Examining Kata

[glad2bhere]

Dear Ed and Mike:

I truely love dicussions like this. Its the whole reason I can see why anyone would use the INTERNET when it comes to the field of MA. I think, however, I might need to tweak things a bit so I make sure we are talking about the same thing from the same perspective.

In the research that I do in Korean martial traditions the greater importance is not so much about the modifications in a specific biomechanic. For instance it matters to me not much if people kick with their toes or the ball of the foot, or whether a person kicks at all, for that matter! What matters to me is how people came to retain the information that they have. Indulge me for a minute, and I apologize in advance if this does not come across as clearly as it might were we in person. Though I am on shakey ground with Okinawan traditions please know that they have become the "lab" by which I hope to delve deeper into Korean evolution of the Korean traditions.

As mentioned, the various arts which proceeded from Funakoshi's material all tended to develop in different ways. Most discussion tend to focus on identifying those different ways by making note of the characteristics and how those characteristics change from art to art. I'm sure you have read many threads that move along these lines.

In my research, a more important study is what caused people to make the selections that they did.

For instance, if one were to view the pictures of Funakoshi performing his kata one would immediately note his straighter legs and higher stance. The lower and more elongated stances were introduced by his son and Nakayama. I'm not as concerned about the stances as I am about the motives that caused someone to modify the execution.

Another case is the much touted high kicking of the Koreans. Despite the fact that there is no documentation to support that Koreans kicks were any more numerous or higher than anyone else in the Asian traditions, Koreans have made much of the use of feet as definitive of their traditions. Why would they do that, do you suppose? I don't care about the kicks. I wonder about the motives that make such a decision viable in their eyes. Almost every tradition agrees that hands are for fighting and feet are for standing when it comes to combat.

Also, if I might be allowed, I would characterize Americans as a nation of "tinkers". I don't know of any child, male or female, who will not immediately tinker with anything given them in the cause of understanding it better or making it "better". I wonder how people come to determine that their "better" is truely an improvement. How was it that with so much publicity about doing what one's teacher did, that the fact is that every single generation makes subtle changes that they do not own for themselves but make them just the same. Are these things truely better? Is it just change for its own sake? Is it a way of putting a stamp of individuality on the result--- or on the original art? Take the BUBISHI, for instance. Exactly how was it that the information that is in that book came to be there? Why those techniques? Why those injunctions?

Sorry to babble. I'm wondering if any of this is making sense? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Old Dragon]

Dear Ed and Mike:

I truely love dicussions like this. Its the whole reason I can see why anyone would use the INTERNET when it comes to the field of MA. I think, however, I might need to tweak things a bit so I make sure we are talking about the same thing from the same perspective.

In the research that I do in Korean martial traditions the greater importance is not so much about the modifications in a specific biomechanic. For instance it matters to me not much if people kick with their toes or the ball of the foot, or whether a person kicks at all, for that matter! What matters to me is how people came to retain the information that they have. Indulge me for a minute, and I apologize in advance if this does not come across as clearly as it might were we in person. Though I am on shakey ground with Okinawan traditions please know that they have become the "lab" by which I hope to delve deeper into Korean evolution of the Korean traditions.

As mentioned, the various arts which proceeded from Funakoshi's material all tended to develop in different ways. Most discussion tend to focus on identifying those different ways by making note of the characteristics and how those characteristics change from art to art. I'm sure you have read many threads that move along these lines.

In my research, a more important study is what caused people to make the selections that they did.

For instance, if one were to view the pictures of Funakoshi performing his kata one would immediately note his straighter legs and higher stance. The lower and more elongated stances were introduced by his son and Nakayama. I'm not as concerned about the stances as I am about the motives that caused someone to modify the execution.



RESPONSE:
If you read Funakoshi's books (and I'm about to quote one, but right now cant remember specifically which one) he states that the " low stances are for exercise and you have to stand up to fight". (This is not an exact quote but it gives the basic Idea) This would lead me to beleive that he had used the low stances. They are also evident in other Okinawan styles. (Which is where Funakoshi came from as we all know). If you have ever trained with a "Horse stance" for example, you will find that repetitive drilling in this stance will improve balance and increase strength in the kicks. It is not hard to guess that since in the early days there was a minimum of equipment, such as we use today to strengthen our bodies, and therfore using techniques such as a low stance to establish balance and strength would be a practical technique to do this with. My guess is that as I have seen in many instances that because they were taught the kata with low stance, the assumption is that this stance is for combat. A straddle stance or "Horse stance" used in combat is much higher than a classical kata version of the same stance.


Another case is the much touted high kicking of the Koreans. Despite the fact that there is no documentation to support that Koreans kicks were any more numerous or higher than anyone else in the Asian traditions, Koreans have made much of the use of feet as definitive of their traditions. Why would they do that, do you suppose? I don't care about the kicks. I wonder about the motives that make such a decision viable in their eyes. Almost every tradition agrees that hands are for fighting and feet are for standing when it comes to combat.



Response:

This I have no clue about, I have never researched any of the Korean Styles other than the influence that Shorin Ryu has reportedly had on them.




Also, if I might be allowed, I would characterize Americans as a nation of "tinkers". I don't know of any child, male or female, who will not immediately tinker with anything given them in the cause of understanding it better or making it "better". I wonder how people come to determine that their "better" is truely an improvement. How was it that with so much publicity about doing what one's teacher did, that the fact is that every single generation makes subtle changes that they do not own for themselves but make them just the same. Are these things truely better? Is it just change for its own sake? Is it a way of putting a stamp of individuality on the result--- or on the original art?


RESPONSE:

First things first.... Martial Arts, and the method of learning them follows the Asian philosophy of constant work and patience. Repitition, Repitition, Repitition..... and with patience one will learn.

Now look at the North American, "Show me the results now" syndrome. I personally beleive that it is this impatience that has led to improvisation and changes such as you speak of. I have seen it and have experienced those with 10 years training in several different arts striking out to create their own style. Does this sound familiar?



Take the BUBISHI, for instance. Exactly how was it that the information that is in that book came to be there? Why those techniques? Why those injunctions?


My guess is that they were simply the tried and true methods of those who wrote it down.



Sorry to babble. I'm wondering if any of this is making sense? Thoughts?


Not a problem.... I can tend to ramble a bit myself when given the opportunity hahahah

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Mike O'Leary

[glad2bhere]

Yes, I originally assumed the same thing. To wit:Changes are made only because what material is modified to surpasses that which it was before. Now I am not so sure.

For instance, can one say that the reorganized Chinese traditions that produced the more gymnastic WU SHU or the more traditional practices was an improvement?

Is it the position of modern day practitioners that the traditions of Funakoshi were an improvement over what he learned from his teachers?

If a person does the movements of NAIFANCHI differently from the execution of another style is that because one style has some special insight that another may not? In like manner, if a person does SANCHIN with the hands closed rather than open, is there something at work here in the choice to do so, or is this merely an affectation?

Recently I was examining the aforementioned books and noted that the identical movement for all three executions carried with them three different suggested applications. Could the answer to my questions be something as simple as each teacher having in mind an alternate application for a movement and it would be the function that dictates the form rather than the form revealing the function as I had been lead to believe? And if this last staement were true, what became of the concept of blindly repeating what one's teacher has specified? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Old Dragon]

Yes, I originally assumed the same thing. To wit:Changes are made only because what material is modified to surpasses that which it was before. Now I am not so sure.

For instance, can one say that the reorganized Chinese traditions that produced the more gymnastic WU SHU or the more traditional practices was an improvement?

Is it the position of modern day practitioners that the traditions of Funakoshi were an improvement over what he learned from his teachers?

If a person does the movements of NAIFANCHI differently from the execution of another style is that because one style has some special insight that another may not? In like manner, if a person does SANCHIN with the hands closed rather than open, is there something at work here in the choice to do so, or is this merely an affectation?

Recently I was examining the aforementioned books and noted that the identical movement for all three executions carried with them three different suggested applications. Could the answer to my questions be something as simple as each teacher having in mind an alternate application for a movement and it would be the function that dictates the form rather than the form revealing the function as I had been lead to believe? And if this last staement were true, what became of the concept of blindly repeating what one's teacher has specified? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

But there are other influences also... such as in your two examples.

Nihanchi, Nifanchi, Tekki Shodan are basiclly all the same kata (I may have the wrong Tekki, but its one of those)

Several styles do this different. Some use a wider stance, some start left to right, some right to left. Try this for an influence. Its war time, Japan and Okinawa are very busy surviving... are they practicing kata? Probably not as much as they should, there kind of busy staying alive.

After the war, when the marines enter Okinawa and set up a base, they decide that paying the locals to teach the marines karate is a good way of keeping the boys out of trouble. Now suddenly everyone is a "Sensei" with a style of his own. Now training in isolation or being busy and not being able to train can cause some changes and mistakes. One guy looks at the other and says.... "Doesn't that start to the left?" No" says his buddy..... say.. tell them its a different style, they'll beleive that. this kata is a mirror image and does not change no matter which direction you start from . The stance variations are simply wider and lower, but the basic premis remains the same.

I know a bit sarcastic but not far from the truth. The wars, both first and second WW had a major influence on the countries and on the cultures. It would stand to reason that some of the martial arts could have been affected also. The scenario I sarcasticlly portrayed actually happened. I have talked to people who were on Okinawa at the end of the korean war, and the Viet Nam war and this is exactly what happened.

Remember also that as we personalize styles and kata so did the Okinawans, Japanese, Koreans, chinese and Malaysians. It is like whispering a phrase to the person standing beside you, by the time it goes around the circle it can be very different.

The two differences in Sanchin are meant to teach different things. Remember that Miyagi taught Sanchin as a conditioning kata, and to teach chinquichi and hip power. I'm not sure who changed what but that is how we ended up where we are.

There is no answer as to weather the changes were positive or negative. I do know this.... there are karate styles out there, or rather dojo out there that teach kata with little or no bunkai (application) weather these people were ever taught it originally or not is what we need to know to determine where the teaching fell down.

Dont forget that many of the Marines that brought back much of the martial arts styles only did one or two tours of duty during the conflicts, a tour of duty is usually 12 to 18 months...... you figure out the math.


Mike O'Leary