of my questions has been to figure out of this style of learning, is also how MA master think. My first impressions was contrary, due to the "group teaching" and the somewhat rigid reference to style standards, made we wonder.

As I see it, this adds a deeper level of learning in the sense of..

Level 1 Learn HOW
Level 2 Learn WHY from some given paradigm (that you just accept)
Level 3 Understand WHY this paradigm is chosen

If you guys think this is no different in MA, then it makes me easier also "understand" instructors intentions in between the lines.

But I think in reality, or at least for me, the levels arent completed in sequence, there is an iterative process. And in particular for my personal way of learning I like to START to understand the paradigm, this is to have a form basis or a deeper CONTEXT of both the superficial HOWs and the intermediated WHYs. The reason is that the WHY is also superficial, unless you undestand why you have adopted the givin paradigm.

So in a certain way, the evolutionary perspetive. Level 3 is the starting point. This is why the beginner that tends to think alot (like me) are confused by starting at level 1.

 

[Cri70]

When it's all just given to us we miss something significant in our development.

I'm not sure about this.

As a student, you should absolutely be given all that you can be given by your teacher, if he's a good one. To do less than that it's just silly. Try to learn say math or physics with a teacher concealing information from you and all you'll see is way slower learning than otherwise.

There are two other factors, however: the first, the speed of learning is limited by your ability to munch it. The teacher can give you all the math in the world, but you can only learn at the speed determined by your brain (pretty well on average, to be said, if you apply yourself - but there's peak and valleys too). The joy of discovery is often when you finally understand what the teacher was telling you all along. That's a fantastic exercise for, after some practice, begin to understand and put together stuff that you are telling yourself - your own ideas.

The second - which applies to anything that requires mind-body coordination (so math ceases to be a good example here) is that for these specific sets of skill, there are a lot of things that cannot be told. Nobody can tell you how it feels to do something and the limit of sight is that a lot of the execution of any physical skill looks the same from the outside. This is the same limitation as watching videos or watching an instructor at the dojo in a multiple person class. All you can do is watch and watching is not enough.

That's where a one-to-one teacher can make a difference. He still can't tell you exactly how it feels, but words are powerful: he can hint, he can use metaphors, he can guide you on where to concentrate, where to put your focus first, he can use his own experience of errors and discovery to speed up yours (that's often the most powerful way).

Note that the fun of discovery is completely independent from receiving explanations (or not): that fun is in your individual understanding, not necessarily in being the first to understand. Of course, it's just as fun to find out things without anybody explaining anything. But no more fun (not to me at least) and, as learning goes, far, far slower.

 

[Kung Fu Wang103]

Nobody can tell you how it feels to do something and the limit of sight is that a lot of the execution of any physical skill looks the same from the outside.

If a teacher can't put words to describe his teaching, the teacher has some problem. Your research paper cannot be published if you can't prove everything you have said in your paper.

For example, to make a

- wrist lock work, you have to "raise your elbow and sink your wrist".
- head lock work, you have to "point your head lock elbow downward and make your opponent's face to touch on your chest".
- leg twist work, you have to twist your leg straight down (not horizontal).

IMO, everything can be explained clearly by words if you want to.

Old saying said, "The teacher would starve to die if he taught everything to his students". Not willing to teach is the problem.

My teacher used to say, "I will pay anybody $30,000 if they can answer the following 3 questions".

1. What is "guiding hand, covering hand, and trapping hand"?
2. What is "tie".
3. What is "3 sections control".

I always taught my students all 3 answers withing 1 year of training.

 

[_Simon_102]

I'm not sure about this.

As a student, you should absolutely be given all that you can be given by your teacher, if he's a good one. To do less than that it's just silly. Try to learn say math or physics with a teacher concealing information from you and all you'll see is way slower learning than otherwise.

There are two other factors, however: the first, the speed of learning is limited by your ability to munch it. The teacher can give you all the math in the world, but you can only learn at the speed determined by your brain (pretty well on average, to be said, if you apply yourself - but there's peak and valleys too). The joy of discovery is often when you finally understand what the teacher was telling you all along. That's a fantastic exercise for, after some practice, begin to understand and put together stuff that you are telling yourself - your own ideas.

The second - which applies to anything that requires mind-body coordination (so math ceases to be a good example here) is that for these specific sets of skill, there are a lot of things that cannot be told. Nobody can tell you how it feels to do something and the limit of sight is that a lot of the execution of any physical skill looks the same from the outside. This is the same limitation as watching videos or watching an instructor at the dojo in a multiple person class. All you can do is watch and watching is not enough.

That's where a one-to-one teacher can make a difference. He still can't tell you exactly how it feels, but words are powerful: he can hint, he can use metaphors, he can guide you on where to concentrate, where to put your focus first, he can use his own experience of errors and discovery to speed up yours (that's often the most powerful way).

Note that the fun of discovery is completely independent from receiving explanations (or not): that fun is in your individual understanding, not necessarily in being the first to understand. Of course, it's just as fun to find out things without anybody explaining anything. But no more fun (not to me at least) and, as learning goes, far, far slower.

Yes, well said. That's why I said when it's all just given to us. I never said the teacher should be aloof and not teaching. They absolutely should be teaching (and guiding) all they can offer. I guess my point is that it's crucial part of learning to step out from guidance and learn how to learn. There's something magic that occurs, and it develops a self-reliance and confidence that can't be given via the teacher.

And even in maths etc, they don't actually give you everything. They teach you formulas, gives you examples of application, and then allow you the time to actually apply it yourself in a variety of situations.

Your second point/factor is essentially what I'm referring to. There are many things that are not communicable, and moreso there's something significant in your own development when you dwell and play in that space of uncertainty. You learn to feel things, connect differently, apply in other ways.

It's not so much about just the fun of discovery, but about delving in and utilising your current skills in other ways that only can happen when you take responsibility. It doesn't slow learning but in my opinion deepens it. It DOES slow learning if you do this for a white belt/beginner haha.

Really really great points you make and I appreciate them. I'm definitely not saying we should just figure it out on our own. The teacher absolutely does need to guide, and yes words are very powerful. But at certain stages, I feel it develops other skillsets (how to explore, how to take responsibility, how to study) which are important

 

[Fungus94]

Yes, well said. That's why I said when it's all just given to us. I never said the teacher should be aloof and not teaching. They absolutely should be teaching (and guiding) all they can offer. I guess my point is that it's crucial part of learning to step out from guidance and learn how to learn. There's something magic that occurs, and it develops a self-reliance and confidence that can't be given via the teacher.

And even in maths etc, they don't actually give you everything. They teach you formulas, gives you examples of application, and then allow you the time to actually apply it yourself in a variety of situations.

Experience from physics: In particular teachers does not give you, and not always CAN, give you the deeper motivation for choices of paradigms etc. It's not that it is not possible, but that takes quite some extraordinary mastery and not just from the student, but from the teacher himself. This most regular lectures may not possess, or even care about. And they may dismiss questions in that directions, which risks discouraging students.

This the difference between a regular lecturer and a one of those few leading researcher in a field. I imagine this huge difference in mastery is similar to between a typical say 1 dan, instructor, and say a grand father of an art, that spent lots of time inventing things, becauase the not only knows HOW, he also more of the WHY questions; which gives superior conceptual "rooting" and understanding?

Every now and then, it happens that even the novice asks a very good question, and it would be nice it if it is not lost.

This is surely how it is in science, and I presume it is similar im MA? But only a few of the the best students ever get the chances to be teached by the masters. All others has to fill in more of the blanks.