27 September, 2013
The Spread of Misinformation
I have recently become increasingly aware of both my own naivete the spread of (mis)information on the internet as a whole. Without cited sources (which I try to do, but often fail at) one should treat such information with at least a dash of skepticism.
I modified an old post, found here:
to reflect one such change.
I apologize for any further misinformation spread on my part. I encourage others to increase their vigilance when dealing with popular legends, myths and theoretical connections that we wish to make.
Also, my apologies specifically to the author and teacher at Tsubokai, Alan Wolfenden. It is never my intent to post misinformation, so I encourage those who find something incorrect in my blog to point it out to me.
18 August, 2013
Quotes, Research, History, Training
Just a quick post to link to another great blogger, author and martial artist. His posts are often insightful and I would like to just highlight one of the latest. I am found of quotes, and this post has a great one.
The quote here is:
You can never cross the ocean until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.
Very true. What are you willing to lose sight of in order to attain that goal? And you must at some point leave the shore to venture out and find your promised land.
Another post I wanted to highlight from another wiser than myself, who studies the old school systems that formed modern karate. His training videos, skills, and knowledge speak for themselves.
This post highlights a couple of interesting ideas. The native grappling and arresting techniques inherent in karate (tuidi) are very likely linked historically to Japanese bujutsu. This opens a whole area of interest to me, as well as redefining what the origins of karate are and why it looks nothing like others arts in China and Japan - it is truly a synthesis of many.
13 August, 2013
Where to put what you add
This applies to many arts, as I have been looking at the kata list of many systems in the recent past.
I sometimes wonder why masters of the arts feel the need to create additional forms. Not that I don't understand the desire to add to the art, to add your own lasting impression. But why is it always the lower side of the curriculum - it is always for the most junior students.
Now, I can understand why this would be necessary, at least for the first few generations. After all, assuming that you learn from a battle hardened warrior, he is not necessarily a born teacher, nor does he necessarily have the basics organized in a way that is easiest to learn, or in escalating terms of difficulty. So as a student of such a teacher, you set about organizing what you have learned. Perhaps you take some of the easiest things and organize them towards the start of one of your new student's learning career. And then either you, or one of your students, starting adding forms to help in this. Perhaps, like Anko Itosu, you create forms for children starting to learn your system and arts.
But cut forward to modern day. Why create a new style, or keeping what you were taught, you decide to add to it. But you are not adding something missing from the system - a weapon, or technique, or skill set, or whatever you find isn't included. You add more to the lower end.
Is this done because the students are dumber than in your day? Or perhaps it is just because you start children younger and you need something even a 5 year old can do? If this is all just for children, why bother having adults learn this curriculum - it becomes irrelevant once you have the higher levels. For that matter, why bother having it for any one older than 12 - at that age they can easily begin learning the true art, and 5+ years of training puts then in a good position to prepare for blackbelt.
Or is it because you believe you need to add to the system, but you don't know or believe that you are capable of adding something more comprehensive? Or is it because you haven't learned anything so you don't know what to add? Or is it because you want to believe in your own image as a great and powerful martial artist?
I am not accusing anyone - this is all just a thought exercise on my part. It is relevant as I wonder if I will ever make a contribution to my own art. Something truly non-trivial. Something that adds depth or at least something not yet included natively. I could go and learn Indian stick fighting or Filipino dagger techniques, but would they mesh with what I know and do? The how of getting from point A to point B is interesting as a thought exercise.
Food for thought, as the saying goes.
I sometimes wonder why masters of the arts feel the need to create additional forms. Not that I don't understand the desire to add to the art, to add your own lasting impression. But why is it always the lower side of the curriculum - it is always for the most junior students.
Now, I can understand why this would be necessary, at least for the first few generations. After all, assuming that you learn from a battle hardened warrior, he is not necessarily a born teacher, nor does he necessarily have the basics organized in a way that is easiest to learn, or in escalating terms of difficulty. So as a student of such a teacher, you set about organizing what you have learned. Perhaps you take some of the easiest things and organize them towards the start of one of your new student's learning career. And then either you, or one of your students, starting adding forms to help in this. Perhaps, like Anko Itosu, you create forms for children starting to learn your system and arts.
But cut forward to modern day. Why create a new style, or keeping what you were taught, you decide to add to it. But you are not adding something missing from the system - a weapon, or technique, or skill set, or whatever you find isn't included. You add more to the lower end.
Is this done because the students are dumber than in your day? Or perhaps it is just because you start children younger and you need something even a 5 year old can do? If this is all just for children, why bother having adults learn this curriculum - it becomes irrelevant once you have the higher levels. For that matter, why bother having it for any one older than 12 - at that age they can easily begin learning the true art, and 5+ years of training puts then in a good position to prepare for blackbelt.
Or is it because you believe you need to add to the system, but you don't know or believe that you are capable of adding something more comprehensive? Or is it because you haven't learned anything so you don't know what to add? Or is it because you want to believe in your own image as a great and powerful martial artist?
I am not accusing anyone - this is all just a thought exercise on my part. It is relevant as I wonder if I will ever make a contribution to my own art. Something truly non-trivial. Something that adds depth or at least something not yet included natively. I could go and learn Indian stick fighting or Filipino dagger techniques, but would they mesh with what I know and do? The how of getting from point A to point B is interesting as a thought exercise.
Food for thought, as the saying goes.
21 July, 2013
Why is Suparinpei so great?
This post is long overdue - my apologies for those wondering what happened. To sum up the last few months I have been looking outside the blogging world and making connections, and taking a well earned vacation. I have also taken up some basic hojo undo exercises, which I find rewarding in their benefit as well as their simultaneous difficulty and simplicity. I have also been a little tired of blogging - not all of my thoughts are what I want to share, and they aren't what I want to embody. So why share negativity?
At any rate, I have been working on the below for a little while. Just a few thoughts for those with familiarity with karate or similar systems where solo forms comprise a significant part of practice. It also leads from my last post about the hierarchy of forms within a system.
The question on my mind recently has been: what makes any form the capstone of a system? And as a subset to that question, how many years of practice does it take to understand it? Karate is unique among martial arts in that it contains forms for combat which are largely misunderstood by most if not all. Even those with a solid background in their application do not understand all movements in all forms, and hence we often see masters (who founded their own schools!) puzzling over certain movements their entire lives. Somewhat like a physical koan. With this in mind, I must look to the form I have learned as the highest in our system - Suparinpei.
Now abstractly, a capstone to any system could be the hardest lessons to teach. The techniques require greater skills to apply successfully in a battle, but present a wider range of options and abilities in keeping with the core intent of the art. This is in keeping with Western educational theory, but is unlikely to be applicable to Eastern education methods.
The capstone could also consist of deadlier techniques, those which will unquestionably kill the attacker. The release of such techniques at a lower level would be irresponsible for any teacher without truly knowing a person for several years, possibly decades. This sounds a little too much like reserved special techniques only given to the chosen few. While it is a romantic notion and perhaps could even be the case in certain styles, it isn't as practical nor as likely. If such knowledge does die out, then it can be rediscovered. As the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun...
The capstone could also, like in some koryu, be those that are the oldest and most central to the system. They contain the intent of the style in the most simple and yet difficult to understand techniques to which you have been building over the course of your studies.
There could be more possibilities - if those reading this have any ideas, I would be glad to read them and increase my own knowledge further.
In regards to Suparinpei, it is said to contain the full syllabus of Goju Ryu. So perhaps one could see it as a recap or condensation of all other forms? If this is the case, then why include the others? IF this is the case, why isn't the form longer, or feature less repetition, so as to include a single defining technique/principle from each of the other forms in the style? This is also problematic when considering the history of the style - if some forms are newer than Suparinpei, or even older from a different style or lineage (eg: not of White Crane connected origin) how can Suparinpei encompass those forms and their lessons? If we accept that it only contains the lessons from Higaonna Kanryo Sensei, does it only encompass Sanchin, Seisan, and Sanseiryu? Moreover, there are records indicating that Suparinpei existed on Okinawa before Higaonna left to study in China. There was also at least a form of Seisan as well before Higaonna left. So where does this leave us?
The above were my thoughts in abstract about suparinpei. But after a lot of reading and training, I am beginning to discover more information and come to realize several things physically about this kata.
First, who am I to question this? I have made the beginner mistake of assuming that because I learned the form that I know it. I see the surface, but I have not really seen more than the surface of the form. With additional reading and study I have come to find an incredible amount of information in the simplest movements. The subtle body mechanics, turning, stepping, where you place your feet and how that hinders your opponent and makes your technique possible or more effective. The repetition in directions, the timing - I forgot the subtle science that is kata. This has caused me to go back and look at other forms as well - especially my favourite behind Suparinpei, Kururunfa. The opening has long bothered me, and the more I watch and learn and play, the more I come to think and understand and try. I understand more fully now why they say you could have all of your training in a single form and be complete.
As always, the way is in the training. Training means physical, mental and somewhat spiritual.
At any rate, I have been working on the below for a little while. Just a few thoughts for those with familiarity with karate or similar systems where solo forms comprise a significant part of practice. It also leads from my last post about the hierarchy of forms within a system.
The question on my mind recently has been: what makes any form the capstone of a system? And as a subset to that question, how many years of practice does it take to understand it? Karate is unique among martial arts in that it contains forms for combat which are largely misunderstood by most if not all. Even those with a solid background in their application do not understand all movements in all forms, and hence we often see masters (who founded their own schools!) puzzling over certain movements their entire lives. Somewhat like a physical koan. With this in mind, I must look to the form I have learned as the highest in our system - Suparinpei.
Now abstractly, a capstone to any system could be the hardest lessons to teach. The techniques require greater skills to apply successfully in a battle, but present a wider range of options and abilities in keeping with the core intent of the art. This is in keeping with Western educational theory, but is unlikely to be applicable to Eastern education methods.
The capstone could also consist of deadlier techniques, those which will unquestionably kill the attacker. The release of such techniques at a lower level would be irresponsible for any teacher without truly knowing a person for several years, possibly decades. This sounds a little too much like reserved special techniques only given to the chosen few. While it is a romantic notion and perhaps could even be the case in certain styles, it isn't as practical nor as likely. If such knowledge does die out, then it can be rediscovered. As the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun...
The capstone could also, like in some koryu, be those that are the oldest and most central to the system. They contain the intent of the style in the most simple and yet difficult to understand techniques to which you have been building over the course of your studies.
There could be more possibilities - if those reading this have any ideas, I would be glad to read them and increase my own knowledge further.
In regards to Suparinpei, it is said to contain the full syllabus of Goju Ryu. So perhaps one could see it as a recap or condensation of all other forms? If this is the case, then why include the others? IF this is the case, why isn't the form longer, or feature less repetition, so as to include a single defining technique/principle from each of the other forms in the style? This is also problematic when considering the history of the style - if some forms are newer than Suparinpei, or even older from a different style or lineage (eg: not of White Crane connected origin) how can Suparinpei encompass those forms and their lessons? If we accept that it only contains the lessons from Higaonna Kanryo Sensei, does it only encompass Sanchin, Seisan, and Sanseiryu? Moreover, there are records indicating that Suparinpei existed on Okinawa before Higaonna left to study in China. There was also at least a form of Seisan as well before Higaonna left. So where does this leave us?
The above were my thoughts in abstract about suparinpei. But after a lot of reading and training, I am beginning to discover more information and come to realize several things physically about this kata.
First, who am I to question this? I have made the beginner mistake of assuming that because I learned the form that I know it. I see the surface, but I have not really seen more than the surface of the form. With additional reading and study I have come to find an incredible amount of information in the simplest movements. The subtle body mechanics, turning, stepping, where you place your feet and how that hinders your opponent and makes your technique possible or more effective. The repetition in directions, the timing - I forgot the subtle science that is kata. This has caused me to go back and look at other forms as well - especially my favourite behind Suparinpei, Kururunfa. The opening has long bothered me, and the more I watch and learn and play, the more I come to think and understand and try. I understand more fully now why they say you could have all of your training in a single form and be complete.
As always, the way is in the training. Training means physical, mental and somewhat spiritual.
19 May, 2013
Order of Kata: Progression, Individual Needs, or the Way of the Disciple?
I have been thinking a lot about the order and progression of kata, specifically within the Goju system. Recently reading an article at Total Karate brought some of these thoughts to the forefront.
I have seen a lot of theories about the order and progression of kata within a system. Since I honestly don't have much of an opinion of the goju kata and their order (perhaps a case of being too close to see what is in front of me), I have been doing a lot of reading. I don't think that this was often written down in the past by others, as I have found scant resources dealing with this topic specifically, and definitely little to nothing from the older masters. I should note, I am still working through some older material at the moment, so there is still hope.
First, let's start off with some definitions. When I refer to order I refer to the order in which the forms are taught within a system. When I refer to progression this is an admittedly loaded term which is bundled with the assumption that there is an increase in difficulty or skill with later forms versus beginner forms.
Now for some theory. Why have more than one form in a system? Many of the arts are founded on a few principles which are supposedly recorded in a core form, usually the highest in the system. This form is said to contain everything in the school - by practicing this form you can see the basics that have been isolated for training specific skills in other forms or drills. For more on this line of thought, please see another post at Classic Budoka.
Another possibility is that the higher forms are more difficult. Perhaps as a beginner you must learn the most basic techniques that will help you survive. AS you progress, you can refine the technique into more subtle movements. In this progression, the later forms are more minimalistic and obviously more difficult. This has a certain logic to it that draws my mind to it - like learning in school, why start with calculus when you don't understand the basics of arithmetic? But logic nor my own tendencies necessarily dictate reality...
Another possibility is that you learn a form or two to gain the skills you need. Then you realize that something is missing, and in your research find it in another form. So you pick it up to round out your skills and strengthen your own weaknesses. So a form you learn later, and perhaps teach later, does not have any inherent difficulty or skill refinement that is a progression from earlier forms, but rather a new set of skills that are equally important for someone with only the preceding forms as a basis.
Here is a fact for thought: some masters reportedly had a favourite kata. I have had favourites at each belt level, and it has changed as I learned new forms. Shishochin at shodan, seisan at nidan, kururunfa at sandan, and now suparinpei at yondan. Does this reflect a modern ADHD-esque behaviour compared to the stalwart and dogged determination of past practicitioners? Or is there perhaps little difference between forms and it is up to the karateka to determine where they should spend their time?
As a comparison, here are the core forms of Goju as learned in my lineage:
Kyu belts
- Taikyoku kata - gedan, chudan, jodan (additional taikyoku crop up throughout the ranks)
- Gekisai ichi
- Gekisai ni
- Sanchin
- Tensho
- Saifa
- Seiunchin
- Sanseiryu
Yudansha
- Shisochin
- Seisan
- Seipai
- Kururunfa
- Suparinpei
I should note that Seipai and Kururunfa are both learned together at Sandan in preparation for Yondan.
And here is a breakdown from Miyagi Chojun in his article Historical Outline for Karate-Do, Martial Arts of Ryukyu:
- Junbi Undo - preparatory exercises for building strength and flexibility for basics.
- Kihon Kata - basic forms, specifically listing Sanchin, Tensho and Naihanchi.
- Hojo Undo - supplementary exercises to develop muscles, bones, ligaments, fascia to support martial activities and explosive power required.
- Kaishu Kata - all forms except the kihon.
- Kumite - where the application of the kaishu kata is unbound from the kata.
The category of kaishu kata is left pretty open, likely to include Shurite as well as Nahate school forms. At the time of this writing, Miyagi was heavily involved with the Okinawan Karate Study Group and there was a lot of agreement between the masters that the different forms of karate were immaterial, they were all one at heart.
I should also note that there are stories from different students of Miyagi that indicate different kata were taught to different people at different times. So was it a matter of flavour of the month (or year or cycle) or was there a method to the madness? Did some students show predisposition towards certain forms than others? And what are those factors, so that we may today know which forms we could study from to gain the most benefit before moving on?
Finally, here is a list of the forms I have seen listed in other schools. I believe this is a generic listing, but it may well trace to a single student of Miyagi.
Kihon
- Sanchin
Kaishu
- Gekisai ichi and ni
- Saifa
- Seiunchin
- Shisochin
- Sanseiryu
- Seipai
- Kururunfa
- Seisan
- Suparinpei
Heishu
- Tensho
Here is a quick list from the Shuri side of things - the 15 kata of early Shotokan, before they started going nuts with them:
- Pinan 1-5 (Heian)
- Naihanchi 1-3 (Naifanchi, Tekki)
- Kushanku (Kanku)
- Passai (Bassai)
- Seisan (Hangetsu)
- Wanshu (Enpi)
- Chinto (Gankaku)
- Jitte
- Jion
Before completing this article, I broke down and asked my Sensei. His answer was simple. That was the order that it was learned by a sensei further up the lineage, so that was the order it was handed down. While this doesn't invalidate the above, it does put this line of reasoning into perspective. Perhaps it really doesn't matter, and I am making a mountain out of a mole hill. My own studies should continue, despite this information. The way of study is to find your own way?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)