Interesting idea. Question, though. If we're going to discuss a kata and its original applications, do we want to discuss the kata as performed in a more "modern" style (e.g. Shotokan's version of tekki) or the kata as performed during the time in which the applications we believe are true were developed?Originally posted by Jason Ward
I would suggest that one should look at the inherent principles within those forms, (that support the laws of nature), and then begin to look at the transmission of those forms from one cultural society to another. Taking into consideration the environment, Sociological patterns of that time, and of course the individuals mentioned, we can explore this idea more fully. Since the book is about Shotokan, why don’t we take a form from Shotokan and perform this experiment right here and now, and dissect it.
Tekki, since we've brought up the subject, was performed in Naihanchi-dachi, which was much higher and more similar to sanchin-dachi than the horseback-riding stance in which it is now performed. That stance allowed for more mobility, and was a more inward-tension stance, as well as a close-combat stance. (e.g. designed to prevent you getting kicked in the goolies as easily in close) So current applications that make use of the wide, low stance may not be valid with the older stance. Moreover, it just doesn't make sense to me to face an opponent in a widelegged stance in which your weak line points DIRECTLY at him, as does your groin. Sounds like a recipe for rolling around on the ground screaming to me.
So, do you have to assume a rectilinear battlefield where all attacks come in on the standard right, left, front, behind vectors, or are 45 degree attacks admissible? The stances seem to indicate that 45 degree attacks are better, simply because the standard ones all come in where the stance is weakest.
Just my two cents