Kodoryu
Hi all (Jim didn't know you were the moderator here!)
I am a student of Nathan Johnson and instructor for Kodoryu Brighton. Any criticisms, comments or questions on Nathan's work or the Kodoryu practise I would be interested to hear and talk about.
And for those that might be interested there will be a day course on Kodoryu's controversial applications of Naihanchi in Brighton on the 12th of November pm me if anyones interested.
I look forward to some healthy debate!
Tom
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/25/06 08:09 AM
Looking forward to seeing you on the 12th Novmber Tom,
if you havent already put an announcement in the relevant section.
Information on Ko-do Ryu can be found at -
http://www.kodoryu.com/instructors.phpThe system is very different from the mainstream of thought and should promote some healthy debate!
Posted by: CVV
Re: Kodoryu - 10/25/06 04:36 PM
Checking upon the website, I found the following statement
Quote:
Kobudo Kata in their Original Chinese Forms
Ko-do Ryu practices the following three Kobudo kata in their original manner:
Open-handed Sanchin
Seisan
Sanseirui
The kata above can be found in Uechi Ryu, a major Okinawan Karate style in which they are considered to be 'empty hand' that is, weapon-less kata. These three kata were later modified for inclusion in the Okinawan Goju Ryu Karate style, and subsequently their original functions have been obscured.
The bunkai (application) of the Kobudo kata practiced by Ko-do Ryu, are applied for civil arrest and employ the use of weapons, namely a pair of Sai, against an offender armed with a Staff. The Sai are used to disarm and subdue the offender and not to stab.
It is correct that these kata are found in Uechi ryu. But they have not been modified to be used in Goju ryu.
Kanei Uechi learned Pangainoon from Shu Shi Wa and learned these 3 kata in the way he performs them.
The origin of the Goju ryu sanchin seisan and sanseru are not exactly known. Kanryu Higashiaonna learned forms from Southern China (Fuzhou) through probably Ru Ru Ko and Wai Xing Xiang. Furthermore, these forms were already known before Higashiaonna went to China (Seisho Aragaki, Kojo family) and they were probably linked to monk fist or 5 ancestor style. The Toon ryu version (Kyoda Juhatsu) of sesan comes from Kanyo Higashiaonna (nephew of the other) who learned it from a different source in China than Kanryo Higashiaonna. Chojun Miyagi places the origin of Goju ryu in a style imported from China in 1828. There are many versions of these kata in China and Okinawa and stating that the kata originate from Uechi ryu and are then modified for Goju ryu is incorrect.
I do believe that the weapons arts and the empty hand arts are deeply related and probably were trained together in older times. They influenced each other greatly and when analysing the techniques, you see the relation immediatly. However the assumption that sesan or sanchin or sanseru are originally sai kata is something I cannot support, and this for 2 reasons :
1. These kata originate from China's civil fighting arts. To my knowledge, the sai are not used in China's civil fighting arts. Today, the sai are only known in Okinawan arts. But they have certainly been imported from somewhere outside Okinawa (probably India) because there is no iron on Okinawa. Probably introduced through Chinese military in 15th - 18th century. They were used by the Okinawan 'police' known as 'Chikusaji'.
2. In Okinawan kobudo, the fighting principle with sai was to use three. Two for throwing and one for fighting. They are sold in pairs but used per threesome.
I agree the use to subdue or disarm an offender and that mostley they were trained against bo. But one of the basic principles was to throw sai. From the presentation of sanchin on the website, I cannot see this principle, although from every Okinawan sai kata I have seen, this principle of throwing the sai is shown.
However the simularity in technique both with sai and open hand, makes the display of the form with the weapon acceptable as training. Yet I do not believe that the kata's intentions are withing the use of sai. Karate in the form known today did not derive from kobudo or vice versa. They were, I believe developped in paralel and influenced each other but not in way like Aikido where the weaponless forms are derived from the sword forms.
Both Uechi ryu and Goju ryu only inherited three kata from China, Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseiru. They both come from the same source. All the historical evidence and research for this is clearly laid out in Nathan Johnson's book "The Great Karate Myth".
Do you have any evidence that the sai were not used in China because again in the same book the evidence is layed out that they were.
As for three sai being used and throwing sai that is an Okinawan development. The Sai are not a battlefeild weapon they are a disarming/restraint tool much along similar lines of the Japanese Jitte. Throwing a Sai to any effect is very difficult.
"In Okinawan kobudo, the fighting principle with sai was to use three. Two for throwing and one for fighting. They are sold in pairs but used per threesome."
This may be the case in Okinawan Kobudo but not in the Chinese Civil arrest tradition.
Posted by: CVV
Re: Kodoryu - 10/25/06 05:58 PM
Well, my answer than is that Nathan Johnsons view is not the only one and certainly not the only thruth. But I base that on your comments as I have never seen the book.
There is some controversy in to what Kanryu Higashiaonna learned and thaught. Some say he only thaught 4 kata, sanchin sesan sanseru and pechurin. However Motobu Choki states in his book Watashi no toudi-jutsu (1932) that sanchin seisan and pechurin are kata handed down from the old Ryukyu kingdom (=before 1879, before Kanryu Higashiaonna came back from China and certainly before Kanei Uechi came back from China). The reference of origins of Goju-ryu from 1828 comes from Miyagi's Gaisetsu (1934).
Now it could be that the origin of these kata in China is from the same source but then you have to dig back very deep. Up till now nobody came up with the mother version of sanchin or sanseru or sesan. In fact P Mccarthy states in his bubishi translation that these kata's are found in crane boxing as well as tiger boxing as monk fist boxing as well as dog boxing etc... all in different forms/techniques/patterns.
There is some very interesting information around the origin of the Goju kata's in the Meibukan magazines (
www.meibukanmagazine.org )
The information about importing the sai from Chinese military sources comes from a book of Kenyu Chinen 'Kobudo d'Okinawa' a student of Shinpo Matayoshi. Up till now I have not seen a Chinese civil fighting system that uses the sai as a weapon. Sai in the form as used in Okinawa, not to be confused with nunti (also called manji sai). If you can name such a system I am happy to have that information so I can research on it.
Throwing a sai to any effect is not that difficult with a bit of training. I throw them through 2 tatami into the third when throwing downward. I never said that they are a battlefield weapon, just that they were imported by Chinese military. As you know, Okinawa did not engage in war since the 14th century up till WWII. So the military would not teach battlefielmd applications, rather civil restraint applications. Okinawa did not have an army, it was under protection of the Chinese.
So I agree that they are a restraining weapon but one of the main applications in Okinawan kobudo is to throw them into your adversary. Evidence to that statement is for instance in the book 'The Weaponless Warriors' by Richard Kim in the story about Itosu Yasutsune who lived in the 19th century.
The link with the Japanese jitte is far stretched. No Okinawan kobudo authority has ever linked the sai to jitte to my knowledge.
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/25/06 06:18 PM
possibly worth noting - re sai in Chinese arts.
In the book Shaolin White Crane Kung Fu (a rare art revealed) by Lorne Bernard,
There is a picture/text in the weapons section of double sai use by the late Grandmaster Lee Kiang-Ke of I believe the Flying Crane tradition currently headed by Lee Joo-Chian (Malaysia).
It clearly states that within the system there are a number of sai forms and 2-person sets.
On the back cover it shows the author using sai in what can only be described as a basic kihon of our karate kobudo practise,
Make what you wish of that I guess!
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/25/06 06:20 PM
Thats the same as my understanding CVV. because I'm in a hurry to finish cooking dinner, I'll just say bluntly: I disagree with many of Mr. Johnson's theories.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/25/06 06:46 PM
Kodobrighton2006
Not quite accurate.
Uechi Ryu and Goju are more "sister" systems rather than being the from "the same source" unless you mean that as in generic from the same region/city of China.
They probably looked even more alike back in the day than they do now----and neither looks as much like extent systems in China today. (close but not exact)
But there seems little to evidence to think that were the same "style" and a great deal to suggest a more likely siutaion of them simply being closely related.
Another of the "sister" systems--also claiming direct decent from RyuRyuKo is Ruei-ryu wich is close, but certainly not exact in terms of kata/tech/methodology with Goju and Uechi--and like them it has some very real diffrences.
Plus, Goju got more than 3 kata from China--with the exception of Tensho and the Geikisai series all of the Goju kata are Chinese.
In fact, all or most of the Okinawan kate are of Chinese origen---the more so since just about all the "who's who" of the old time masters either studied there, or trained directly under the folks that did.
Having not read or seen the book you reference its impossible for me to comment on its accuracy--but if contains things that fundamentally contridict the "canon" as it were--I would expect there to be considerable proofs presented.
Can you steer me in the direction of where I might find a copy/website that deals directly with its conclusions????
You said yourself you have not read Nathan's book it is all explained in detail in there.
As for most of the Okinawan Kata being from China can you prove it? please provide some evidence and sources. Which Kata please are you talking about?
"Plus, Goju got more than 3 kata from China--with the exception of Tensho and the Geikisai series all of the Goju kata are Chinese."
Thats a big statement can you please list the Kata and their sources? Because I see no eivdence to suggest that any other kata in goju ryu except Sanchin,Seisan and sanseiru came from a Chinese source. The rest appear to have been made up by Chojun Miyagi.
Posted by: Shonuff
Re: Kodoryu - 10/25/06 07:30 PM
Just a quick question.
What makes Mr Johnson think the applications he has for his kata are the only original and correct applications and what constitutes proof of this claim?
And no I'm not buying anymore of his books, Barefoot Zen was more than enough.
Posted by: butterfly
Re: Kodoryu - 10/25/06 07:40 PM
No offense intended, but I always take exception to anyone or any style, especially one that doesn't offer overtures to current classical organizations and states that they are the sole repository of "exact" knowledge.
This is quoted from the site:
Quote:
Organisation
The Classical Karate and Kobudo Association was formed in the early 1990's to investigate and research precise and definitive applications for the various kata (solo choreographed forms) as practised by the various Okinawan 'Martial Arts' schools.
Based on unfunded research conducted by martial arts historian, Nathan J Johnson and his colleagues, the classical kata and their precise applications backed by hard evidence are today only practised by members of Ko-do Ryu. These findings are published in 'The Great Karate Myth - Unravelling the Mystery of Karate'.
Well I regret to say for those who don't want to buy the new book all the answers are in the new book! "The Great Karate Myth" and it is not stated anywhere that his answer are the only ones which are right or valid. Alot of evidence drawn from alot of sources such as Patrick Mccarthy, Donn Draeger, Shoshin Nagamine to name a few are drawn on in the book. Things have changed alot since Barefoot Zen in Nathan's understanding and research that is the nature of research! He is also the first to admit that some things were wrong in Barefoot Zen. Nathan Johnson does not claim to have all the answers nor does any member of Kodoryu, but the theories and evidence are very strong and evry convincing for anyone prepared to take a good serious look at them.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/25/06 07:57 PM
wow! ALL the secrets in one book!
you be smellin what I be smellin?...{sniff}{sniff}...
A-Gen-Da! blanketed in a recycled hot pocket of steaming B.S.
Posted by: butterfly
Re: Kodoryu - 10/25/06 08:04 PM
And I'll quote again.
Quote:
the classical kata and their precise applications backed by hard evidence are today only practised by members of Ko-do Ryu.
So by implication, others are not practicing "precise applications."
Why is it that those who profess to have "the way" are always willing to share the secrets if you buy a book?
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/25/06 08:20 PM
it's gets even more suspect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsXj8NJHSxgbrainstormed idea: lets take uechi ryu kata (which is a rarety in the UK, so now the brits have been scrambling for it in the past decade) and add kobudo weapons to it...and lets say we do it that way, because kata is intended for weapons. ...that outta sell.
{shakes his head and walk away}
the power!! the speed!!, the dynamic hip movement!!, the intense look in his eyes!!!
he might not know karate, but he sure knows ka-razy!!
lack of technique = no money from a dojo
however!
lack of technique backed by a conspiricy theory that your the best by default = a sure thing.
wow, that was a harsh post.....i must be a real jerk, or sick of guys selling there books over there ability to teach.
right boys, sorry to be the bearer of bad news here, but i've just been exposed to "revolutionary" new information in the karate world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL2RVgR91ME&mode=related&search=so enough of that old makiwara and iron body training guys, we now all strictly use old school knives and wrestle.
thems the brakes. says this guy anyway, and hes got 20 years training, wait....victor?, how long have you been at this game? what are you waiting for!! go get interviewed and get your face on tv!!
Posted by: CVV
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 01:15 AM
Quote:
You said yourself you have not read Nathan's book it is all explained in detail in there.
As for most of the Okinawan Kata being from China can you prove it? please provide some evidence and sources. Which Kata please are you talking about?
"Plus, Goju got more than 3 kata from China--with the exception of Tensho and the Geikisai series all of the Goju kata are Chinese."
Thats a big statement can you please list the Kata and their sources? Because I see no eivdence to suggest that any other kata in goju ryu except Sanchin,Seisan and sanseiru came from a Chinese source. The rest appear to have been made up by Chojun Miyagi.
To list one source. Choki Motobu in Watashi no toudi-jitsu (1932). Sanchin useishi seiunchin seisan pechurin are all from China and apperantly still practised there. However it is said that naihanchi (tekki) bassai chinte chinto wanshu rohai kusanku no longer exist in China.
This implies that the Okinawan's once placed them as coming from China. His teachers from where he assumes this information are among the karate myths of the 19th century like bushi Matsumura, Matsumora Kosanku, Ankoh Itosu.
Other known versions of kata also practised in China today are happoren niseishi nepai sepai jutte. (reference Mccarthy and a training session with shaolin union student some years back).
I am off to Belgium so will try to answer responses when I get back. At the end of the day as I have already said the book does not cliam to have all the answers but it is the result of a serious amount of research. There is no point arguing with people who are not prepared to even look at the research. Even if people agree or disagree it doesnt matter because it provides a whole new perspective. And for those like Ed Morris who seldom have anything productive to say just dont bother!
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 05:50 AM
Ok Good people,
I have met and trianed with Tom and Nathan Sensei, they are very good karateka and martial artists, Ko-Do Ryu is a very interesting system of karate and should be looked at with an open mind.
Of course I accept that the Ko-Do Ryu presentation is rather dogmatic at times, lets just get over that shall we,
I also accept that Nathan Sensei is in the business of selling books and building an organisation, lets get over that as well.
Keep the digs and insults down please and try and discuss the topic at hand as adult karateka or don't bother posting on the thread, it really is that simple.
One thing I am absolutly sure of is that the mainstream karate 'view' is extremly inaccurate in many areas, presented history is generally not accurate and the general technical understanding of karate is generally very poor,
Nathan Sensei should be applauded for his efforts as he questions things the masses follow blindly.
Tom as a starting point it may be worth taking the time to outline the background training and grades of the Seniors at Ko-Do Ryu, and of course specifically Nathan Sensei.
This would help people understand the credability of the ryu in a more conventional manner.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 07:41 AM
I'm not 'productive' to what? someone's book sales?
To claim to know undocumented history as 'fact' is more unproductive and disservice than someone calling that fact out.
critical thought is never personal, and while poking fun at times even when self-inflicted, no disrespect to anyone intended. have a safe journey.
Posted by: Shonuff
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 08:56 AM
I am happy to discuss. I like discussion. I don't like salesmen. The Ko-do website states
"the classical kata and their precise applications backed by hard evidence are today only practised by members of Ko-do Ryu."
What is the evidence?
I would love to hear it but I refuse to buy the book and I personally feel that refusal to openly discuss such a claim can only be a sales tactic.
Another question: What do you (your group) define as Karate in the context of the great myth?
I ask because a research group I signed up to a while back defined Karate only as Shuri-te based systems descended of Matsumura, thus excluding such systems as Uechi and Goju ryu and all their kata/methods.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 11:12 AM
Kodo
Ok, follow me here bro.
1-YOU made the oginal claim concenring the kata--so the burden of proof is on YOU.
Do YOU have any evidenice that only 3 of the goju kata are actually chinese?
See, I don't have to prove you wrong--YOU have to prove your right.
2-I'll start siting sources when YOU do.
All you have done so far is repeat what you claim one book said.
And you don't even quote that book directly, you just say "that what it says."
3-If Miyagi "made them up" then please explain how K. Higaonas first teacher Aragaki was demonstrating them before Miyagi was even born????
4-Think it thu there slick, nearly every "name-guy" in Okinawan karate trained in China at one time---what were they learning there????
5-Again, please prsent the text in question or where I can find an on-line copy so I can see for myself the quality of the work.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 11:28 AM
Shoshinkan
I'm not questioning the skills or the seriousness of Kodo or his people.
Am questioning his conclusions.
Personally I have been around the block a time or two in my 20 plus years of training, know a bit about the history and background of karate first hand.
And what claims he makes do not "jive" with my personal experiences.
On a more professional level, as someone that knows quite a bit about research methodology, formal agumentation, formal logic, rhetoric etc.
The posits he has presented so far are the worst kind of poor reasoning--he does even do proper source cites.
Not having the book here, I cannot comment on its veracity--but speaking professionally, if Kodo is an example of its tone and what it considers to be valid reasoning, then I really don't think I can justify buying it.
ALWAYS interestd in learning more about the history of the art, ALWAYS interestd in frank, detailed discussion about peoples ideas, opinions and theory.
I can do without the ire and venom of a person with a pet theory that has more holes in it than they thought.
Or the anger of a person whose too emotionally invested in a research project to be able to discuss its shortcomings rationally.
I get enough of that here at work.
They indeed may be great guys--I see no reason to think that would be anything BUT great guys.
That however, does make them right.
Great guys--even highly skilled great guys can still be very, very, mistaken.
dose it even matter any more what the kata were orioginally intended for? i mean honestly?, i get out of them what i want, im sure wel all do. i don't need to give that guy a nickel to tell me some hair brained conspericy theory about why the kata's meanings were hidden or forgotten or lost.
i hope his students enjoy there time with him, 20 years expirence usually means that he knows a thing or two. i really do think that his books are just a gimick to make money, let my flaming begin!!
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 11:48 AM
Ah don't get me wrong I disagree with most of Nathan Sensei conclusions,
my point is that their work is very good, and very usefull.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 11:57 AM
Shoshinkan
As karate-ka I'm sure that they/it are quite valuable.
As researchers however, not nearly so sure.
Posted by: butterfly
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 12:01 PM
Jim,
I am confused by your statement. You disagree about the "conclusions," yet you consider their work "very good, and very useful." Why?
Are you considering their research faulty, but their technical ability sufficient? The focus of the discussion I thought was outside the ken of "ability" and was focused on research that would direct one to accurate conclusions. If the conclusions are inaccurate (in your opinion), how can you find the work "good?"
On the other hand, if you are suggesting that by just swirling things up a bit, this offers pointed discussions without accurate presentation of history to inform their conclusions, are you stating that the work is good because it showcases what you perceive as accurate by its opposition?
Sorry, but I don't get it. The questions were always aimed at veracity of research and explanation, not technical proficiency.
-B
Posted by: Gavin
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 01:00 PM
Howdy Tom!
See your still fighting the good fight! Wonder as you've been back in the Country are you going to take Mr Rowe up on his offer to show his "interpretations" of the kata's?
Anyway we've been through all my opinions on Kodo Ryu stuff and Jim will tell me off if start up here. Anyway nice to see the arguements of the battle haven't changed... merely the battle ground. Where's the next planned battle to be staged? martialartsplanet, e-budo or perhaps Bullshido (you'd have fun there!).
Welcome to the forum! A good luck with the agenda... ooops I mean research! Sorry, only joshing!
Gav
PS. I still ain't buying the theory or the book though!
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 01:18 PM
Hi Butterfly,
LOL, yes I guess my point of view is an odd one.
OK I shall be clear this time, I got alot out of Barefoot Zen, a mixture of Nathan's Sensei point of view and hard fact was most interesting to me.
The Great Karate myth is IMO one of the best researched books around, reading through it I found very interesting for the same reasons as above.
However the conclusions I disagree with but the works themselves are superb.
Having met and trained with Ko-Do ryu people I found their karate to be very good indeed so I guess im supporting their efforts perhaps more than I normally would.
A few years back I found the rather strange ability to get along with people and accept them even when I think along different lines!
I guess it's called an open mind.
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 01:21 PM
LOL Gav,
Keep it polite mate and battle away, Tom Sensei posted here so its free for all as far as im concerned.
It does trouble me a little that many discount Ko-Do Ryu as a load of gibberish withoubt looking at their work though.
I shall lend the book and dvd your way Gav so you can have a look, I might even give you back the stuff you let me then as well
Personally I enjoy and find use in what they do,
Posted by: Gavin
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 01:37 PM
I'm staying out of this one mate, said what I think of the theory before. Just getting a tad bored of seeing stuff being argued over and over with Tom saying "Well you can't argue coz you've not bought Nathan's Book and DVD boxset... available from all good martial arts stockists!". Come on, he's got to be on commission ain't he?
Sorry....
Posted by: butterfly
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 01:40 PM
Jim,
I have no problems with getting along with other folk either. Generally, I play well with others---at least that was what my grammar school report card said.
My point is that no one attacked the messageer, though perhaps he perceived it this way. It was always a consideration of the message.
If the message is inaccurate, whether in argument or conclusion, it is still inaccurate. If it is accurate, it is accurate.
The point being, is that if one posits something, you have to offer up evidence to support that contention. If you don't, then it begs the question of brining it up-- and of course you suffer the pointed statements of those circling that post. None of whom necessarily dislike the messenger. After all, we can only go by what anyone writes.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 01:54 PM
Gavin
You raise a good point though.
I was involved in a series of formal debates with a wacky disciple of an even more wacky college professor.
Dude kept citing a work that nobody had ever read--all the while yelling how a copy of the work from the professor himself--posted by the professor in question, on the professors OWN website was "not any good."
Kept insisting that we needed to BUY a copy--readily available from his website of course
I'll probably end up tracking a copy down and getting it anyway--I bought Shotokans Secret after all.
Just based on what I am hearing so far--not feeling that its going to be money well spent.
Like I said before, I don't knwo the guy, his school or his teaching.
People who's opinions I respect--such as Shoshinkan, speak well of him as a karate-ka.
And that carries weight.
From a reseach point of view however, I'm not much convienced by what I have heard so far.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 02:07 PM
Please don't take this wrong but your Johnothan Sensei way or book is not written in stone. As a Naha-te base practictioner my studies show and my Sensei taught Goju-ryu and Uechi-ryu development from different origins. So you have two separate arts though slightly similar. I will say that Sanchin was originally a totally open hand form. But Hagashionna's Sanchin was always slightly different then Uechi's.
As mentioned by CVV the Sai can be seen in classic Kubodo kata as a throwing instrument/weapon. It can be used against various other weapons and originally they had sharp points some of mines have sharp points and were used like mini sword slashing and stabbing, along grasping and everything else. Not just as arresting or detention tool. It also can be seen used in several of the Tiger kwoons (and in some of India schools) they practice Sais though its called by their Chinese name.
Its obvious those 3 kata origined from China but by the time Hagashionna and Uechi brought forth their system there were several version being performed on Okinawa. So again Johnothan Sensei was in error in his book and teaching of Karate history. Or maybe everybody else is wrong.
One of my Sensei's stated that every kata could be done with weapons. I found out later after leaving him though this true its not how they were designed. Classic weapon Katas were pasted down and they stand as the Kubodo katas.
Seems like you have studied well and believe in your system this makes it a strong method but it doesn't make it right or doesn't change history. Even unfounded history.
Great debate you must really have great confidence in your Master teaching to put your neck on the line. In trying to change how others precieve histroric events.
Gavin always seems to know how to lighten things up. And break up the serious tone of debates. Must be his doorman training.
Hi All
I wont have time to reply to all the stuff today but great to see such a huge response. Unfortunatly I am not on any commision for sales of the book/dvd (wish I was!) The reason I brought the book up is it is very detailed and the product of many years of training and research. Gav thanks for the kind welcome as always and Nathan is a close friend of Steve's so I am sure I will meet him at some point. I myself am open to knew evidence, ideas etc I will try to give a clear idea of whats going on in Nathan's book and go from there. Some of my own ideas etc differ from Nathan's.
I am back on monday from a kodoryu seminar in Belgium and will write something then. Look forward to some healthy debate about karate
Tom Maxwell
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 04:16 PM
Kodobrighton
See you Monday!--well won;t actually "see" you, but you knwo what I mean.
Looking forward to a healthy discussion.
Remember that the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the guy/gal makeing the claim.
Its not for other folks to prove them wrong--although they certainly can and do.
Its for them to prove themselves right.
Research is not about presenting "maybe's"--that an event "could" have happened in "X" fasion is rarely the point.
That something "might be possible" is generally not the point either.
What is genmaine is:
-What concrete proof exsist for the specualtion and what is mere conjector.
-How solid are the proofs--what margin for error exsists?
-What does such a conclusion explain--and what other questions does it create/raise.
As a general rule "solutions" solve problems, when one is forced to spin more elaborate and improbable chains of events to "explain" the "solution" chances are you really don't have a 'solution" at all.
Occams Razor is usually helpful in at least starting to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
ie The most simple solution is often the more correct.
As an example--how "likley" is it that:
A highly respected master, who trained with folks that trained directly in China, that trained directly in China himself, taught kata that can/could be "cross-checked" with others that ALSO trained in China would just sort of "make up" kata???
Then lie about it for his entire life to every one he trains or knows---including other experts who are in personal position to know for a fact better???
Its one thing to lie to one students--ones peers are a different story altogather.
(hey, what are the chances I would spend 10 years learning carpentry from an expert, I spend hours a day learning how to properly join woods, plane things, build strong bldgs, measue and cut woods, how to keep my tools sharp, and what tool works best for what job.
The work I do is judged "excellent" by OTHER craftsmen.
When I am asked to teach other--is it more likley that I will teach what I was taught--or would I just make stuff up?
Come on really? )
A great deal of "what ifs" and post-hoc rationalization is involved in the idea that they "made stuff up."
But simply teaching what they had been taught, the stuff they took great pains to learn requires very few "what ifs" and very little post-hoc rationaliztion.
Thus its the more likely of the 2.
-Where do the proofs come from?
-How well documented are the proofs--are we talking personal anacdotes or can they be emperically checked?
In closeing, these days people seem to think/feel that if they can make any sort of argeuemnt for a thing then it must be "true" or by default "not wrong"--this is not correct.
I look forward to see what exactly you have, what exactly can be proven and how exacly you go about it.
#1Well,I doubt Shoshinkan, will as this question,However WHat I'd specificly like to know is,What's the linage/history of kodoryu? Just Curious.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 04:33 PM
http://www.kodoryu.com/seni2006.phpSanchin with Sai. You are a Yon-dan in kodoryu, Tom. you should be able to explain what you do....or do you need to refer to the book first?
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 04:54 PM
After looking at the authors seeing and listening to his spill sounds as mentioned promotional. Mines better then yours because I have the secret but you can't see it or feel it.
I don't know Tom, I usually give the benifit of doubt. Is it a verison Uechi-ryu or what main branch did it orginate from. Nathan Sesnei does he have a big dojo? Or is he trying to build one?
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 05:00 PM
Good stuff guys, lets keep this sensible and polite all around and have a good debate.
Personally I realise 3 things -
1. I don't know as much as I think I know
2. What I do know is often not right in others opinion
3. what little I know works for me
This is the way of it, look at the variation of karate, the time frame it developed and the many, many Masters that went before, all had different theories and methods often leading the same direction............
Lets keep an open mind eh!
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 05:39 PM
This is a question that has been put to Tom.
Im personally interested in the system background of the Ko-Do Ryu instructors, ie goju, uechi or shorin ryu formal training and with whom, and for how long.
Hi Ed yes I can explain what Kodoryu is about and as I mentioned before the only reason I mentioned the book is because of the amount of detail in it.
From my own point of view Kata is constantly evolving and the interpretations are always changing. I am not criticising what anyone chooses to practise nor intent to. Kodoryu is concerned with trying to understand what the original functions of the kata were not what is being done with them now. What is the point of this? I personally enjoy history and enjoy looking at the way kata has evolved and changed. I believe that several of the kata inherited from China were originally methods of using the sai which I will go into detail in on monday when I have time to do the topic justice to the best of my knowledge. Even if the several kata were orignally sai methods it does not take anything away from what anyone is doing with them now and the modern evolution of kata and its application. There is also a large body of kata which have been created in the last couple of hundred years which I do not practise nor know anything about. My main interest is the kata we know were inherited from China and there functions and applications. This is one part of Kodoryu. I am not here to promote Kodoryu or sell anything I am here to share and listen to a group of like minded individuals who share the same passion for Karate,Kata and its history. O.k really do have to dash now! look forward to continuing guys on monday and I will try my best to answer the questions I was asked on earlier posts. Jim will be in touch on monday mate. have a good weekend.
Posted by: butterfly
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 06:09 PM
Jim,
I think what you are listing is fine and I even consider that for myself. My ignorance knows few bounds.
However, just as CXT listed, whenever someone places an item on a pedestal for thoughtful examination, it is the responsibility of the presenter to back up his or her claims and is definitely within the purview of those examining said item to ask for its authentication.
So while I agree with you, what should be looked at are the claims and the reasoning behind them. Nothing more or less.
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 07:54 PM
I agree, and Tom will do that im sure.
Did I mention that whilst I support open minds I don't agree with Ko-Do Ryu conclusions per say.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/26/06 09:10 PM
what I can't seem to find is where, when and by who(m) the author of 'Myth' learned Uechi Ryu and Sai.
in 2000, his main argument/theory was that all kata were not intended for fighting, but rather for spiritual reasons....then Ryoute was created.
http://www.ryoute.com A mere 6 years later and he's done a 180 and now says all kata were intended with weapons. ...then Kodo-Ryu was created.
6 years from now? when books and video sales die down, and the seminar tap runs dry...new controversy, new ryu, next book. I suggest to next create a theory that states that all kata was created for non-fighting weapons. call it: "Karabuki ryu" - "Empty Weapons Way".
suckers born every minute, I tell ya.
Ryoute is nothing to do with kodoryu. Martin Clewett left Zenshorindo as it was known at the time and decided to go in another direction and make up Ryoute. What you can see on his website is nothing to do with Kodoryu and Martin Clewett has no ties or connection with Kodoryu at all.
Ed Morris if you are that sure that Nathan's research is a scam then why continue to bother writing comments on a thread about his work? this thread is for people to discuss Nathan's research and Kata and so forth. Not make petty remarks or take a stab at peoples integrity. However if you would like to contribute something then a decent critique of Nathan's current work would be welcomed. An academic response to a peice of research rather than empty remarks such as
"6 years from now? when books and video sales die down, and the seminar tap runs dry...new controversy, new ryu, next book. I suggest to next create a theory that states that all kata was created for non-fighting weapons. call it: "Karabuki ryu" - "Empty Weapons Way".
suckers born every minute, I tell ya."
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/27/06 01:39 PM
I never said Ryoute had to do with kodoryu. I suggested Ryoute had everything to do with Nathan Johnson.
Quote:
Ryoute - Village Grappling Arts
Ryoute is a style of 'Double Hand Grappling', 'Grid Grappling' and 'Double Circle Grappling' that was developed in the United Kingdom by Martin Clewett and Ian Alexander.
'Double Hand Grappling' is a name that was given to an art developed by Martin Clewett and Robert Wall whilst researching the field of 'Karate Kata Bunkai' with help from Ian Alexander and Karl Hawkins and influenced by the work of Nathan Johnson and his associates.
'Grid Grappling' is a name that was given to an art developed by Martin Clewett and Ian Alexander whilst researching the Shaolin animal style forms. Also influenced by the work of Nathan Johnson and his associates.
'Double Circle Grappling' is a name that was given to an art developed by Martin Clewett and Ian Alexander whilst researching the forms forms Sui-Nim-Tao, Chum-Kiu, Biu-Tze, Muk-Yan-Chong, Sanchin, Rokushu. Also influenced by the work of Nathan Johnson and his associates.
thats from the main Ryoute site. which part of "influenced by the work of Nathan Johnson and his associates" didn't you see?
Quote:
this thread is for people to discuss Nathan's research and Kata and so forth.
it is? you haven't given any specifics...all you say is "buy the book".
look, YOU are the one tooting you and your sensei's horn here...I'M not the one who put Nathan Johnson's name and style into question....YOU did by creating this thread.
so, I've been questioning but get no answers...WHERE CAN I FIND NATHAN JOHNSONS TRAINING HISTORY? SPECIFICALLY, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE/WHO/WHEN HE LEARNED UECHI RYU AND WHERE/WHO/WHEN HE LEARNED SAI.
is that so difficult or off-topic question? or maybe I have to buy the book?
(Ed predicts that kodoman will now focus on my lack of politeness, instead of answering the question.)
Quote:
This is a question that has been put to Tom.
IMO not only doe's this question to be specificly answered about the history Of kodoryu,without hesitation. 
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 10/28/06 11:57 AM
Hey everyone, my names Ryan, I'm a long time lurker, this is my first post. I just finished reading "The Great Karate Myth" and along with Mr. Johnson's other books, thought it was great...not because I agree with all the conclusions he makes, but because he has a unique, well thought out point of view. The "evidence" he gives regarding his theories is mostly, in truth, his opinion, seemingly supported by certain facts, however, how much hard evidence and fact is there regarding kata bunkai? Mr. Johnson presents two main lines of reasoning in support of his theory...the first being physical and the second historical. The physical is by far the most interesting to me and the theory presented goes like this: Karateka have misunderstood kata because kata was, to a large degree, never meant to be practiced without weapons. According to Mr. Johnson, the types of techniques presented and the distances those techniques need to be used at to be effective are the evidence for this line of reasoning. The basic blocking movements and the long punching attacks were all to be performed with sai or tonfa and Bo (or sword?) respectively. The basic katas of the shorin/tomari tradition (minus naihanchi and the "modern katas" created in this century) as well as the three original uechi ryu katas fit in with this category of application. The katas he employs as empty hand katas are Sanchin, Tensho, and Naihanchi, and all of their applications are "touch based" or grappling and practiced using a pushhands format. Now, there are "artifacts" that could be taken as "supporting evidence" for Mr. Johnson’s claims from many Chinese and Okinawa systems, such as the Isshinryu use of Kusanku as a sai kata, but I think what is really happening here is that Mr. Johnson is a person who practices both Okinawa karate and wing chun kung fu (as well as being creative and intelligent and I believe buddhist). The above gives him a pretty unique perspective, and I think has caused him to look for supporting evidence (both physical and historical) of a wing chun type of "structure" to the historical practice of karate kata. This lead him to create a uniquely compact, very systematic approach to applications for Sanchin, tensho and naihanchi as well as an unparalleled reliance upon "contact" and sensitivity in a karate system. I do not think what he presents is the absolute truth regarding kata bunkai, but he has pieced together a truth of his own that is much more coherent than much of what is to be found out there masquerading as karate.The part that really rings true to me is the need for contact based applications. In close quarters, in real confrontations /grappling; kinesthetic sensitivity is the only way to respond to force…the greatest myth in karate practice today is IMHO what we call “sparring”. Some of his material, however, is very complicated (some of the tensho grip escapes and the naihanchi material really fights me) and while it may have a function in the pushands format used by kodo ryu, has little value from a self defense stand point (Mr. Johnson does however point out that his is not nessicarily a self defense system)
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Kodoryu - 10/28/06 12:22 PM
Hi Ryan. Welcome to the forums. We appreciate the insights you have since reading the book.
I have very little understanding of karate kata, but this left me perplexed:
Quote:
Mr. Johnson presents two main lines of reasoning in support of his theory...the first being physical and the second historical. The physical is by far the most interesting to me and the theory presented goes like this: Karateka have misunderstood kata because kata was, to a large degree, never meant to be practiced without weapons.
That seems very unlikely to me. Why would a (nominally) empty-hand art use an empty-hand training tool to facilitate weapons instruction? This sounds like some kind of reverse engineering with a preconcieved notion of what it was. Did Mr Johnson go into any further detail about how he may have arrived at that conclusion?
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 10/28/06 01:01 PM
Thanks for the warm welcome!
"That seems very unlikely to me. Why would a (nominally) empty-hand art use an empty-hand training tool to facilitate weapons instruction? This sounds like some kind of reverse engineering with a preconceived notion of what it was. Did Mr. Johnson go into any further detail about how he may have arrived at that conclusion?"
The details he gives are based on some historical "evidence" (factoids that I believe he has found while digging around looking for information to support his conclusions) and on the methods of movement presented in the katas themselves...the types of techniques, stances, qualities of movement, and the distances needed to make the techniques work with a fair degree of reliability using a visually reactive response method in the absence of contact reflexes. The historical end really presents some problems for me...while recently researching a book on spirituality, I found out that Christ and Buddha taught some similar things to their followers...that does not prove that since Buddha came first that Christ was a Buddhist. However, viewing the kata as a physical system of movements and then seeing what those movements can be useful for depending on the relatively constant "givens" of human physiology and two bodies in relationship is, I think pretty insightful...and yes, in the strictest sense it is reverse engineering.
Quote:
MattJ: Why would a (nominally) empty-hand art use an empty-hand training tool to facilitate weapons instruction?
Did Mr. Johnson go into any further detail about how he may have arrived at that conclusion?"
Quote:
oneheart: The details he gives are based on some historical "evidence"
and on the methods of movement presented in the katas themselves...the types of techniques, stances, qualities of movement, and the distances needed to make the techniques work with a fair degree of reliability using a visually reactive response method in the absence of contact reflexes.
The historical end really presents some problems for me...
However, viewing the kata as a physical system of movements and then seeing what those movements can be useful for depending on the relatively constant "givens" of human physiology and two bodies in relationship is, I think pretty insightful...and yes, in the strictest sense it is reverse engineering.
That might be the single most vague thing I have ever read in my life. What is the historical evidence? This post is more like a game of Mad Libs than anything else, if you change the word kata(s) with kama sutra(s) it makes more sense.
Could we please get some real answers.
-Jeff
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 10/28/06 04:46 PM
Well, I could go point by point through the historical section of the book, but honestly, like I stated earlier, I'm not really a fan of his historical argument...maybe Sunday or Monday when I can devote a little more time to it. Anyone that has an opinion about anything can find historical facts that appear to back it up. I think what Mr. Johnson has done is to construct a unique and insightful system based on karate katas that is similar in structure to wing chun and then gone back to find his "historical evidence" for it. I'm not saying he’s done this to deliberately deceive people; It's just that it seems he went back looking for "evidence" to support his theory and so he found it. I'm sure anyone could go back and find plenty of historical "evidence" to disprove his ideas. The historical "evidence" he presents, IMHO is not as coherent as the reasoning based on the physical Kama sutra, oops, I mean kata...
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/28/06 04:57 PM
some good points raised I guess we await Tom's return for some awnsers, meanwhile im re-reading the myth so I can be a little more involved.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/28/06 10:11 PM
I'm still dealing with his seeming mistaken impression that just because the kata "can" be practiced with a weapon--that they were "supposed" to be done that way.
It would seem MORE logical that at best the kata could be viewed as pulling "double duty" or possible an empty handed kata could be pressed into service with a weapon.
Still waiting for Monday and the actual "proofs" and support.
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 10/29/06 04:11 AM
Quote:
It would seem MORE logical that at best the kata could be viewed as pulling "double duty" or possible an empty handed kata could be pressed into service with a weapon.
Mr Johnsons argument is (in part) that the proof is in the type of movement used by the kata. According to Mr. Johnson, the movement typical of kata in the Shorin/tomari and Uechi traditions only work effectivly at a distance from the opponent that requires use of a long weapon, like a bo. If the kata was truly intended for empty hand combat, the types of movements would be different, more like boxing or JKD. The reason for this is the use of visual cues to determine the response to the attack. At boxing range the time it takes to see a spontanious attack coming and respond with say a rising block is too long to be practical. Only as distance increases can the rising block be used to stop the attack with any reliability, hence karate's constant use of the lunge punch to attack.So now, if you extend the distance further, and the defender uses the sais and the attacker the bo, you are able to use the technique exactly as presented in the kata, simply with the use of the sais and bo.
i don't agree with that at all.
the movements in kata are, IMO just samples designed to show us some effective ways to use the entire body. the body movement and steping are far more useful then the obvious steping and punching, or blocknig actions seen at face value. cresent spets could be setups for sweeps and teh punching action when brought acorss the neck could be used in an "o-soto gari" type action.
kata movements have application at many ranges, too mnay to list in one internet post. if you want to learn them with weapons, great, have fun. i learn them for self defence, you can learn them for mental masterbation.
yours in life
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/29/06 10:59 AM
One
That is part of the problem here.
What you describe is simply not a "proof" of any sort.
Its an "opinion" a "viewpoint" a "guess" or a "conjecture" at best.
Its not a proof of any kind.
By even calling it such is "proof" that people are not using important terms properly---which calls into question the entire line of reasoning.
More to the point--being a goju-ka, and know several Uechi folks--in general what we do is a SHORT range art, which seems to have been "meant" for a very close maai--not a long range at all.
Hey, wrestling--which looks NOTHING like JKD/boxing is used for an even CLOSER fighting range--so an art can look NOTHING like JKD/Boxing and still be "meant" for close range fighting.
That alone quite neatly spikes the notion that an art needs to look to "JKD/Boxing" in order for it to be a close range art----but there is more on that below.
It also indicates possibly serious problems with their personal understanding of karate.
A "raising block" which tends to be taught in different fasion from style to style--which is important when people are "gessing" about how its to be used and where it comes from.
Anyway, there seems to be some confusion between how the block is TAUGHT at a "newbie" level and how its USED by folks with more skills.
In the goju I was taught, there is little difference between what you would call a "raiseing block" and what a boxer would call an "uppercut."
(my fist starts to "turn over" at about the level of my chin/nose--other wise the motion is pretty much the same)
Boxing as an example seems to be critically flawed as well.
Mainly because it "sounds" like people are using how boxing is done TODAY to how it was done back in its own bare-knuckle PAST.
It was a very different animal back in the day.
Such an error gives a "false positive" for the conculsions of you have described.
Old time bare knuckle boxing stances, training methods, techniques, fighting etc, is--IMO--closer to period karate than it is CURRENT boxing.
Take off the gloves and you change the range and the game as it were---as the old bare-knuckle folks knew well.
Plus, another seemimg serious oversite is that much of karate is dereived from Chinese fighting arts.
And few Chinese fighting arts "look like JKD of boxing"
So SOMEONE is makeing a error here.
Lets break it down.
Fundamental premis is that--MY PARAPHRASE "if it was "really" an empty hand fighting art it would look more like JKD or Boxing."
1-Assumption that IS how it would look.
With NO support as to why, Why would it "have" to look like that?
Cause someone says so?
2-Period/extent styles in China look nothing like "boxing/JKD" yet we KNOW they were used for empty hand fighting.
So clearly a style does NEED to "look like boxing or JKD"--if you want I can start the listing the Chinese styles that DON'T much look like it either
3-We surmise that Chinese fighting arts are the bases for Okinawan karate, thus, based upon a Chinese model-which AGAIN, does not HAVE to "look like JKD or Boxing" there is no reason to think that karate WOULD "look like boxing or JKD."
The arts that it came from don't--so why would it?????
Whose "lunge punch" are you talking about???
Look just cause I CAN use my car to pull up tree stumps--which it does pretty well, is no reason to conclude that my car was made as "stump pulling machine."
Part of what irks me here--on this topic, is that just like other forms of flawed reasoning it take MUCH longer and MUCH more effort to detail exactly why is flawed.
Than it does to make the flawed posit in the first place.
Posted by: CVV
Re: Kodoryu - 10/29/06 03:46 PM
Quote:
Quote:
It would seem MORE logical that at best the kata could be viewed as pulling "double duty" or possible an empty handed kata could be pressed into service with a weapon.
Mr Johnsons argument is (in part) that the proof is in the type of movement used by the kata. According to Mr. Johnson, the movement typical of kata in the Shorin/tomari and Uechi traditions only work effectivly at a distance from the opponent that requires use of a long weapon, like a bo. If the kata was truly intended for empty hand combat, the types of movements would be different, more like boxing or JKD. The reason for this is the use of visual cues to determine the response to the attack. At boxing range the time it takes to see a spontanious attack coming and respond with say a rising block is too long to be practical. Only as distance increases can the rising block be used to stop the attack with any reliability, hence karate's constant use of the lunge punch to attack.So now, if you extend the distance further, and the defender uses the sais and the attacker the bo, you are able to use the technique exactly as presented in the kata, simply with the use of the sais and bo.
Techniques with sai or tonfa ar obvious simular to karatetechniques as they are used as natural extention of the hand/wrist/arm. The same is true for most of the Okinawan weapons. However they all have specific techniques suitable for the weapon or specific execution of a technique simular to techniques empty handed or with other weapons yet different.
When you are going to block with a sai an incoming staff with a rising block the same way like you do in empty hand, you will break your arm.
I checked out on ( www.kodotyu.com ) the video of the application of uechi-sanchin with sai against bokken. I see nothing of the alledged disarming or restraining techniques (well, one time he did disarm), just block lock stab or punch.
Disarming by locking the incoming weapon is not enough to resolve a situation with the armed adversary. A typical technique to disarm with sai is to hit the wrist. For that you need to be close to the bo. The bo's optimal use lies in his lenght. So if you state that you fight with sai against bo on long distance because otherwise you blocking techniques will not work you are leaving the advantage to the bo. The long range techniques with sai is throwing the sai but has been disagreed upon by Kodobrighton.
In Uechi ryu, the limbs fingers hand thumb toes are trained and hardened to be used like weapons. In Goju ryu this is done in a much lesser extent due to a change from open hand to closed fist. However both use the system of 'sinkuchi' to obtain optimal power and distributing this power when excuting technique. Sinkuchi means that the entire body is tensed up at the moment of impact. This is one of the key features that is trained in goju and uechi sanchin. The lunge punch does not exist in goju ryu classical kata nor in uechi ryu kata's. The Shorin systems use entire body movement for power distribution, used like a whip. The lunge punch is more seen in their classical kata. The 'sinkuchi' method is typical for close range fighting as the power is not only dependant to the acceleration of the mass over a distance but more on the rotation of the upper body with a rooted lower body, so with rather minimal displacement.
Goju ryu is decendant from southern Chines fighting systems. In the south, the ship was main way of transport and the fighting arts were acustumed to fighting on riverboats. (Nansen-Hokuba South/ship North/horse). This was short range fighting wich targetted the abdominal area in particular the spleen and milt/liver. (source Okinawa den Goju ryu karate do by Eiichi Myazato 1978)
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 10/29/06 03:48 PM
"That is part of the problem here.
What you describe is simply not a "proof" of any sort.
Its an "opinion" a "viewpoint" a "guess" or a "conjecture" at best.Its not a proof of any kind. By even calling it such is "proof" that people are not using important terms properly---which calls into question the entire line of reasoning."
From my original post:
I just finished reading "The Great Karate Myth" and along with Mr. Johnson's other books, thought it was great...not because I agree with all the conclusions he makes, but because he has a unique, well thought out point of view. The "evidence" he gives regarding his theories is mostly, in truth, his opinion, seemingly supported by certain facts, however, how much hard evidence and fact is there regarding kata bunkai?
And later in the same post:
The above gives him a pretty unique perspective, and I think has caused him to look for supporting evidence (both physical and historical) of a wing chun type of "structure" to the historical practice of karate kata.
I challenge anyone to "prove" conclusively what any pre 1950's kata is for. I believe that Mr. Johnson has presented a very interesting perspective. I don't accept them as gospel, just say that they are interesting and provide substantial food for thought. Many people today have "created their own system," and Mr. Johnson is no different save one thing. He has created something that is to a large degree, internally consistent. This is my interest in his work. We can argue about what "proof" means all day, but that is not very interesting (not to me at least...) I would love to address this topic in more detail, but my time today is limited.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/29/06 05:52 PM
One
Taking about your last post-not your first one.
Then please, please, pretty please stop using the term "proof."
Its not, comes nowhere close.
Besides--if you wish to actually have a discussion--as opposed to simple posting and reposting your opinions.
The please, please, pretty please take the time to actually read the response people make.
I spent quite a bit of time, in GREAT detail exactly why your previous post was flawed in terms of logic and example used.
You simple ignored it and just re-stated your positon.
Sorry to have be harsh--but your wrong, I told you exactly WHY your wrong and exactly want errors seem to have been made.
You either can't or wont address the specfic and detailed criticsim---fine, then go hide under your bed.
Just don't waste my time claiming you wish to have a discussion--when you "really" don't.
Oh, AGAIN, because you don't seem to listening.
Mr. Johnson and YOU have stated what YOU feel the kata were "for"--thus YOU MUST back up YOUR OWN POSTS.
Not for "us" to prove you wrong---athough I did a pretty good job on your last post
Its YOUR job to prove your right.
Thats going to take A LOT more than you have presented so far.
I like actual discussion---I hate dogmatic statements of fact when NO facts are in evidence.
Posted by: Shonuff
Re: Kodoryu - 10/29/06 08:09 PM
Hello Oneheart, many thanks for explaining the ideas and attempting to provide the answers that the Ko-do ryu sensei seemed unwilling to provide. I got the impression that you are not linked with Ko-do ryu and just find the book interesting, if so your effort is doubly appreciated.
From what you have written it sounds like Mr Johnson has done some interesting work, if what has been written here is correct it is just a shame that he has tried to label his work as truth instead of the more honest title of an "educated guess".
I think the idea of applying Sanchin, Tensho and Naihanchi as contact/grappling based close quarter work makes perfect sense. I've seen very little Naha-te, but what I have seen always struck me as lacking that contact based element (chi-sao) which would more clearly link it to the southern chinese styles (esp White Crane).
My thinking this has nothing to do with the truth of the nature of these kata but to me it seems to fit.
As for the weapons idea... No. Many more knowledgeable than I, have and I'm sure will again, give the reasons why not.
Posted by: Ronin1966
Kodoryu - 10/29/06 10:12 PM
Hello Mr Maxwell:
I am... extremely surprised by the degree of strong feelings of which this thread apparently has been a catalyst.
Not having yet read Mr. Johnson's current work, I can make no comments as to that. Would it be correct to say that Mr. Johnson has again postulated certain martial arts ~hypothesis~ (plural?) if you will? Some of the conclusions-hypothesesis are
sufficently different (from the ~standard~ if you will) that a stronger academic "
3 source primary research" rule would be appropriate for his presentation?
He seemingly has opened a door, whether it is mirage, or of substance will be determined by thosse who follow its path. I liked the ~basic premises~ of his previous works but was not compelled they were entirely "correct"
. As other members contended far more passionately than I would certainly dare...
Myself, "certain fact" or not they are interesting ideas and an unusual perspective. As my login name I hope implys I am... not a fan of rigid views or perspectives. If Mr. Johnson has found ~gems~ from his polishing, his research I look forward to learning more of them. Hopefully the passion/zeal that some have brought will cool...
Sincerely,
Jeff <wearing his flame proof PJ's>
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/29/06 10:39 PM
Shonuff
Most naha te (naha te being an umbrella term for various appraochs of karate) put quite a bit on focus on various "contact" aspects--not the least of which being sanchin and "arm rubbing" and bunkai.
Can't speak for all naha systems of course--just what I have seen.
As other folks than myself have suggested--one of the problems here might just be limited exposure to naha te practices, which would effect the baseline posit.
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 10/29/06 10:55 PM
I'll respond to each of your points this time, one by one.
“One, Talking about your last post-not your first one.
Then please, please, pretty please stop using the term "proof."Its not, comes nowhere close.”
That was my whole point in reposting my first post…maybe I was unclear when I said that what seems to be presented as “proof” or “evidence” is really just Mr. Johnson’s opinion.
”Besides--if you wish to actually have a discussion--as opposed to simple posting and reposting your opinions. The please, please, pretty please take the time to actually read the response people make.”
I did take the time to read your post, and responded with the text from my original post due to time constraints.
”I spent quite a bit of time, in GREAT detail exactly why your previous post was flawed in terms of logic and example used. You simple ignored it and just re-stated your positon.”
I did not ignore either your post or your effort, just found it inconsequential…your argument is with Mr. Johnson’s logic, not mine (and your argument is based on a relatively small part of his theory and incomplete understanding of it)
“Sorry to have be harsh—but your wrong, I told you exactly WHY your wrong and exactly want errors seem to have been made.”
Well you may believe Mr. Johnson is wrong…but since you don’t have any idea what I personally believe about the situation outside of my respect for Mr. Johnson’s ingenuity and the unique point of view he presents, I think you may be unjustified and ill informed in your assessment.
“You either can't or wont address the specfic and detailed criticsim---fine, then go hide under your bed.”
Well, no honestly, I didn’t have the time
”Just don't waste my time claiming you wish to have a discussion--when you "really" don't. ”
I’m not interested in “debating” or arguing semantics or who can critically deconstruct someone’s point of view with out even knowing what their point of view is.
”Oh, AGAIN, because you don't seem to listening.”
I don’t think the problem is my lack of listening. Maybe my explanations have been unclear, and that may have contributed to your lack of understanding.
”Mr. Johnson and YOU have stated what YOU feel the kata were "for"--thus YOU MUST back up YOUR OWN POSTS. Not for "us" to prove you wrong---athough I did a pretty good job on your last post ”
Again you have no idea what my personal views on kata are…I simply stated that Mr. Johnson’s views are interesting food for thought.
”Its YOUR job to prove your right.”
I have no interest in being “right” so far as this discussion is concerned…I would hope that I could provoke some interesting thoughts and have others do the same for me.
All for now, time for bed…really, just going to bed, not cowering under it...
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 10/29/06 11:08 PM
Quote:
Hello Oneheart, many thanks for explaining the ideas and attempting to provide the answers that the Ko-do ryu sensei seemed unwilling to provide. I got the impression that you are not linked with Ko-do ryu and just find the book interesting, if so your effort is doubly appreciated.
Thanks, no, I am in no way linked to Kodo ryu and my interest in Mr. Johnsons work is exclusivly intellectual.
Quote:
From what you have written it sounds like Mr Johnson has done some interesting work, if what has been written here is correct it is just a shame that he has tried to label his work as truth instead of the more honest title of an "educated guess".
I totally agree
Quote:
I think the idea of applying Sanchin, Tensho and Naihanchi as contact/grappling based close quarter work makes perfect sense. I've seen very little Naha-te, but what I have seen always struck me as lacking that contact based element (chi-sao) which would more clearly link it to the southern chinese styles (esp White Crane).
This is in fact the part of his theory I'm most interested in. His Sanchin Boxing presented in the book was very insightful.
Quote:
As for the weapons idea... No. Many more knowledgeable than I, have and I'm sure will again, give the reasons why not.
yeah, I'm unsure what to think about that...maybe I'll post my random thoughts about it in the next few days...
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/29/06 11:10 PM
oneheart
No, I was responding directly to comments made in YOUR post.
Perhaps they can traced back to the book in question, perharps they can't---we still have not seen the text yet.
Either why--YOUR the guy who stated that if karate were really an empty hand art it would look more like JKD or boxing.
(among other things)
I just pointed out--among other things---that such a conclusion was misplaced.
As far as point of view--well I can only deal what YOU post--the more so since my mind reading abilites don't work well over water.
Like I said before---you want to have a thought provoking discussion?
Great--so do I.
But why is it that when people wish to have a "thought provoking discussion" what they really often mean is to "provoke" everyoens thinking but their OWN.
I still note that you have yet to deal with my responses to the points you raised--you have time to BMW about me making them--you should have had plenty of time to respond to them.
Conjecture that can't take the gaff of detailed, reasoned critcial analysis should be dropped.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Kodoryu - 10/29/06 11:30 PM
Man this is funny! I'm sorry I missed the last few days here,but it has gotten deep and I ain't wearin' rubbers!!!
"Ryan",how very convenient for you to come along in such a timely fashion,lol.
This is just one (bad)long advertisement as far as I'm concerned.
Until the legitimate questions are answered, that's all it is,bad advertisement.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/29/06 11:53 PM
Amen, Brian. I doubt there has been any effective explaination other than 'buy the book and DVD'. most people can see right thru that...but sometimes it's controvery itself that sells. eg. they get people to buy it so they can disprove it.
I fell into that trap once, and never again. I save money now by trusting my insticts.
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/30/06 05:53 AM
No doubt the 'exposure' is all part of the plan for Toms wide spread activity on the forums, however personally I think thats good as I genuinly believe that every classically minded karateka should read Nathans work.
Lets not forget that Tom is away teaching this weekend and back sometime today, so before we all start jumping up and down lets hear back from him, im sure he will present a detailed and thoughtfull response.
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 10/30/06 08:01 AM
Cxt, someone asked me to try to explain some of the "evidence" given by Mr. johnson. I tried to do so, admittedly without my copy of the book handy. The JKD/Boxing explaination was me paraphrasing part of Mr. Johnsons argument. Cxt, you may have some very valid points in regard to this line of argument...The argument is not mine...take it up with Mr. johnson. While I find his work interesting, and agree with the moderator, I have my own independant views on kata and their practice. For those of you wondering, I've lived my entire life (although I've travelled quite a bit) in central Pennsylvania about 15 miles outside hershey. I work in law enforcement and security at a small liberal arts college, you can find more proof of my existence here
http://www.etown.edu/CampusSecurity.aspx?topic=DepartmentPersonnelI'm the 4th officer under full time staff.
I've been a student of Isshinryu karate for about 12 years and on and off in some chinese systems for about 10. Also studied Arnis and silat in that time. I've never been to england and never trained with any Kodo ryu member. I'm at work today, and won't have any more time for this. depending what Tom has to say I may rejoin the conversation tuesday.
Ryan
when you get the time, would you mind posting a few examples of why the book interested you so much?
i mean, just a few points of interest that could give us a better understanding as to what the heart of the book is after.
i have to say, looking back over the thred now it does look kinda like a flame fest on ya buddy. sorry your first few posts had to meet with this level of interrogation.
but, you really only said that he had an interesting book out, and that was about it. so please provide a few examples of the guys conclusions and logic.
i've already stated my feelings about this type of thing, and thats all i can do, without reading the book. truefully i don't plan on buying it anytime soon. but arsehole critics like me are a dime a dozen, and im sre mr. johnson is used to dealing with my kind.
on a side note, interesting dscussion you got.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/30/06 09:26 AM
One
Look, matters little "whose" arguement it was YOU repeated it, YOU made statements about kata, raiseing blocks, etc thus YOUR responsable.
As an example, the JKD/Boxing "arguement" is a BAD arguement no matter where it comes from
Its either stuff you read somewhere else and just repeated or its stuff you thought up on your own.
Either way, not my problem.
This is the other thing that irks me.
People come here claiming to want to have intellgent discussions about things--the term YOU used was "provoke."
Then when THEY get "provoked" they get all huffy.
People get too emotionally involved in their "pet" theories, too involved to take an objective look at what they are saying, what errors they may have made, what they have may have overlooked etc.
Eveybody knows that the harder they train the more "stress tested" their martial arts are--the BETTER they become.
Oddly few people want to apply the same kind of hard, resistant "stress testing" to their pet theories.
Just hitting air in training makes for a weak martial artist.
Just hitting air with ones ideas makes for weak ideas.
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 10/30/06 09:52 PM
In response to CTX
“This is the other thing that irks me. Then when THEY get "provoked" they get all huffy.
People get too emotionally involved in their "pet" theories, too involved to take an objective look at what they are saying, what errors they may have made, what they have may have overlooked etc.”
Hey, come on, I wasn’t trying to provoke you, seriously, I don't think you've made any errors, youre just being you! It's not your problem, we are all here to help you through it! I know what its like when people get upset and all huffy…can’t seem to or just refuse to focus on what it is your saying…I’m sorry if you just don’t understand, its nothing to get emotional about and don’t worry, no need to apologize, no hard feelings!
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Kodoryu - 10/30/06 09:59 PM
Hello oneheart Quote:
when you get the time, would you mind posting a few examples of why the book interested you so much?
Hmmm?
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 07:58 AM
One of the things that interests me about the system Mr. johnson presents is how well all the "pieces" of the empty hand system seem to fit together. Very wing chun like in both concept and their use of sanchin. Their main practice seems to be push hands, then sanchin and the applications of it in a pushhands like format called "sanchin boxing."The push hands and sanchin boxing utilise a set of conceptual "gates," similar to those used in wing chun, that Mr. johnson based on the first posture in sanchin. Sanchin boxing includes body punches, passes, traps and some close fisted reception movements (like the very first posture fron the kata). All the tech. in "sanchin boxing" are drawn out of Miyagi Sanchin. This is done in way similar to wing chun's forms. Also covered are some chinna techniques against the wrist Mr. Johnson claims are contained in Miyagi sanchin. So the next thing studied is wrist grip excapes from tensho kata, which put you in the correct positions to apply either the sanchin boxing or the locks from Naihanchi, which according to the website, is the final emptyhand kata, a chinna based kata created to catalog arrest techniques. The naihanchi used is claimed to have been "properly restructuted" to present the "original practice"(don't know about that). Then, I assume, the kodoryu student studies the "weapons" kata based off what we would all recognize as the empty hand forms of uechi/pangainoon tradition. Again very much like the wing chun "butterfly swords", and Mr. Johnson hypothesises in his book that maybe the sais were a peace time version of them. It is his claim that most of the kata we practice are drawn from ming dynasty china and that they were part of a system of "civil arrest" that relied on the sais heavily to suppliment the empty hand skills needed to restrain and effectivly control those who would disturbe the peace. I find this interesting...but if it is true to any degree it must only be a partial truth (for a ton of reasons...).
another thing that interests me is the visual reflexes vs contact reflexes. I have accepted for quite a while that any practical applications for kata would have to be based on "contact" and "sensitivity" applied at close quarters. I like the practice of push hands or tegumi as presented by Patrick Mccarthy for that reason. Mr. Johnson believes kata have a singular purpose, one set of applications per movement. He says this makes sense because muscle memory and contact reflex responses would be “confused” by “layered” multiple applications for each movement. He also says that "old masters" may have practiced and taught fewer kata for the same reason.
More later...
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 10:43 AM
an interesting thing I found worth taking a closer look at:
http://www.wle.com/products/VHG32D.htmlQuote:
Gen are the predecessor to the popular Okinawan Sai. These heavy metal rods were also China’s ancient police batons. Despite their illustrious history, few people still practice Gen. Now you can be one of the few who master this rare weapon. This video shows you the method behind this significant martial arts weapon, overlooked by many practitioners today. Preserve the legacy!
The problem is, "Grandmaster/Sifu Wing Lam" (via DVD's, books, and his enterprize http://www.wle.com/) is the only source I can find of this information.
the source of this info must be documented somewhere if it is indeed historical fact, and I'm assuming The 'Myth' book must mention the source since it is central to his theory.
also, without a source, I'd be doubly suspicious of the info if any venturing ties between Mr. Wing Lam and Mr. Nathan Johnson came to light. I'm not suggesting it, I'm only pointing out that cross-referenced 'fact' is not fact at all without independant source.
Posted by: Unsu
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 11:04 AM
Quote:
One of the things that interests me about the system Mr. johnson presents is how well all the "pieces" of the empty hand system seem to fit together. Very wing chun like in both concept and their use of sanchin. Their main practice seems to be push hands, then sanchin and the applications of it in a pushhands like format called "sanchin boxing."The push hands and sanchin boxing utilise a set of conceptual "gates," similar to those used in wing chun, that Mr. johnson based on the first posture in sanchin. Sanchin boxing includes body punches, passes, traps and some close fisted reception movements (like the very first posture fron the kata). All the tech. in "sanchin boxing" are drawn out of Miyagi Sanchin. This is done in way similar to wing chun's forms. Also covered are some chinna techniques against the wrist Mr. Johnson claims are contained in Miyagi sanchin. So the next thing studied is wrist grip excapes from tensho kata, which put you in the correct positions to apply either the sanchin boxing or the locks from Naihanchi, which according to the website, is the final emptyhand kata, a chinna based kata created to catalog arrest techniques. The naihanchi used is claimed to have been "properly restructuted" to present the "original practice"(don't know about that). Then, I assume, the kodoryu student studies the "weapons" kata based off what we would all recognize as the empty hand forms of uechi/pangainoon tradition. Again very much like the wing chun "butterfly swords", and Mr. Johnson hypothesises in his book that maybe the sais were a peace time version of them. It is his claim that most of the kata we practice are drawn from ming dynasty china and that they were part of a system of "civil arrest" that relied on the sais heavily to suppliment the empty hand skills needed to restrain and effectivly control those who would disturbe the peace. I find this interesting...but if it is true to any degree it must only be a partial truth (for a ton of reasons...).
another thing that interests me is the visual reflexes vs contact reflexes. I have accepted for quite a while that any practical applications for kata would have to be based on "contact" and "sensitivity" applied at close quarters. I like the practice of push hands or tegumi as presented by Patrick Mccarthy for that reason. Mr. Johnson believes kata have a singular purpose, one set of applications per movement. He says this makes sense because muscle memory and contact reflex responses would be “confused” by “layered” multiple applications for each movement. He also says that "old masters" may have practiced and taught fewer kata for the same reason.
More later...
I agree that there is a need for partner contact and sensitivity training as seen Tai Chi push hands. Goju and Uechi both use a harder type of push hand or sensitivity training called "kakie". Here's a YouTube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFFPUhjmsuQ
Looks very Wing Chun-ish too, huh?
In good Okinawan karate you also engage in circle blocking drills where your hands and forearms make continuous contact with your partner.
The author of the book you dig so much makes a lot of assertions. Some seem logical and I agree that the Okinawan styles are related to systems like White Crane and offshoots like Wing Chun. What I can't agree with without proof is that bunkai in kata is specific, each movement denoting one interpretation. Nope. There are some obvious applications one can glean from a front kick, lead punch combo of movements. What I've been taught about bunkai is that each movement usually has multiple interpretations which your creativity, experience and understanding of the kihon allows you to define (specific to what is needed).
Kata puts you in a good position to allow for combat adaptability. It gives the mind and body options trained through repetition. I do think you can personalize the forms, make them work for the karate that you do, but I disagree that this was the original intent of the forms. Plus itt's about more than combat; weapons or emptyhand.
Oh and I don't doubt you can do the emptyhand kata with weapons. I had a Shorinkan sensei who would clean up in competitions by performing Chinto as a Sai kata. Ananku Sai also comes to mind. The reality is that most Toudi was trained with weapons and nonweapons conflict in mind. They were inclusive aspects. In fact the word "kobujutsu" directly translates to "old war art", and includes the entire gamut of old style training.
Again, there is a delineation between what is a weapons form vs. an emptyhand form. It's funny to me how these gendai budo guys like this cat and Clayton want to tell you their little secrets about karate. I've always been taught since the early 1980s that Suidi was a Palace Guard art. I have trained in systems which have a more original and intact form of the kata.
One of the bunkai I was taught for Naihanchi side-stepping, before Clayton even thought of writing a book, was for body guards on four sides to move using their bodies to perfectly shield a dignitary or the king during a procession. Made sense, but then again that was just one analysis of many for that movement.
If Mr. Johnson wants to learn what the movements mean in kata he doesn't need to speculate. All he has to do is find qualified shinshi in an Okinawan ryuha.
All this reminds me of a great japanese karate-ka's take on kata training. Ohtsuka's (Wado Ryu founder) use of "alive" and "dead" kata makes perfect sense. The kata is a reflection of the style, dojo, teacher and most importantly the practitioner. Good kata training never, ever needs reverse engineering and assumption to fill in the bunkai.
Posted by: Bossman
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 11:51 AM
Blimey - thought I was on the Shi Kon Forum there....
I've known Nathan Johnson for nearly 20 years and have watched him train, research and grow over that period of time. He helped me a lot about 15 years ago with my research into pushing hands. He came from a Wing Chun and Karate base and is a natural researcher. If you put his name into an amazon search engine you will see that he has authored and co-authored many books on a variety of subjects, all well researched and over a long period of time.
Nathan and I disagree on many things in the Martial Arts and that's what helps bond our friendship - we're allowed to disagree and be grown up. Like most academics he researches, publishes and moves on - he doesn't even have a particular interest in the controvesy and certainly hasn't asked anyone to 'argue his case'. Also like all academics (and the bulk of us MA instructors) he certainly ain't rich!
If you can go train with him do so, we had him for a course recently on the subject of the book and my guys thoroughly enjoyed it as 'something different' to what we usually do.
He's a real character, loves academia and martial arts, a bit of a hermit, hard to get in touch with and doesn't have access to the internet. He doesn't even know what's on his website and is already immersed in another project.
I think Tom just likes a good argument, I'm the opposite in character to Nathan yet we can meet up, often with Chris Rowen the goju practitioner, have lunch, talk martial crap, exchange ideas, have a laugh and go our seperate ways.
And we've remained good friends for a long time.
Posted by: oldman
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 11:57 AM
Good to see you Bossman
Hi all
Am trying my best to go through and answer some questions and will post it all later on.
Just wanted to answer a comment by Mr Rowe a.k.a Bossman.
"I think Tom just likes a good argument"
Steve this is not the first comment like this you have a made about me and you used to do it quite alot over on the Shikon forum. You have said such things as I need to get out more and you could teach far better applications than what is in Kodoryu armed or unarmed, also you have a called me naive. Well how about you drop the comments about me for a moment and give a serious critique on Nathan's research into Naihanchi, or Uechi sanchin's original function as a Sai kata. I love a good debate yes not an arguement but I don't like being put down by someone that doesn't even know me and I would expect more from someone who is as senior as yourself and also a friend of Nathan's.
Care to commit an opinion of Naihanchi (not your own power sourcing version) but the one Nathan has researched?
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 12:37 PM
hi Steve,
good to see you in this section, where have you made 1,000 plus posts on FA - I didn't notice????????????
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 12:49 PM
don't divert. answer the technical questions.
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 01:38 PM
OK Guys,
Im going to make this very clear - keep things polite and on topic, personal issues have no place here, otherwise - thread closed.
We have a nice oppertunity to have a good discussion about Nathan's work, The Great Karate Myth.
My first direct question to Tom is could you state the length of time training, grades obtained, from who and in which systems by Nathan or other relevant KoDo Ryu Seniors outside of the KoDo Ryu grades detailed on the website.
I am particulary interested in Goju, Uechi or Shorin Ryu background of the Okinawan flavour.
Please understand that this is not intended to trip anyone up, or even draw conclusions from it, we are all aware that skill and knowledge come from many places!
But I think it is relevant as the 'karate' establishment is essentially what Nathans work is based around, hence we should be aware of his/Seniors expieirence in that world.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 02:10 PM
I think I will start another thread since when it comes to the topic of weapons and kata...the kodoryu people don't seem to like the technical debate.
but the irony is, the reason they can't site the book's 'facts' is probably since that less people would buy the book if they tell what it's facts and sources are. lol
I only need one source: where it is written or documented that Chinese police used sai-like weapons? It's certainly not unreasonable if it were true, but since that is central to the theory, Mr. Johnson must have sited a source for that info.
Posted by: Bossman
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 02:23 PM
Chill out Tom, if you go around challenging everyone you've got to expect a little bit of stick back! It reminds me of the story of the husband who phones his wife to tell her that there is a nutcase driving the wrong way on the motorway she's on and she replies there's not one - there's hundreds of 'em!
Have you wondered why everyone's driving the other way to you?
I worked for hours with Nathan at his house and at the university whilst he worked his way through the two handed and one handed grappling, he taught the form and applications on many of my courses I wrote the preface to some of his books and have acknowledgement in the 'Myth'. TBH he'd be horrified at this thread (or probably think everyone was daft) my views? He's brilliant. I love his ideas. They're totally different to mine and that's why I like them and him.
He gave me a copy of the book and DVD - and I will read it! But meanwhile I quote from the page it just fell open at:
Quote:
I respect the major Karate founders and those honest individuals who have, by the sweat of their brows kept Karate alive, not with a bunch of eccentric flow charts, wacky theories and naive opinions but through sweat and effort in the Dojo
Nathan works with his research in the Dojo and that's why I respect him. I don't think you do him any favours on these forums.
Posted by: Bossman
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 02:29 PM
Quote:
hi Steve,
good to see you in this section, where have you made 1,000 plus posts on FA - I didn't notice????????????
Erm... that was the Ninja me...
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 02:30 PM
Quote:
I worked for hours with Nathan at his house and at the university whilst he worked his way through the two handed and one handed grappling...
just curious Bossman, was that the research later used by the Ryoute folks?
Posted by: Bossman
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 02:31 PM
Quote:
Good to see you Bossman
Spank you Oldman
Posted by: Bossman
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 02:40 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I worked for hours with Nathan at his house and at the university whilst he worked his way through the two handed and one handed grappling...
just curious Bossman, was that the research later used by the Ryoute folks?
I only saw a short clip of what they were doing and it was certainly minus the 'martial' content and very 'dance' like - it was quite far removed from what Nathan did.
Nathan was originally very 'Wing Chun like' as were all his original senior grades (mainly 4th degree Wing Chun), from training with many of the WC UK greats like Victor Kan, Nino Bernado, Ip Chun and I think Samuel Kwok. He was involved in the WC 'wars' at the time and certainly 'got his hands dirty' also running a full time kwoon in Southampton UK. He gave me a load of original photos of Yip Man training on a wooden dummy and calligraphy written by Ip Chun of 'Wing Chun' (perpetual springtime) to put around a Kwoon doorway when he closed it.
Posted by: Bossman
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 02:58 PM
Nathan also taught on many of my courses over many years. There are quite a few people on here that know me - and will confirm that my courses are often quite large with a lot of security people from all nationalities that wouldn't suffer fools gladly.
Nathan was always popular.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 03:34 PM
cool thanks. sounds like he's been traing well and just throws some books out there every now and then to feed some fire.
Then again, the UK is just exploding at the seams of new ryus, hanshis and 10th dans....so who knows wtf is up sometimes.
plus it doesn't make things easier when you have ditto-heads come on here sounding like they drank too much kool-aid.
hard to know who/what to believe.
still, ...I won't be buying the book or DVD anytime soon. If people are talking about it 5 years from now, then I might buy a copy.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 03:38 PM
One
Your last post to me on 10/30
What kind of babbling nonsense is that?
Nearly everything you said in your prior post I showed to be wrong--AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY OF IT.
Not that I really blame you----your arguments are dead in the water--and you just smart enough that you KNOW that.
So your trying to avoid dealing with your mistakes
I leave for a day and you just post more nonsense.
Including the nonsense about there being ONLY one application per move--sure it is--people faced with the chaos and melee of an actually fight don't want ot get locked into the frozen mold of one only ONE response.
Kinda exactly why there are some many versions of application--what "works" for me may not "work" for you.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 03:41 PM
Bossman
Don't know Nathen, he may well be a skilled guy with a ton on the ball.
However, if his ideas are being accuratky expressed by One/Kodo then "brillant" is more than a bit of reach.
Given what you have posted about his WC background--and the quite deafening silence about direct questions about his training in Uechi/Goju etc.
It may well be that his conclusions are spurious due to lack of in-depth training and the assumptions such a lack might imply.
Addtl it quite possible that he his trying to jam/force/push "karate" thu a "wing chun" frame.
Thus again, it would led to serious errors.
Certainly people speaking on his behalf/presumbaly useing what they have "learned" from his books, have made serious errors.
Speaking to the ARGUMENTS presented--nothing personal to actual guy.
Posted by: Bossman
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 05:25 PM
No problem - I can only speak as I find. I've been with him when he's been with people like Simon Lailey and various other karate guys, I know he originally did Shoto Kai and I know he did research or was in contact with (but not how much) with Graham Noble, Patrick McCarthy, Harry Cook and in his selected Bibliography he refers to Draeger (Donn and Greg)Funakoshi, Higaonna, Jou Tsung Hwa Nagamine, Graham Noble and Nakayama.
I think he may have started as you said, but he was certainly very different from all the WC guys I knew and I found his pushing hands much more fluid and versatile.
What I do is very different, but it didn't stop me from learning a lot in the '80's at just the right time from him.
Sometimes our students can unintentionally do us a great disservice!
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 10/31/06 05:32 PM
Bossman
Like I and many others of said.
Nobody is questioning either his skills, intentions or character--several folks with good reputation, in addition to yourself, have spoken well of him on those scores.
I have no reason to doubt it.
All I'm wanting to deal with is the nature and scope of his arguements and support and reasoning there-of.
That, from what has been expressed so far, I do have reason to doubt.
Hopefully we can see some direct material/support so we can start hashing this out in specific.
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 12:24 PM
Well I guess your mind reading doesn't work over a couple of states either...In the same way I stated in my first post, you and Mr. Johnson have one thing in common...no "proof" or "evidence" of your position or argument, just opinion seemingly supported by facts. I said that from the start, you "prove" your assertions to me...I don't have any regarding this issue. You have continiously ascribed responsibilty to me and taken my posts in a way that is totally out of context. What you have offered lacks support in the same way you accuse Mr. johnson, it is just your opinion...except his postion stands for something, while yours is basically negation based on a totally incomplete understanding of his work (you are critical of me, for trying to explain what interests me and what questions I have about a book you have not even read...you are woefully ill informed to be making the "arguments" you are making, especially where my personal opinions are concerned). You are the one who has dodged responding to the critical points presented, the one that depends on human physiology, which is hard to argue simply with "your opinion". At no point have I said Mr. Johnson is "right", he simply presents a unique opinion that may generate growth for those who are opened minded. I will not continue this with you on the forum out of respect for its other members, if you want me to educate you as to genuine rhetoric and discourse vs sophistry (and granted, not very good sophistry at that) contact me at the link I provided in a previous post. I would be more than happy to help.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 01:49 PM
bla bla bla. same old tired non-argument instead of addressing the material.
The position you are basically making is: "well, I don't really understand the material, but at least I read the book, which is more than you can say...and Nathan is cool."
so now, since you can't (or won't) argue the book's content, your argument is reduced to defending your right to have an opinion....which isn't the issue.
most people bandwagon on information. others merit information by it's source.
so that part about kata being meant for sai...lets hear the source on that. surely Nathan must have made a footnote or reference to where he got that info in order to make that connection logically.
since you have the book, here's what you do:
1. flip to the section where he first mentions the history of the sai coming from China and/or the part where he concludes kata was designed for sai.
2. look for a little superscripted number or footnote.
3. type in that referenced source here.
what? no referenced source? then the book is not worth more than anyone's typed opinion in a post here on this forum.
...and since the author has less (perhaps much less) than 10 years of sai experience, I'd say his opinion on the subject is nothing but a students musings which would have been better suited as a discussion on a forum instead of a one-way communicated book.
but my call for sources will go unanswered and this thread will lean back to the arguments of 'read the book' and 'he's a good guy and dedicated MAist' etc...
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 02:11 PM
One
Actually NO--your makeing an error common to folks that lack understanding of proper logic and arguement.
Since its clear that you are not "really" reading what people post--I don't know why I even bother.
But ONE MORE TIME.
I don't need to prove anything--its the job/responsibilty/duty of the person MAKEING THE CLAIM to prove his/her case.
All I'm doing is attacking the claims.
(similer to what I did to your earlier spurious claims about karate)
See, we DON'T, as you so poorly put it, have anything "in common" at this point.
You, speaking for him, have merely put forth a specious, fallcious, and error ridden line of resoning and arguement.
I'm just pointing those mistkes out---in great detail.
Details I might add that have never even been ADDRESSED by you--despite repeated requests to do so.
Oh, if I'm "incompleltly understanding" his work.
Perhaps YOU should do a better job of explaining it---I only know what and how YOU have posted.
I have nothing to say to you in private that would not say in public.
Nor do I see any value to the community to keep discussions about the accuracy of your claims and reasoning away from the public eye.
Exposing sloppy thinking should be public--so that people can have the chance to learn.
I'm sure that you are "more than happy to help with.....sophistry."
As "sophistry" seems to be your preferred method of discourse.
Go BMW (bitch, moan, and whine) where the "scary" people that question you and your claims won't find you and subject you and your wacked claims to critcial questioning, and in-depth analysis.
Ooops, sorry, I see that you already plan to do just that......
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 02:31 PM
I had to look 'sophistry' up. sounded like a made-up word.
Quote:
sophistry: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation.
huh. always cool to learn new words...but I haven't seen it's use in this thread. the deceptive argumentation had nothing subtle about it. lol
it's a red herring cxt. there are no supporting facts...you are bascially arguing with someone who agrees with someone elses opinion. and they will never mention the details of that opinion since the whole point is for people to buy the book...not just give unsubstantiated opinion away for free like people in forums do. lol
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 02:34 PM
It would be nice to get some actual detail on where these theories have come from. Oneheart, can you give us some specifics from the book?
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 02:44 PM
Ed
Its also a tactic used to twist things around so as to cover ones VERY exposed backside--as One has so aptly demonstrated.
Its kinda sad really.
Nathen is being very poorly represented by folk such as One.
Its also sad that One--having the book, could have easily presented exact quotes and examples, possibly even scanned relevent portions, presented detailed subject matter with direct support from the work itself.
(proper attribution, work cited for the purpose of discussion/debate, not for $$$$$$ gain, only parts of work presented etc would get him around any copy restrictions)
I can only assume that One, not being a total idiot--not total
realized quite early on that anything he DIRECTLY quotes/referenced would be ripped apart in short order by informed folks.
Leaving him with nothing between him and the big, scary, cold, cruel world but the tatters and shreds of his wacked ideas.
Like I said, its really a shame, I don't agree with what has been presented so far---but we have yet to hear more details from Kodo etc.
Might be an interesting discussion--once people step up and start presenting some actual information.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 03:23 PM
well...nothing says we can't have our own conversation based on the reviews of others who have read the material and/or are familiar with the technical arguments.
here are a couple review threads I could find:
http://gojuryu.net/forum/viewthread.php?forum_id=36&thread_id=528http://www.karatedo-forum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1678&st=0http://okinawakarateblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/empty-hand-kata-as-weapons-kata-there.htmlbut I like Kane's argument the best:
"...you just can't do a yama uke or mawashe uke with a sai and expect to find any practical application for the technique."
http://www.iainabernethy.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=5;t=000028lol. good point.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 03:43 PM
LOL.you guys are like the karate mythbusters!!
Hi Ed,
Now I've only been working Sai 30 years or so but the next time we get together you throw the punch and see if I can 'mawashe uke' (or 'tora guchi') with my sai or not.
I don't think you'll be happy with the answer and I'll only go 1/2 speed.
ROTFLOL
Posted by: CVV
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 04:20 PM
Aragaki no sai Taisho-Period 1912 - 1926
Chatanyara no sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Chihara no sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Hakuta (Gawa) no sai Meiji-Restauration 1868 - 1912
Hamahiga no sai Ryukyu-Königreich 1414 - 1867
Hantagawa no sai (Tantagua) Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Ishikawaguwa no sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Jigen no sai Taisho-Period 1912 - 1926
Kogusoku no sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Kojo (Kagi) no sai Meiji-Restauration 1868 - 1912
Kourugawa no sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Kuniyoshi no sai Meiji-Restauration 1868 - 1912
Matayoshi no sai Taisho-Periode 1912 - 1926
Matsuhiga no sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Matsumura no sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Nakazato no sai Showa-Periode 1926 - 1989
Nicho sai Showa-Periode 1926 - 1989
Renshuho Showa-Periode 1926 - 1989
Renshuho taibo no sai Showa-Periode 1926 - 1989
Ryueiryu no sai Showa-Periode 1926 - 1989
Sakugawa no sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Sancho sai Unknown
Shihohai no sai Unknown
Shinbaru no sai Unknown
Soken no sai Taisho-Periode 1912 - 1926
Tawada no sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Tokuyama no sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Tsuken Shitahaku sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Ufuchiku no sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Ushi sai Ryukyu-Kingdom 1414 - 1867
Yakaa no sai Meiji-Restauration 1868 - 1912
This is a list of the known sai kata on Okinawa and from what period they were known in Okinawa. Most of them are from the time of the Ryukyu kingdom and although this list might not be complete I am pretty sure 95% is in there.
I see no sanchin no sai or sesan no sai or sanseiru no sai in there. Or it was still kept secret and Nathan Johnson is about the only one who was allowed this information or the old masters (Uechi/Miyagi/Juhatsu/Higashiaonna/Aragaki/Matsumura/Matsumora/....) never learned the true intentions of the kata they learned from their teachers.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 04:24 PM
I'm sure I wouldn't Victor, steel tends to be a bit hard on my skin and bones. question is, do you subscribe to the view that most okinawan kata were intended for sai applications?
and if so, is it based upon anything.
(btw, I'm pretty sure your half-speed sai-assisted mawashi uke would work fine if you already had sai drawn....but I'm also pretty sure I can punch faster than a double draw at close range).
Ed,
From what I've seen there has been no credible historical documentation that until the modern era, kobudo was incorporated into karate in any substantial way. In other words there were people who had some training, but not that karate utilized it formally.
I belive it was a clip of Mr. Johnson's sai kata that began this thread. From the angle it was shot, and not knowing the intent, all I would say is I don't see the martial intent behind the technique. Not good or bad, for it could just be a light demonstration.
My focus on kobudo is for the secondary value building speed, power, manipulation skills for my kata application studies. I don't give a hang about using them for defensive reasons, never have. For that I'd use a stick if I was of such mind.
As for drawing the sai. If I was carrying sai they'd be in my hands, not on my belt. But as I said they're unrealistic in a world where metal detectors are the future.
Yes China (and all SE Asia) used sai, and are likely the source how they came to Okinawa. I've seen Chinese sai forms, and they are different from Okinawa's.
But to answer your question, if my sai were 'holstered' I'd just use my hands. It's not like you're a real threat <GRIN>
Sorry about that, but humor is often the best answer for these hypothetical questions.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 05:05 PM
c'mon now Victor...you give me too much credit by even having to mention I'm not a threat. lol
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 05:23 PM
Like I told One.
Just because I "can" pull stumps up with my car does not mean that the "purpose" of my car is a stump pulling machine.
Now I will cop to wanting a car that might impress the ladies as well as get me to and from work.
Sadly my car does NOT do that---but I can dream
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 06:10 PM
I think we need Tom or another KoDo Ryu Senior to really help this thread along,
I am re-reading Nathans book and the ammount of content doesn't really lend itself well to just stating certain pieces on the forum.
Some good points being raised but I think it really makes sense if one of you guys (Ed, CXT or voctor perhaps?) read the book and see the dvd,
I would be happy to send mine over if it is returned and whoever gets it is happy to make an unbiased assesment for FA Forum? If thats of interest send me a pm and lets do the deal.............
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 06:15 PM
Sho
I'd spring for one, have to order it though, and that takes time.
I'll look around and see what I can find.
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 06:32 PM
OK if you cant locate let me know, offer still stands for Victor or Ed.
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 06:49 PM
Quote:
It would be nice to get some actual detail on where these theories have come from. Oneheart, can you give us some specifics from the book?
Sure Matt kinda thought "tom" was going to do this, but since you asked...out of the frying pan...
For those familiar with his previous books, one of the themes that runs all the way thought this book as well is that "function dictates form." Mr. Johnson goes to great lengths to show this through the lenses of culture, history and the physical movements of the kata as they relate to physiology. Mr. Johnson claims that "the most logical proof of what constitutes a genuine kata can only be found in a clear demonstration of its exact function- the reason for its existence, and the reason for its format." His logic is that if function dictates form, his "research" can reveal the original purpose of karate. This relates to the "only one application per movement" argument that was hinted at in previous posts but not discussed in any meaningful way. I have to say his physiological argument seems at first to support this, but I'll give MY THOUGHTS on that in a bit. There doesn’t appear to be any “research” going on here, like I stated earlier, Mr. Johnson has a unique opinion that he then went looking for supporting “facts” in favor of. The historical and philosophical points of his position are, in his own admission, arguable. The "proof" he has is in the "precise" performance and application of the katas. He says "the kata speak for themselves, and it is on this basis that this work will stand." Hence my statements from my original post, questioning the claims of "proof" and his historical "evidence". To provide a historical and cultural context for his claims and help explain our lack of "understanding" of the original intent, Mr. Johnson points out that karate evolved in an alien culture with very different values and points of view from our own westernized culture. He states that Karate and kata are of a very cultured orientation, and hence contain no techniques intended for brutality. He says the backdrop for most of karate's development in china was that of Confucian morality and that the further we go from that orientation the more distant our practice of kata is from the intention.
Because of this cultural context, we view kata in a very different way than the Asian practitioners. As westerners, we are locked into powerful beliefs about change and progress that are at odds with "the old masters." Mr. Johnson talks about the physical analysis of the kata and its relationship to fighting distance and human physiology. And states that "if human beings ever physically 'update' then classical kata will need updating too!" He believes that kata function and form are interlinked with physiology as understood by the progenitors of the practice and that there is no need to update them, they must simply be "decoded," after reading the book I'm not sure how one "decodes" the original intentions but that is never really explained (nor do I believe it can be…). Mr. Johnson presents, in support of his position, that “fighting can be learned without kata” and that the provide record of “immutable truths.” He states that kata in addition to providing this record, also assist in the development of muscle memory useful in conditioning “contact” or “touch “ reflexes. Mr. Johnson believes that the “Okinawan Ryu-ha Kihon Kata Tradition” by Miyagi Chojunis is central to the support of his theory and may have played a role in determining what kata he teaches, but I can find no direct link to any of his theories in the essay “Karate Do Gaisetsu”
More thursday...Like I said, those of you looking for "proof" won't find any here. But you may find some interesting questions like "how does physiology and distance effect what we practice and how its applied?" and a lot of history thrown into the mix thats great to know but I'm not convinced it is any real evidence.
Sorry you asked? More thursday...
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 06:53 PM
One
2 things.
1-Thought you said you were leaving
You certainly ran around all in a snit saying that you were.
2-It would REALLY help if you put your thoughts in some other form than massive, run-on, word-salad, one solid paragraph sentences.
Very, very hard to work thu.
I don't fault spelling, spell poorly myself, do fault making things so hard to read that people don't even bother.
Oh, BTW, one of the points raised was that NJ grasp of the histoy and culture (esp in Goju/Uechi) may well be flawed from a fundamental level--thus ALL posits based upon his poor understanding would be equally flawed.
A guy that does not "really" understand German culture would be poorly equiped to explain why certain groups wear lederhosen. (sp)
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 06:57 PM
Jim, are you meaning to tell me that there is no source referenced in the book as to where this theory is based upon?
earlier in the thread, the kodo guy mentioned:
"Alot of evidence drawn from alot of sources such as Patrick Mccarthy, Donn Draeger, Shoshin Nagamine to name a few are drawn on in the book."
first, that's not research, thats regurgitation. second, those he mentioned either say just the opposite of his theory, or haven't mentioned sai's relationship to kata at all.
Then there is this he stated:
"Do you have any evidence that the sai were not used in China because again in the same book the evidence is layed out that they were."
ok...so NAME the goshdang evidence. lol you guys have the book sitting right there...so type in the evidence that is given.
The other things the kodo guy says are outright contradictory of other's more in-depth research. ..especially about where goju kata come from:
"Both Uechi ryu and Goju ryu only inherited three kata from China, Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseiru. They both come from the same source. All the historical evidence and research for this is clearly laid out in Nathan Johnson's book "The Great Karate Myth". "
and
"Thats a big statement can you please list the Kata and their sources? Because I see no eivdence to suggest that any other kata in goju ryu except Sanchin,Seisan and sanseiru came from a Chinese source. The rest appear to have been made up by Chojun Miyagi. "
again...name the source(s).
I refuse to waste my money on this material, with xmas coming up...I'm saving for a PS3. lol
just type in the sources and stop playing games, people.
Posted by: sinbad
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 07:11 PM
Hello all
Looks like this thread keeps going off into various tangents, with mainly personal comments. Want to re-focus on the book...
I've read it - it's big - so fortunately it's accompanied by a DVD to help make the point.
I suspect the 'controversial' claims on the back of the book along with the title are the publisher's doing. The content however, is extremely well researched and the arguments well put.
Sensei Johnson begins by making the point that there is, to date, a difference between modern Karate/Kung Fu (many different applications and interpretations), and classical, pre-1950s Karate/Kung Fu (less applications).
His analysis focuses on the classical. References include some very old books (pre-1950s), and articles by many acclaimed researchers.
His approach then is to look at the Classical Karate (key point here being not Modern Karate) and look at it's inability to 'compete' in arenas such as the UFC, or against people who have the will and ability to do 'real' (border-line psychotic) damage.
He also looks at a number of other factors to reach his conclusions for example, in Sanchin he includes the study of similar Kata/Quan-fa within Chinese Kung Fu and recorded social, political and philosophical history within China.
I can't really go into the history here, there's about 200 pages of a 400 page book and I can't stress how complicated it gets (apologies if it sounds like another plug).
Moving on, one of the technical aspects that Sensei Johnson raises to support his case for weapons is asymmetry in Kata.
"Many quan/kata practise or repeat particular techniques on only one side of the body... Seisan kata displays such a 'one-sided' approach"
Another point is the obscure hand shapes made. Again as an example, the placement of the fingers in Seisan's elbow strike.
http://www.kodoryu.com/thesai.php.
Sinbad
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 07:13 PM
btw, by definition:
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
without source or basis, the book becomes just an opinion.
opinions are weighed by the credability of the person selling their opinion. someone with less than 10 years of sai experience without naming who he learned from hardly has credability to suggest they've tapped into 'truths' that have eluded all others closer to sources and more versed in kobudo/karate and it's history.
what would be interesting is, where,when and by who(m) DID mr. Johnson get his kobudo training from? SURELY he must have mentioned that in his book, and it's easy enough to type in teachers and dates in a post here and now...isn't it?
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 07:16 PM
more vague answers from damage control posting.
"References include some very old books (pre-1950s)"
name ONE.
"articles by many acclaimed researchers."
name an article.
Posted by: sinbad
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 07:35 PM
Chaplin, Greg. “A Meeting with Master Xia Bai Hua.”
Fighting Arts International 67, vol. 12, no. 1 (1990).
Draeger, Donn F. Classical Bujutsu: The Martial Arts and Ways of Japan, vol. 1. New York and Tokyo: Weatherhill, 1973.
Draeger, Donn F. Classical Budo: The Martial Arts and Ways of Japan, vol. 2. New York and Tokyo: Weatherhill, 1973.
Franks, David. Several private communications, 1993-1997.
Funakoshi, Gichin. Karate Do Kyohan. London: Ward Lock, 1982.
Higaonna, Morio. The History of Karate: Okinawan Goju Ryu. USA: Dragon Books, 1995.
Johnson, Nathan. Zen Shaolin Karate. Boston: Charles E. Tuttle, 1994.
Johnson, Nathan. Barefoot Zen: the Shaolin Roots of Kung Fu and Karate. York Beach Maine: Weiser Books, 2000.
Jou, Tsung Hwa. The Tao of Tai Chi Chuan. Boston: Charles E. Tuttle,
Lao Tzu. Tao Te Ching. London, 1985.
McCarthy, Patrick. Private letter, 1995.
Nagamine, Shoshin. The Essence of Okinawan Karate-Do. Boston: Charles E. Tuttle, 1976.
Nakayama, Masatoshi. Dynamic Karate. London: Ward Lock, 1966.
Noble, Graham. “The First Karate Books.”
Fighting Arts International 90, (1995).
Noble, Graham. “The Master Funakoshi and the Development of Japanese Karate.” Fighting Arts International 34, vol. 6, no. 4 (1995).
Noble, Graham, with Ian Mclaren and Professor N. Karasawa. “The History of Japanese Karate: Masters of the Shorin- Ryu.” Fighting Arts International 50, vol. 9, no. 2 (1988).
Sokon, Matsumura "Budo Makimono" (c.1882)
Mao Yuan-yi, "Wu-pei chih" (1621) (Beijing: Chieh-fang chu-pan-she, 1989)
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 07:38 PM
Sinbad
As god (small "g") as my witness I have no wish to offend you.
But your post above is little more than a collection of baseless supposition, fallicious examples, "strawmen" and poorly understood base concepts.
It would take longer to break it down line by line and show you where your in error than its worth to do.
As just one example, the "onesidedness" of kata.
"Most" kata are "one sided" to the right--right?
What are most people?
Right handed or left handed?
Like boxers, they may work the left to make it BETTER--but MOST of the work is done with the "strong" side.
Makes sense to me that the kata would follow the majority of people.
Also happens to be a much better, more rational, more practical explaination than what you claim NJ claims it is.
BTW the above, is just a list of people, WhAT EXACTLY DID THEY SAY THAT SUPPORTS YOUR POINTS???
Posted by: sinbad
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 07:43 PM
Fair point cxt.
What's the empty hand reason for the obscure finger shapes? (I ask because I don't know)
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 07:44 PM
Sinbad
What "obscure finger shapes???"
I honestly don't know what you mean.
Posted by: sinbad
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 07:47 PM
Master Uechi's fingers in the pic on the left.
click here...
http://www.kodoryu.com/thesai.php
Posted by: butterfly
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 07:52 PM
Sinbad....man. Just following along, but if you consider this proof...man.
Hey, you know, when I look at clouds, sometimes I see faces, and sometimes I see animals, and sometimes I see whatever the hell I want to see.
Good conversation so far, but it's Ed and CXT with all the points.
Can someone just document something? No just give a bibliography?
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 07:55 PM
Sinbad
Ok, now I get it. Was looking for an article on the site about it.
Not being a Uechi-ka I can't speak for them.
As a Goju-ka, the combative rational is VERY close, like grappling close.
The arm doing the elbow strike is "clawed" because the elbow srike is a stright thrust to the throat, face or chest, the hand is "clawed" because the very next thing I'm going to do (depending on where I sent the elbow and "other" things) is "claw" your face with my fingers in your eyes.
The other hand is "open" because I'm probabaly grabbing you with it, to hold you still for the momment it takes to elbow you.
Its "open" so I can "grab" with it.
We don't do it quite like that in Goju version of the kata--in Goju the "open" other hand just RETRACTED from a eye-stab.
Does that help????
See, there is a very real danger of mis-interpretation of discrete tecniques from style to style.
Why "I" do it--may be a very differnt thing than why "you" do it.
Makes concrete conclusion rather problematic.
Posted by: sinbad
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 08:00 PM
Thank you
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 08:08 PM
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 08:13 PM
I'm interested in this reference:
Sokon, Matsumura "Budo Makimono" (c.1882)
anyone know about it?
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 08:20 PM
Sinbad
No problem
Gotta head home--"talk" to folks later.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 08:39 PM
One -
Thanks for the breakdown. So, I'm gathering that this theory, while provocative and interesting, does not seem to be based on any type of historical fact or research. I don't have a problem with Mr Johnson saying "I think kata is based on weapons" as a theory or idea. But to for him to stress that his is the true or correct way ("decoded") is flawed at best, when it is generally agreed that there is NO one standard way of interpreting kata.
His lack of historical basis makes it even less academic.
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 08:49 PM
Quote:
One
2 things.
1-Thought you said you were leaving
You certainly ran around all in a snit saying that you were.
No, youre stuck with me (at least for as long as this is entertaining and benefitial)...I was done debating with you about the "proof," my opinion, who I represent, how much I'm making BS...and just for the record I was not in a snit, and my offer still stands...;)
Quote:
"2-It would REALLY help if you put your thoughts in some other form than massive, run-on, word-salad, one solid paragraph sentences."
Well, I will admit I was in a hurry and didn't have time to break things down as simply as I would have liked...I'll try to do better when I can really spend more time with this thursday...and don't worry you'll have plenty of chances to bust my balls in posts to come...
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/01/06 09:18 PM
in the meantime, while you gather your thoughts for thursday...I took the liberty of asking a similar question on another forum:
http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?p=427153#post427153then connect that info with here:
http://www.e-budokai.com/articles/weapons.htm(jutte section)
and here, from CFA issue #7: Chinese Police & Chinese Martial Arts.
This article by Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo, point out that in Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) China, there were no police, but rather "Jian-min" ('low class ruffians, mean people') which acted as court-runners who's primary duty was tax collection, summons, arrests and carrying out judicial torture....and of course, bribes. They were more like disorganized mobsters doing chores for the local services 'under the table', than law enforcement.
They further mention that when China DID start to create an organized police force at the turn of the 20th century, they modeled it after Japan...and even hired Japanese law enforcement to train and help organize it's new force. The Japanese, remember, revamped IT'S force based upon European models during the start of their Meiji period just a few decades prior. Then when China went republic in 1912, it incorporated it's own Martial Arts training including rope arrests, Chin-na, etc.
It's likely that even if China did use restraining devices looking like sai and having formalized training such as forms...it would have been after 1912. There was simply no infastracture to support a systematic police force. It didn't exist.
we know that okinawan kata existed well before China had an organized and trained police force in 1912. The earliest substantiated viewing of Okinawan kata was written about from the 1850's. When Higaonna returned from China, it is documented that he didn't teach ANY weapons. This was substantiated by several independant sources...namely, Higaonna's senior students. If he brought back sai/weapons kata from China, where were the sais in his teachings? If the sai kata were for restraining and arresting...where is the evidence that China even had law enforcement during that time?
so it appears we might have one part of the recipie for the new Myth:
Take samurai-era law-enforcement history and superimpose it onto China using a weapon which likely came AFTER the Jutte.
sometimes you really have to wonder how people can justify writing a book and having the audacity to use words like 'evidence', 'fact', 'truth' and 'theory'.
Saying Okinawan kata is based on Chinese law enforcement devices is not even a theory...it's like an ad-hoc posting on an internet forum trying out a guess.
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your kind offer. If you contact me off line we can discuss the possibility.
I would like to clarify my view on these issues. While I've tried my best to see what is available from the past, I don't spend any time worrying about what the original answers were.
From my perspective my only goal is to take any technique I practice and drop any attack with it. I don't worry about what the original meaning is or was. Makes little difference. I see a movement in a very different perspective. If I can take the opening section of Isshinryu's Seisan kata and make it work 50 or 100 different ways, I don't care what the original intent was a bit, and if what I'm doing isn't classical, that's fine.
Heck I just spent some time last weekend with an instructor who just focused on one aspect of opening techniques.
But it's a careful, long study in itself, I work at.
I think too much effort is focused on trying to discern origins and not enough effort on making what you do work, which is vastly more important, IMO.
The only real lesson I've garnered from the past, is to track how change occurs (only from the Okinawan perspective) and try to understand why it did. Those forces are the most powerful ones, understanding what shaped change in the past and how it will shape change in the future.
Simply break karate into a few periods:
Classical - say pre 1900
Traditional - say 1900 to 1950
Modern - say 1950 to now
Contemporary - the past 10 years
For all of that time there is no proof of anything.
For the Classical period, because karate's traditions were a non-literate form of transmission and vastly non-verbal too (without an extensive technical vocabulary) there is no proof of anything, except that of oral history.
Anyone making any claims (whether the possible Chinese origins of techniques, what was really studied, how training was conducted, etc. is just making assumptions, there is no proof.
During the Traditional period, in Japan alone, the Okinawan's and then the Japanesee began to capture the arts by producing books, movies, etc. The thing is all of those medium are incapable of capturing the truth of decades of study. They might be snapshots but without the connecting dots. Suppose you find a really old movie with the karate-ka showing incredible technique, what's there doesn't explain how to get there, the layers of training. Just glimpses, valuable, but just that and little more, and most of the real history was never captured, EVER!
Then the modern era. Okinawan reluctantly began to share some of their arts in books and video. But everywhere the same remains, only the outer shell can be shown.
Finally the contemporary period. Now everything is becoming available. Books in Japanese are slowly being translated into English and other languages. Very, very little that has ever been filmed is not available on line at a fingers touch today.
And you still don't really know what happened.
Put this into some context, please, but the important lessons take place in the dojo, not here, where we can just chew the fat.
pleasantly,
Posted by: butterfly
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 11:51 AM
Quote:
I think too much effort is focused on trying to discern origins and not enough effort on making what you do work, which is vastly more important, IMO.
I disagree on a couple of points: 1) To find out relevant truths as they relate to your practice seems to me always a worthy goal; and 2) To be dismissive about finding actual, documented applications from a historical backdrop seems problematic.
No 1 is what it is and is just my opinion. For, No. 2 however, I could train at flicking toothpicks for years on end and become quite good at it if I considered a snapping motion with my fingers in a particualr kata could sponsor such defensive use (poking someone's eye out with a toothpick); or, I could use a 2x4 to bat a baseball and try to make it awkwardly function for my requirement of hitting a ball. However, this begs the question of efficiency and not reverse engineering something to work, sort-of, as I would like it to.
Instead of toothpick flicking I would get a pistol---and instead of a 2x4, I would get a baseball bat. This, in my mind, brings up Ockham's Razor and if you have to think overlong and convolute the process to find a reasonable answer to application, then it probably ain't so and there are easier solutions to be had.
-B
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 12:42 PM
One
Please get your attibution stright, "I" NEVER questioned how much you were "makeing" off this discussion.
You still have failed to answer my direct responses/questions.
My bet is "can't"---but "won't" works as well
Here is ANOTHER question, since Okinawan karate ALREADY had and has an extent ciruculem with various weapons--including the sai, why bother to have "Sanchin Sai" kata at all??
All that would be ia ADDING to the number of perfectly good, dedicated sai kata.
Whats the point of that???
Again, a serious oversight in the "theory" in that any "explination" as to why anyone would just ignore an entire body of sai kata and drills and practice and info in favor of of a titular "secret" swap the empty hand for sai" theory is MORE complex, convoluted and twisted, than the situation its trying to solve---thus its probably jacked up wrong.
That pesky Occams razor again
Glad your giving up "proofs" as you have none.
Thus, since YOUR the guy that made the claim--which you now say you have no "proof" of.
You lose--and your claims can be judged as worthless since YOU can't back them up
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 12:46 PM
Quote by Victor Smith -
Quote:
From my perspective my only goal is to take any technique I practice and drop any attack with it. I don't worry about what the original meaning is or was. Makes little difference. I see a movement in a very different perspective. If I can take the opening section of Isshinryu's Seisan kata and make it work 50 or 100 different ways, I don't care what the original intent was a bit, and if what I'm doing isn't classical, that's fine.
I don't think anyone here is arguing against multiple interpretations of kata. The problem in this case seems to be one of claiming the "best" or "original" application with flimsy supporting evidence. As Butterfly implied, it seems to lead to application ideas on the "not so much" side of practicality.
Butterfly,
It isn’t that I disagree with using relevant historical information if discovered, it’s just that I don’t expect it to be found, and god bless anyone who can. When you have a tradition based on keeping everything private, and documenting almost none of it, there is little to turn to but oral history and that is fraught with difficulties. If it can be found and used more the good, but I’m not holding my breath. I have friends actively engaged in translating what was written and perhaps they will find some valuable material, but even then it takes more than just reading something to integrate it into your program of study.
As for long term kata research, if you can take a technique, look at its potential and drop someone what else is there even if others haven’t taken the time to explore those options. And BTW, they are simple answers that work, just in my experience few have taken those paths.
Reverse engineering is a false concept in my book. There is just technique and its applications. I don’t teach developing students those studies, but they may change what my developing students are exposed to.
What I see in my own studies the application potential of kata technique fit two answers. Those that work extremely well when you train up to them, and are prime ways to drop someone. The other applications are ones you would not choose to use because simpler answers are available, BUT, they are extremely valuable in skill building, learning how to fit into various situations with greater skill, even if they are not optimal answers.
It really depends on whether one believes in skilled techniques or only believes simple answers are the way.
I’ve worked with many highly skilled people in many arts, and I believe you can choose to follow those paths and not sacrifice anything. They didn’t get those skills debating, just using their studies and hard training.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 03:12 PM
Victor
My own little "pipe dream" is that someone, maybe working on a new house or laying a pipeline will come across the books/papers/research Miyagi claimed he buried to keep it safe during the war.
As goes the story he sealed it up pretty good--just barely possible that its still extent.
Not holding my breath either of course
Posted by: Bossman
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 03:25 PM
Shoshinkan does Kushanku with hatpins!
Don't ya Jim?
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 04:00 PM
Quote:
They didn’t get those skills debating, just using their studies and hard training.
can we assume that people aren't on here debating issues INSTEAD of training...but rather considering history/theory/ideas/etc as an extracurricular to the actual sweat and physical study?
maybe we should just assume that? because if we don't, then pretty much EVERY post that people put up can be answered with the eqivalent answer: "doesn't matter, just train."
I'm pretty sure people train the same amount per week regardless of posting count.
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 05:06 PM
Quote:
Here is ANOTHER question, since Okinawan karate ALREADY had and has an extent ciruculem with various weapons--including the sai, why bother to have "Sanchin Sai" kata at all??
All that would be ia ADDING to the number of perfectly good, dedicated sai kata.Whats the point of that???
I honestly have no idea, thats Mr. johnson's theory...And my questinon to him would be..."If you were chinese during the ming dynasty, concerned with "arrest" (read "close quarter skills) why would you base a weapons system on kendo distance (needed to make the visual reflex effective), and what appear from the book to be to in large part japanese karate stances. Remember function dictates form...so if the function is the same, why do Shorin and uechi kata look nothing alike?. The new "Sai kata" would employ much less effective visual reflex responses when you already had access to in an empty hand system based on tactile reflexes. All you would need to do is pick up a weapon and employ it using the same concepts as the empty hand work and it would have been structurally similar to many south east asian weapons systems?" I agree with many of Mr. johnsons concepts surrounding the empty hand portion of his system...but have serious reservations about the above in regards to his weapons system...I have stated all that from the start here.
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 05:09 PM
Quote:
Shoshinkan does Kushanku with hatpins! Don't ya Jim?
Not yet Steve, but don't hold your breath on that one eh!
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 05:21 PM
I must admit I do find Nathan Johnsons re-engineered Naihanchi (as a 2 man locking drill) and Tensho (as a set of grip releases) very interesting over the kobudo theory.
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 05:29 PM
The empty hand portion of his work is very interesting...the sai portion is...well, interesting to try to figure out. He uses empty hand kata to construct a system that seems to be very well structured...all the pieces fit into the pushhands format and seem to deal with contact and close quarter concerns. But then he makes this departure into the sai vs bo stuff, bases his theory in part on a very japanese concept of distance and incorperates new kata into his system from another okinawan style ??? Using some ideas I had always considered "japanese" to justify their inclusion?
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 07:03 PM
One
Now your seem to be confusing Japanese karate with the older Okinawan version.
"Kendo" being a Japanese art that might (MIGHT--that is a whole other discussion) have much to do with the mid-days of Shotokan--but NOTHING to do with the Shorin or Uechi-ryu.
(and even less to do with the Ming Chinese)
Maybe Shorin and Uechi "look nothing alike" because they are DIFFERENT ARTS--with different "root" systems and handed down by different people????
They "look different" because they are different appraochs to the same basic set of problems.
(more or less)
Again, a much simplier, much better supported explination of the "difference" than the ones you are laying out based upon NJ books.
Think of it like this---to shameless "steal" an example from one of Dave Lowerys books.
You ever do any cooking?
Take a simple vegatable soup---you, me and NJ start with the same stuff.
-Beef
-Vegatables
-Stock
-Salt, Pepper, other spices.
-Noodles
We all 3 cook up a batch of soup---now what are the chances that all 3 batchs will turn out EXACTLY ALIKE???
Pretty much zero------ZERO
Or lets just look at what body type might do---I'm about 6 feet tall 200 lbs, why would some guy 5'5 130 lbs come up with the same fighting methods I use?
Heck why don't heavy-weight boxers fight "just like" feather weights?
Look, that idea has more holes in it than a chunk of Swiss Cheese.
What kind of babbling nonsense is this whole "reflex" thing?
You seriously are suggesting that its somehow more effective" to train a sai kata WITHOUT THE SAI---than it would be to just pick up a readily available sai and use commen kata THAT ALREADY EXSiST FOR ITS USE???
Seriously?????
Or riddle me this--since you feel that NJ sai work makes sense---exactly what actual kobudo are you comparing it too?
I mean how do you know it makes sense at all--if you havn't directly compared it to ACTUAL, REAL sai work from a legit sources??
Anwser--you DON'T
Heres 3 more problem--say you do--and it "fits/matchs" the kobudo pretty well.
1-Then why not just DO the kobudo, skip the middleman.
2-You NOW have to explain why the kuobudo kata are DIFFERENT than ones in NJ book--they should be the "same" remember?
3-If the legit kobudo does is different--then you have to explain why NJ is somehow "different" than the actual, real, legit stuff--which one is correct? And how do you tell??
Look I'd love to keep batting this around with you tonight, but I need to go work out soon
Catch you in the morning--see if you have any solid responses for me.
Tell you what, my signature line is looking less and less funny all the time.
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 07:16 PM
...WOW...my head hurts...is anyone else following what I'm saying or is this my problem?
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 07:27 PM
Quote:
I'm interested in this reference:
Sokon, Matsumura "Budo Makimono" (c.1882)
anyone know about it?
Matsumura's Teachings on the Martial Arts (a letter)
You can only understand the true way of the martial arts through determination and continuous training. It is quite interesting to note that the martial arts and the methods of scholarly study parallel each other at a fundamental level.
When examining the methods of scholarly study, we find there are three distinct elements or methods:
The first method is the study of powerful words, skills needed in communication and the pursuit of high-paying positions.
The second method is the study of comparing the wisdom of traditional literature, and instilling a sense of duty by way of example.
Despite the fact that these two methods are both unique, they fall short of comprehending the true essence of the way. They encompass only a superficial comprehension of scholarly studies, so they should be regarded as incomplete.
The third method of literary study is a complete method. By understanding this third method is how we can understand the true way. Some of the things that it teaches us how to do are the following:
(1) To gain a more profound understanding
(2) To gain strength from our weaknesses
(3) To become more sincere
(4) To become more righteous
(5) To better control our emotions
(6) To have more peace in our homes
This is a doctrine that can be applied to not only our country, but to the whole world. Therefore, only this study is a complete one.
If we investigate the martial arts, we also see that there are three distinct divisions or elements in them:
The first method, or division, is more like a game of psychology and tactics. It actually has no practical application in fighting, but it is more like pretty dancing. It is quite superficial.
The second method is nothing more than physical exercises. Its only goal is to win. In this there is no virtue. The practitioners of this method are contentious. Many times they bring injury to others and to themselves. Very often they cause dishonor to come upon members of their family.
The third method, in contrast, is always performed with conviction. The practitioners of this third method gain a solemn enlightenment, free of strife and depravity. It promotes loyalty among family, friends and country. It also promotes a natural demeanor, which develops a gallant character.
If you have an unconquerable calmness, you can overcome the enemy without force, with the ferocity of a tiger and the swiftness of a bird.
Some traits of this third method:
(1) It prohibits intentional violence
(2) It rules the actions of the warrior
(3) It edifies
(4) It promotes virtue
(5) It promotes peace among the people
(6) It produces harmony in society
(7) It brings about prosperity
These are called the "Seven Virtues of the Martial Arts." They were taught by wise men, and are contained in a book called the Godan-sho.
Thus, the true way of the martial arts has more than one element in it. A wise man does not need the first or second methods. All he needs is the third method. In this method, you will find the true way.
This unconquerable strength will deeply influence your judgement in recognizing opportunities and in taking appropriate action. The circumstances will always determine what the correct approach is that you should take.
It might seem like I have no respect for the other two fighting methods, but my conviction is rooted immovably in the doctrine of the third method. I have revealed my words to you. There is nothing left secret or hidden in my mind, nothing held back. If you accept and heed my words, you will find the true way.
Signed:
Bushi Matsumura, May 13, 1882
To:
My wise and young brother Kuwae Ryosei
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 08:23 PM
cool Jim, thanks! where did you get that?
[edit] found it:
http://www.msisshinryu.com/masters/bushi/index.shtmlit's in "Funakoshi Gichin - Karatedo Tanpenshu" translated by the McCarthy's.
thanks again. The words couldn't be more pertinent today.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 09:53 PM
Quote:
You seriously are suggesting that its somehow more effective" to train a sai kata WITHOUT THE SAI---than it would be to just pick up a readily available sai and use commen kata THAT ALREADY EXSiST FOR ITS USE???
I didn't get that at all from One's post. He said -
Quote:
I agree with many of Mr. johnsons concepts surrounding the empty hand portion of his system...but have serious reservations about the above in regards to his weapons system...
Seems to be saying that he DOESN'T agree with the sai stuff.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/02/06 10:20 PM
good idea...forget the sai stuff - might have been just filler material anyway.
To the Kodo guys:
let's hear about the push hands practices. I'm interested in the differences/similarities of Uechi and Goju ways...probably pretty similar?
Kodoryu's empty hand practice is basically Uechi ryu, yes?
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 02:52 AM
Bushi Matsumura gave my Great Great Grandfather (whom he taught in the garage) a copy of the letter,
along with a holiday snap of him and his wife in Ibiza biggin it up man
Seriously as you now realise, its all over the net.
Posted by: Bossman
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 03:50 AM
Ed:
Nathans group pushing hands at Seni06
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7-d_hTmTqIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFg1Kbt2qGsThe kobudo clips will also come up in the right hand column.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 06:46 AM
was there a car show going on a the time?...look at all the people! I'm impressed. I'm picturing long lines to get a book signed. I found myself watching the Aikidoka, very smooth and skilled uke...you'd almost think it was rehersed, but those Aikido guys know their stuff.
does he have a push sais version? lol kidding. nice promo clips though, thanks.
Posted by: JoelM
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 08:43 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeHbH8x_Zfo&mode=related&search=Caption:
Uechi Kanei performs Sanchin kata without Sai.
You could also say he performs the kata without a guitar. But, you know...
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 09:55 AM
and oppossed to the video that shows him performing it
with sai...which seems to be missing from the archives.
but whad'do I know...
Posted by: Bossman
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 10:56 AM
Quote:
was there a car show going on a the time?...look at all the people! I'm impressed. I'm picturing long lines to get a book signed. I found myself watching the Aikidoka, very smooth and skilled uke...you'd almost think it was rehersed, but those Aikido guys know their stuff.
does he have a push sais version? lol kidding. nice promo clips though, thanks.
That's the greatest martial arts show in the UK
For the 2007 event go here http://www.senishow.com/
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 11:18 AM
One
Nice, you fail AGAIN to answer my direct questions.
Or even try to answer to my points.
Instead focus on only ONE TINY LITTLE PART of my respnse to you----nice touch for the guy that claims to dislike...what was the word you used....."sophistry."
Excellent example of though
I honestly have trouble making heads or tails of your "one big run-on sentence block" of mush.
If I misunderstood a section, which I seem to have done (sorry about that) ---then write more clearly--please.
Look dude, if you can't or won't "put-up" then do me a favor and "shut-up."
Ya got nothing.
At the vey least, you should take the time to try and address the various problems, errors and mistakes of your posits.
Its NOT a discussion when people just keep repeating their opinons over and over again.
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 12:24 PM
I don't know how much clearer I can make this...
I don't answer your questions because they present no challenge what so ever to my thoughts on the matter. Not even close. Maybe my posts were unclear, maybe you misunderstood. If so I apologize, please contact me privately if you want to continue this discussion.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 02:10 PM
One
Ok, just on the off chance you really don't "get it"--I'll bite.
I don't belive you, as you have been insulting, seriously passive aggressive, and used the slickist of sophisty as tactics.
(Such as your "apology" above--placed well behind ANOTHER general insult, which make me feel that your not sincere
)
But since you asked.
What you have done is repeatedly posit crap--either your own or someones elses.
Your suppositions lack foundation, support, logic and reason, it seriously misrepesents karate, and shows a lack of information/exposure to its many varities, it bases conclusions upon mis-information as facts, refuses to accept contra-information, refuses to explain the inherant contridictions of the posits, uses fallcious logic, reasoning, presents fallicious examples and "springboards" conclusions off them, fails to provide any degree of support or evidence,......I could go on.
When confronted with your errors, mistakes and illogic, you simply ignore it and continue to repeat your drivel.
You CLAIM that you want to have a "discussion" but the only voice you want to "hear" is you own--endlessly reapeating your errors.
You fail to answer substantive questions about your opinions when directly put to you--by many more people than "me."
You refuse to respond to contridictor information and posits provided by a number of members of this forum.
You don't want to have a "discussion" you want to lecture people as to your jacked up ideas----with no questions being answerd by you.
Dude, if the questions/observations being asked of you by myself and a number of others here "present no challange what-so-ever- to "your" thoughts on the matter."
Then no other proof of your closed mindedness or intentions is needed.
Oh, and your seriously deluded and just plain wrong about that as well---your being shredded alive.
Again, I have nothing to say to you in private that I would not say in public.
It would serve the communty poorly to hide discourse from them.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 02:28 PM
forget about proof and the book for a sec. could you tell me what kind of 2-person drills you do with sai?
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 04:33 PM
Isshin ryu karate's Bo sai kumite (very similar to uezi sensei's version from panther), and some drills taken from arnis, again done with bo and sai.
Posted by: oneheart
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 04:40 PM
I want to apologize to the group at large, as it seems this thread has largely become a "non debate" about opinions and motives ascribed to me that I genuinely don't hold. I came here hoping to discuss the facts of human physiology used by Mr. Johnson as support for his theories and the areas that this raised serious questions for me. I'm bowing out in the hopes this can return to a more "adult" discussion. Again, my sincere apologies,
Ryan
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/03/06 04:51 PM
One
Why is it that I am not surprised by the whole lot of "nothing" coming from you.
Interesting you refer to a VIDEO when asked about sai drills.
Not your style, not your teacher, not some dude/dudette that taught you--but VIDEO.
Oh, almost forgot the "arnis"---refreash my memory, is arnis done with an Okinawan bo and Okinawan sai?
And here I was worried that the "drills" I sort of "borrowed" from the epee and used to train Okinawan bo and sai would look "weird" to people
Someone less trusting than I would probably suspect "puffery" here.
Not me of course, not with the "stand-up guy" manner you have acted with so far.
This would be what---the second time you have "bowed out?"
More passive aggressive nonsense.
You want to have a serious discussion--then lets HAVE one. I'd love to actually have a discussion with you about martial arts, and "martial fantasy."
But a discussion takes people actually willing to DISCUSS.
Not just one guy that is so closed minded that he refuses to even listen to what folks are trying to tell him.
When and if, your every ready to get real, forum will still here.
Egotistically searching for my own name in Google, as I do periodically do to see if anyone is criticising me, I came across this thread where I am mentioned in passing. Perhaps I’m a bit late on the up-take and you’re all off discussing something else now, but I would like to discuss Kodo Ryu with someone that does it and believes in it; I was once a Zen Shorin Do ka myself and therefore one of the few people outside the art capable of understanding (and criticizing) it in depth.
Question 1. In changing the name to Kodo Ryu are Nathan et al wishing to remove the Zen aspects of the art?
Question 2. When using the Sai what are you defending yourself against?
Question 3. How realistic is the civil arrest training that you do when arresting an opponent with Sai or Double Hand Grappling or both?
Question 4: Aren’t Sai farming tools?
Question 5: Why is the distribution of The Great Karate Myth so poor? I mean 4-6 weeks from Amazon? What’s going on their?
Question 6: Given a pair of Sai and an understanding of how and in what context to use them, would I be able to create kata that resemble karate kata?
I do have follow-up questions that you will find somewhat argumentative but I decided to start with the basics.
Martin Clewett
PS: In case anyone cares I have been in my hole trying to create kata specifically for self defence to see what they would look like and compare them to karate kata. I’m not getting very far since I lack the man power for serious investigation. So if anyone is up for a joint venture in trying to create a self defence kata and lives in the Midlands UK please feel free to contact me. Obviously you should be open minded enough to start from self defence basics rather than pull material out of karate kata an reassemble it.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/16/06 09:12 PM
Quote:
trying to create kata specifically for self defence to see what they would look like and compare them to karate kata.
perhaps a new thread. In short, in order to do what you are proposing, I'd think a background in self-defense would be a pre-requesite....then based upon the experience of having a feel for what works and what doesn't, you'd have to distill those into principles. then the kata could be modeled from those intrinsic qualities.
otherwise, you'd end up with a 1-dimensional collection of techniques that are mere set responses to predefined attack. Good for basic drills perhaps, but not much use for deeper study. -just my guess, but as I suggested...maybe for another thread.
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 11/17/06 02:44 AM
welcome back Martin.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Kodoryu - 11/17/06 09:28 AM
Quote:
In case anyone cares I have been in my hole trying to create kata specifically for self defence to see what they would look like and compare them to karate kata.
So you are assuming that karate kata are not for self defence,but you can come up with one that is?
Oh,brother.......... 
Posted by: Ronin1966
Re: Kodoryu - 11/17/06 12:30 PM
Hello Brian:
Perhaps he is merely "creating his own" to see what "it" looks like, how kata creation is/was done?
If you are correct however, then he was never taught/shown differently... and would think in that way. "...They are all symbolic, have no function...." that type of thing.
Merely an opinion, others are available...
Jeff
Posted by: Ronin1966
Re: Kodoryu - 11/17/06 12:52 PM
Hello Mr. Clewett:
Welcome, how long were you a student of that art prey tell?
As for being "one of the few able" to be critical/critisize
everyone has opinions... some are earnest but mistaken, some are right. We have hypothesis, the goal is to prove them. All depends on how compelling anyone's "proof" seems.
<<Question 2. When using the Sai what are you defending yourself against?
I am not the original poster, but this answer is simple, whatever is assaulting us! May not be ~chilverous~ but being attacked the sole requirement is survival, not fairness. "....Oops, he's not armed... guess I have to put these down...."
But one assumes you were seeking a specific answer based on a systemic flaw of reasoning that you perceive/perceived?
<<Question 3. How realistic is the civil arrest training
Wow, that's a real specialized subset of technique. If I expand that question into grappling, being in close while trying to restrain someone, the context seems far more likely... to me at least.
<<Question 4: Aren’t Sai farming tools?
Amusing, but ancient "urban" martial arts myth... love to hear this one proven just because
...
<<Question 5: Why is the distribution of The Great Karate Myth so poor?
Ever published a book?
If not picked up by one of the major publishers it might take a while. Instant self published... might be faster...
0 Great question...
the whole Ebooks idea, I can print one today if I pay their fee. Instant printing...
<<Question 6: Given a pair of Sai
Certainly, why not?! Now how GOOD that understanding is, how far that particular kata evolves in 5, 10, 15 generations of folks who like the look & feel of yours such they maintain the basic flavor into the future.... Or, whether you radically alter the kata in your own lifetime based on new views, perspectives, understandings....
Again different questions
Jeff
Brian, I am not assuming anything at this point; it’s just an experiment.
Jeff, I trained in Zen Shorin Do Karate for 8 years and was taught that karate kata were most definitely NOT for fighting by Nathan Johnson but that doesn’t mean that I can’t challenge that teaching for myself through experiment; i.e. by making a kata specifically designed for self defence and comparing it to traditional karate kata. Of course we can all choose what to believe. In terms of “understanding (and criticizing)” Kodo Ryu the key phase which you seemed to have missed in my previous post was “in depth”. It hasn’t been that long since I stopped training those people, so am already quite familiar with how they think. The questions that I posed where not aimed at all and sundry they were aimed at Kodo Ryu Ka; I’m not sure what your pre-emptive commentary has achieved.
Martin
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Kodoryu - 11/17/06 02:03 PM
And here we go again......
Good luck in your research.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/17/06 03:20 PM
plain and simple: you may have been duped.
here's my post that led you to this thread:
Quote:
in 2000, his main argument/theory was that all kata were not intended for fighting, but rather for spiritual reasons....then Ryoute was created. http://www.ryoute.com
A mere 6 years later and he's done a 180 and now says all kata were intended with weapons. ...then Kodo-Ryu was created.
6 years from now? when books and video sales die down, and the seminar tap runs dry...new controversy, new ryu, next book. I suggest to next create a theory that states that all kata was created for non-fighting weapons. call it: "Karabuki ryu" - "Empty Weapons Way".
see the pattern?
Ed, I can see why you think there is a pattern but you have built this pattern out of information which appears to be wrong.
Quote:
in 2000, his main argument/theory was that all kata were not intended for fighting, but rather for spiritual reasons
Nathan taught that two of the three kata that he considered to be key in karate i.e. Sanchin and Rokushu were products of Shaolin and that their applications lay in two person meditation through pushing hands. As for Naifuanchin he taught that it was a two person exercise in double hand grappling. All the rest of the kata in karate were largely ignored because he did not regard them as key (although he did have a few double hand grappling applications). He also taught that karate kata movements bore little resemblance to self defence methods. This falls somewhat short of saying that all kata were created for spiritual reasons.
Quote:
A mere 6 years later and he's done a 180 and now says all kata were intended with weapons.
I don’t think he is currently saying all kata are weapons kata. He seems to be saying that some are for grappling and some are Sai kata and the rest he has no comment. I haven’t read the book yet but gathering from the website they are quite specific about the kata they use.
As be me being duped… I was given excellent training in what I still consider to be the most beautifully crafted arts I have ever come across for very little money. In terms of being duped into thinking that kata were not for self defence, I never really believed that kata were for self defence to begin with.
With a few tiny exceptions I still believe everything I was taught about specific kata applications in Zen Shorin Do was spot on and I think that most karate ka would find it hard to disagree if they ever allowed themselves to experience them; however I can’t comment on his recent work. My eventual disagreement with Nathan was over the way he chose to include things in his art that I felt were not evident in the kata i.e. pushing hands, civil arrest and zen. Shortly before I left I created a hand grappling (Tegumi) system built entirely from the applications of the three Zen Shorin Do kata. The Double Hand Grappling we do today in Ryoute is hand grappling with the restriction of only being able to use three kata removed.
Martin
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/19/06 11:52 PM
Quote:
This falls somewhat short of saying that all kata were created for spiritual reasons.
I was referring to his past product: "Barefoot Zen"
http://www.amazon.com/Barefoot-Zen-Shaolin-Roots-Karate/dp/1578631424
Quote:
Editorial Reviews
Book Description
This brave new approach to the martial arts clearly demonstrates that the traditional movements of both Kung Fu and Karate grew from the spiritual practices of the Shaolin order of Buddhist monks and nuns. Contrary to popular assumption, Johnson contends that it was never intended to be an actual means of self-defense. Includes practical instructions for preforming kata.
I'd say that synopsis doesn't fall short of what I described it as.
By only looking at a narrow stream of kata, picking and choosing which ones to base wide-sweeping theory on...seems a fundamentally flawed method of analysis.
btw, I was previously sceptical that sai even came from China...but after futher reading and asking about it, it seems my skepticism was misplaced. There is reason to believe the sai which Okinawans adopted did indeed come from China...ironically though, it looks like the Chinese may have got the idea of it's use from the Japanese - likely just prior to the 18th century and once again from the Japanese at the turn of the 20th.
There are Chinese sai forms existing today...they are separate and distinct from their weaponless forms. similarly, okinawan kobudo forms still today are separate and distinct from their weaponless forms. When people don't receive kodudo instruction of kobudo specific forms, they often adapt their weaponless forms using their weapon of choice- that doesn't mean the kata were meant for weapons, it just means they didn't have proper kobudo training.
as far as you being duped, it was an inflamitory thing to write. my appologies. sometimes I instigate to get below the surface of things. -not to be taken personally.
one puzzling thing about your post... you were studying 'Zen Shorin Do' and you disagreed of the inclusion of 'Zen' in it's form practice??
first, 'Zen' can be found in any activity if someone chooses. including it in a style name seems unnecessary and tells me it's intrinsic to it's method of karate study for that particular school....which sounds exactly what Nagamine did in his post-war personal version of Matsubayashi Ryu....and didn't feel the need to rename it 'Zen Matsubayshi Ryu'.
"Do" is 'way' or 'path' - it's used to delineate between Japanese budo. 'Karate-Do' Aikido Judo, Shodo, etc. It makes little sense to add the word 'Do' to a specific school's style name...as if to declare itself a separate and distinct budo art all on it's own.
and I thought 'kodoryu' was based upon Nathan-san's Uechi experience...has he given up on the Shorin kata that was used to base his previous theories? also, where did his Kobudo experience come from and how long?
sorry, I just see the forced progression centered around selling material and seminars. which is fine, everyone has the right to make a living, but doing do so with claims of 'true' history and claiming to dispel myths while in the process, creating new histories and new myths is irresponsible and dis-services the arts for short-term gain.
at least you are brave enough to bounce your ideas/theories around in a forum instead of going right to print with them.
push-hands is just an exercise, a useful one for training tactile reaction. Do it to taiko drums, the Rocky soundtrack, or as far as imagination takes you to make it look cool at seminar demos, but it's still a compliant training aid no matter how complex looking it becomes.
so the trend for pop-MA seems that a name brand 'Do' or 'Ryu' will be created for each and every theory now...the theories become the product, the name becomes it's tradmark. non-fighting 'Zen Shorin Do', push hands 'Ryoute'... and this year, the theory of 'kodoryu' hits the market.
Posted by: Ronin1966
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 12:05 AM
Hello Martin:
<<I trained in Zen Shorin Do Karate for 8 years
Outstanding!
<<and was taught that karate kata were most definitely NOT for fighting
An unusual approach to be sure. What does/did that make them prey tell from your perspective of course?
<<The questions that I posed where not aimed at all and sundry they were aimed at Kodo Ryu Ka
Understood, however it appears
Mr Maxwell (?) took his ball and went home, having been assailed so thoroughly. I think I understood the basic positions, views but was rather disappointed by the blistering severity...
Regardless given as yours was a public posting, and an extremely unusual/uncommon position Mr. Johnson certainly seems to have taken whether in the past or his most recent position(s)... I find it worthy to discuss...
. It is an odd position to take, but interesting/fun one to probe a bit... if you, other members are willing of course.
And perhaps I am mistaken.. but if so it certainly will not be the last time.
Jeff
Hi Ronin
I dont think I even got the ball rolling let alone take it away. The reason I discontinued was a combination of things. The amount of assumptions about Nathan and his work was quite amazing. The assumption that the driving force behind Nathan researching karate kata to make money. The shift from what was practised around the time that Barefoot Zen was published is quite different now in several respects and has nothing to do with making money or the seminar curcuit. In order to have a discussion about kodoryu its better to surely have all the facts and dates etc which are published in "The Great Karate Myth". If you dont want to buy it or borrow it from someone etc then fine.
But whats the point with filling up the thread with speculation and assumption without having had a look at the research then coming up with a decent criticism. Yes things have a changed alot in a short period but thats what happens in ongoing research. The things Nathan has been wrong about he is always the first to admit to.
There is no narrow view on kata which are discussed there are specific reasons for certain kata being studied.
Its not about wether some kata are from Uechi or Matsubayashi this has nothing to do with styles or masters it is about looking into the history and trying to get to grips with the original functions of a kata. IMO kata can be interpreted however anyone wants to interpret them and alot of them will be valid and useful because kata teach body skills and principles as well has having an original function. If Naihanchi is a complete Chin na set designed with a specific function in mind originally does that take anything away from anyone? no it doesnt. DOes that mean everyone has to start doing that? no. I saw on another forum someone post whats the point in looking into older possible functions of kata its 2006. Well why bother doing archeaology or history at all??? If I really was interested in fighting I would go to Steve Morris no kata no bull or if I was on the door I would go and study with Dennis Jones as he has massive amounts of experience with the job and fighting. Nathan has spent 30 years researching kata full time. That is alot of experience and in all my time in the martial arts (20 years) his understanding of kata is the best I have ever seen. There are many experts on kata going at it from totally different viewpoints Kodoryu suits me just fine. Its not for everyone but there is material definitly worth having a good look at before just saying it is some money making scheme.
Tom
Hello everyone,
I have been following the ko-do ryu debate whilst waiting for my login details and can now enter the fray.
I am a 4th dan ko-do ryu instructor working in Belgium.
I started Zen Shorin do with Nathan Johnson in 1993 and then moved to Europe in 1997, where I started teaching ZSD/Ko-do Ryu.
Prior to joining Nathan's club I had studied Shotokan karate as well as a little kung fu and aikido principles, but boast no real indepth knowledge of the latter two.
The reason why I joined Nathan's club was his no-nonsense approach to martial arts.
I was tired of London teachers trying to convince me that naihanchin/tekki was a kata designed BY Japanese to fight in a rice flied or on a barge, against multiple opponents. It just didn't make sense to me.
Nathan Johnson offered another version of events and so I started training with him and his seniors. His club was and is made-up of some fine martial artists from many other styles, which means that Nathan's audience is of the toughest kind to crack; therefore he cannot just fling out ideas without backing them up. It's harder to convince the Ko-do club than these forums, I can assure you.
So, I have joined the discussion as an extra Ko-do-ka.
I cannot claim to know as much about martial arts as some of you or as Nathan Johnson, but I have been training for a while and can maybe add insight into Nathan's findings.
I would just like to add that Nathan is NOT abut selling books. He has spent the last two and half years writing the Great Karate Myth with no financial support. He doesn't do this for the money; he just wants to show the world what he thinks of kata. There is no mystery in what he does. He doesn't believe in lineage and secrets which only the masters can sell you.The kata are the masters, not Okinawan or Brit or American, etc. teachers, although some of these teachers have great insight, of course. Nathan is very open about his work(any of you who have met him can attest to that, I guess) and his findings, and he is always the first to admit he was wrong.
Barefoot Zen was the result of his experimentations and findings at the time. Some of its content is still applied today; Rokushu and Sanchin teach grappling, as does Naihanchin. We still teach a pushing hands format in which to use these three kata. They are the bedrock to all traditional karate (and to some extent, kung fu).
In The Great Myth, Nathan has published his perception of the use of Uechi Sanchin and Sesian/Kushanku as well as the grappling kata. He has spent years studying these forms and his findings are very conclusive. He is not trying to upset the boat but hand positions, trajectory of fingers and certain claw-like grips (which cannot be for plucking out eyes, please) do point to the use of sai or to grappling.
However, in our Ko-do classes the practice of Uechi Sanchin and Seisan is, what we call, archeology. It's a bolt-on to our pushing hands format. In some ways it's a redundant occupation as we cannot walk around with sai, and there are no bo-weilding or samurai opponents to stop. Gladly.
We study these forms to justify the use of our grappling kata (closed-fist Sanchin, Rokushu and Naihanchin).
By understanding that Uechi Sanchin was the first taught in Okinawa, we have studied why Miyagi closed fists and perhaps what he hoped to achieve.
BUT we CAN NEVER be sure of any of this. Who can? None of your instructors. But the kata point to weapons, in just the same way that Sanchin, Rokushu and Naihanchin point to grappling and not multiple-opponent scenarios.
Tom has often said that you ned to read the book to understand Nathan's ideas. This is not a marketing salespitch. It would be a great discredit to Nathan or any other teacher who has taken years to publish a book on his/her findings to just sum it up in a forum debate. (Especially when such debates often turn sour and personally nasty.)
However, if people want to ask for further ideas and support of what we do in Ko-do I will try my best to answer.
I hope to read you soon, guys.
Gary
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 11:58 AM
Quote:
Hello everyone,
Hi, welcome.
The following is just a formality...you have 1 post and must be wrung thru the BS ringer...do not take it personal...again, it's only a formality.
Quote:
I have been following the ko-do ryu debate whilst waiting for my login details and can now enter the fray.
Oy, admin Matt...how long does it take to start an account on FA? about 60 seconds?
Quote:
I am a 4th dan ko-do ryu instructor working in Belgium.
I started Zen Shorin do with Nathan Johnson in 1993 and then moved to Europe in 1997, where I started teaching ZSD/Ko-do Ryu.
when did "Zen Shorin Do" start? and when did "Zen Shaolin Karate" come into play? are you saying that in 1997 you started teaching Kodo ryu? years before it was formed?
Quote:
I was tired of London teachers trying to convince me that naihanchin/tekki was a kata designed BY Japanese to fight in a rice flied or on a barge, against multiple opponents. It just didn't make sense to me.
and the 'non-fighting' kata approach of ZSD made more sense to you?
Quote:
It's harder to convince the Ko-do club than these forums, I can assure you.
good, so you'll have a thick enough skin to accept and answer the tough questions. Where/when did Mr. J learn kobudo?
Quote:
but I have been training for a while and can maybe add insight into Nathan's findings.
in regards to...?
Quote:
I would just like to add that Nathan is NOT abut selling books. He has spent the last two and half years writing the Great Karate Myth with no financial support. He doesn't do this for the money; he just wants to show the world what he thinks of kata.
so don't other people...except what they do is put out free articles on the web or discuss in open forum about their theories. they don't put out a DVD/book combo set for $75 bucks or whatever the going rate is.
Quote:
Barefoot Zen was the result of his experimentations and findings at the time. Some of its content is still applied today; Rokushu and Sanchin teach grappling, as does Naihanchin. We still teach a pushing hands format in which to use these three kata. They are the bedrock to all traditional karate (and to some extent, kung fu).
but the 'barefoot zen' theories are saying kata and therfore push-hands practice is with non-martial intent. a religious passtime of sorts. which is not for me to judge...but it would seem you'd need to make up your mind between martial and non-martial intent before being able to deciper application. making a shift from saying "kata was never for fighting" to "kata are with weapons" within a 5 years period is a pretty big shift in thought. why the rush to get the word and DVD out there for $75 smackaroos? why not put a web article and a youtube clip out there?
Quote:
He is not trying to upset the boat but hand positions, trajectory of fingers and certain claw-like grips (which cannot be for plucking out eyes, please) do point to the use of sai or to grappling.
'claw-like grips' are clinch holds or heel-palm strikes....thats not hard to see - it's natural and works well, of which span multiple arts. (lots of arts have clinching, lots have palm strikes...not make have sai).
here's a non-martial application of a grab, if you like this interpretation better:
Quote:
http://www.kishhospital.org/bariatric_center/images/img_doyouqualify.jpg
Quote:
However, in our Ko-do classes the practice of Uechi Sanchin and Seisan is, what we call, archeology.
come again? 'archeology' ??
Quote:
It's a bolt-on to our pushing hands format. In some ways it's a redundant occupation as we cannot walk around with sai, and there are no bo-weilding or samurai opponents to stop. Gladly.
who ARE you 'stopping' with push hands and sai training?
Quote:
BUT we CAN NEVER be sure of any of this. Who can?
then why sell it as dispelling myths when all that can be done is adding a new myth?
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 02:00 PM
kodo
Actually it was unfounded, unsupported "assumputions" and conjecture presented as "facts" that most folks were speaking too.
Questions as to motive were raised---but that is an entirly seperate issue from the accuracy of the claims made.
Attempting to "spin" the questions/observations made to be about "money" is precisely the kind of gross distortion of fact and situation that got people asking the hard questions in the first place.
And again it utterly ignores the very real "holes" in the material presented so far, and the very real errors in logic/history of the material presented.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 02:07 PM
gaug
Please do me the kindness of not trying to tell "me" what "I" am or am not doing in "my" own kata.
How could you possible know what a "claw-like grip" may or may not be used for in a style that you don't actuallly practice?????
Seriously, how???
So sight unseen, I can accuratly tell YOU what specific techniques IN YOUR OWN STYLE, "work" or not?
I can you what they are "for?"
And you'd "buy" that?????
If so I have some great bog....a...ah...FARM, I mean farmland I'd like to sell you at a really good price.
Ed
Have you ever met Nathan Johnson? because you seem to be totally convinced that he is all about money. Don't take my word for anything feel free to ask people like Bossman Steve Rowe who has known Nathan for a long time or Patrick Mccarthy another long term collegue if Nathan is all about money. Everyone knows you are not buying the book so why not borrow a copy and have a look at the material rather than going on about why it is not all on the net for free or the price of the book. Its the material about the kata that is important. There are in fact clips on youtube and Nathan has had many articles published over the years.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 03:31 PM
kodo
And here you go AGAIN, trying your feeble best to spin serious questions about serious errors in accuracy, logic and history---as presented, into "money."
AGAIN, its tactics like that got you hammered in the first place.
Failure to deal effective with serious, studied, well reasoned objections to unsupported conjecture have NOTHING to do with motives.
Ignoreing that fact and AGAIN, failing to respond to having that pointed out--twice now.
And attempting to shift the discussion as far awary from specifics as you possibly can.
As well as trying to impeach people on the basis of darkly hinted "motive" instead of factual rebuttal.
Says very little about anyones elses character but your OWN.
cxt
Ok please throw out some questions to do with "The Great Karate Myth".
Posted by: CVV
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 03:47 PM
Quote:
By understanding that Uechi Sanchin was the first taught in Okinawa, we have studied why Miyagi closed fists and perhaps what he hoped to achieve.
BUT we CAN NEVER be sure of any of this. Who can? None of your instructors. But the kata point to weapons, in just the same way that Sanchin, Rokushu and Naihanchin point to grappling and not multiple-opponent scenarios.
Where does the idea come from that the Uechi sanchin was first studied in Okinawa ? If you would state that the open hand sanchin was first studied, I would agree but not perse the Uechi form. KNow that the Higashiaonna form was imported before the Uechi form and that the Aragaki form was also known before the Higashioaonna form.
According to people who trained with Higashiaonna, the closed fist form was first introduced by him and not by Miyagi. Miyagi adopted it as the standard in Goju-ryu.
BTW wich closed fist Miyagi sanchin do you study, with or without turns ?
Do you study the Miyagi sanchin for grappling only or also like Goju-ryu as basic kata for understanding power sourcing and transition in coordination with body/mind/spirit ?
Do you apply the principle of sinkuchi or do you, like shorin does, primarely generate power through whipping like motion not locking the lower body ?
Have to admit that in some movements in kata the difference is not always clear to me but I lack a lot of klowledge in shorin ryu.
I saw the Uechi sanchin sai application on the Kodoryu site and have a question regarding. Kodobrighton described the sai use as restraining weapon for disarming, yet apart from once, one sai was used to block and lock and the other one to stab. Outcome is indeed disarmerment by fatal injury. To what point do you consider restraining and disarming ? Till mostly fatal injury or not ?
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 03:57 PM
kodo
Dude, what are you smokeing????
We are on 19 PAGES of direct questions/observations to claims made about the book--and your asking me:
"to throw out some questions."
Are you freaking kidding me???????
You just going to pretend that the last 19 PAGES just kinda never happend????
You want questions---there are 19 PAGES of them to start with.
Plus, I recall repeated requests for you/others to present direct material from the text.
A request that has failed to get any material presented.
And YOUR the guy questioning peoples motives--hah.
Ed,
The quote you have provided here is incomplete. It looks like a paraphrased version of what is written on the back of Barefoot Zen.
Quote:
it was never intended to be an actual means of self-defense
“It” refers to the Shaolin teaching not kata in general.
Quote:
movements of both Kung Fu and Karate grew from the spiritual practices of the Shaolin order
You seem to be overlooking the word “grew”. He is not claiming that the Shaolin ordered created all kata. In the book he postulates that the concept of kata comes from the concept of wordless gesture in Zen.
Quote:
By only looking at a narrow stream of kata, picking and choosing which ones to base wide-sweeping theory on...seems a fundamentally flawed method of analysis.
I agree with this sentiment and this is something I pointed out to him. His answer was that Sanchin, Rukushu and Naifuanchin were the “key” kata in karate. However I would say that by looking at the kata of karate you can see that Sanchin, Rokushu and Naifuanchin stand out as being very different from the other kata and that the notion that they are "key" is statistically untrue. However I do accept advances in any science often come by attempting to understand unusual phenomena.
Quote:
likely just prior to the 18th century and once again from the Japanese at the turn of the 20th.
According to the Kodo Ryu website…"In Southern China, from at least the Ming dynasty 1368 – 1644, there existed a 'civil arrest' tradition that utilised Sai and Nunchaku to disarm and arrest an armed offender, and 'seizing and grappling' techniques to subdue and arrest an un-armed offender, without killing or maiming in either case. The object being to ensure an offender was given the opportunity, - required by law - to be detained according to the due process of law and rendered up in fit condition to face trial."
Quote:
one puzzling thing about your post... you were studying 'Zen Shorin Do' and you disagreed of the inclusion of 'Zen' in it's form practice??
Realisation is a slow process. In my final years as a ZSD ka I started to teach Zen Shorin Do independently. In doing so I reviewed the entire art because I wanted to be sure that what I was teaching was consistent and only then did I start to think about elements that were not evident in the kata.
Quote:
it's still a compliant training aid no matter how complex looking it becomes
Again I agree, but the people that do this art view pushing hands as meditation and not a combative training aid.
Quote:
so the trend for pop-MA seems that a name brand 'Do' or 'Ryu' will be created for each and every theory now...the theories become the product, the name becomes it's tradmark. non-fighting 'Zen Shorin Do', push hands 'Ryoute'... and this year, the theory of 'kodoryu' hits the market.
Ryoute is not a pushing hands art, it is a hand grappling art. Also Ryou in Ryoute means “both” not school as in Kodo Ryu. In any case theories that go against the grain have to set up on their own separately since the mainstream styles are highly dogmatic.
Jeff…
Quote:
What does/did that make them prey tell from your perspective of course?
If we are talking about the Zen Shorin Do forms Sanchin, Rokushu and Naifuanchin. It made them forms that describe hand grappling techniques which are unfortunately not particularly useful in a self defence format. If we are talking about karate forms in general my current position is that techniques created specifically for Double Hand Grappling sequenced together and done in the air strongly resemble karate kata both in style and detail and I do not believe that this is a co-incidence. Once I have created a self defence kata I will be able to decide whether or not there are any self defence movements contained in kata. Obviously I know you can all use kata for self defence but one can use an object for many things that it was not designed for.
I’m hoping that Tom or Gary will answer my questions and other peoples for that matter. Perhaps if everyone compiled a numbered list they would find it easier to go through them.
Quote:
Question 1. In changing the name to Kodo Ryu are Nathan et al wishing to remove the Zen aspects of the art?
Question 2. When using the Sai what are you defending yourself against?
Question 3. How realistic is the civil arrest training that you do when arresting an opponent with Sai or Double Hand Grappling or both?
Question 4: Aren’t Sai farming tools?
Question 5: Why is the distribution of The Great Karate Myth so poor? I mean 4-6 weeks from Amazon? What’s going on their?
Question 6: Given a pair of Sai and an understanding of how and in what context to use them, would I be able to create kata that resemble karate kata?
Martin
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 04:19 PM
OK Guys,
just a polite reminder to keep it plesant, we all have our opinions and views/expeirience, lets try and make this a good thread withoubt getting to offensive,
we are adults........
I have today sent of my copie of The Great Karate Myth, book and DVD to Victor to have a look at,
if he gets through it quick enough (I would like it back within a couple of months, ish) and is happy to arrange then it can be passed on a couple of times (to serious posters on this thread),
I would like it back but will get over it if it doesnt happen as I will just buy another copie (ouch £).
At least this way with fair wind a few of the main people with serious questions will get to actually see what its all about and be able to give a solid view.
(although I understand that many disagree with statements from our 2 KoDo Ryu members anyhow).
Martin here is a few answers to the Q.s
1.partially yes.
2.someone armed.
3. I don't carry Sai to arrest people but the practise is as realistic as possible.
4. No
5.I have nothing to do with the distirbution of the book so I dont know.
6.I am sure you could.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 04:44 PM
the quote was what was written on the amazon site in it's entirity. you are trying to confuse issues by splitting hairs, and to tell you the truth...I could care less.
what do you even call a martial art without martial connection?
Farcial Arts?
back to kodo ryu...ok so kodoryu is a system based upon 3 or 4 okinawan kata which are performed either with sai or pushing hands to help you learn how to arrest people.
....thats it?
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 04:44 PM
Sho
Mines on order--should take a few more weeks.
But if the folks that actually have copies would start posting direct stuff--would speed things up.
Well, what a warm welcome.
Time to connect to the forum is not the issue here, Ed.
And no, I didn't say that I started teaching ko-do years before it was invented. That would not be possible.
I started teaching ZSD, which in turn became ko-do ryu.
Claw positions referred to are the ones seen in Rokushu and Uechi Sanchin. I can't talk about other kata which I don't study.
The Uechi fist where the little finger and the index are raised pertains to a sai hand form WITHOUT the sai in our opinion.
If you think it is for heel-palm strikes or the such, that is fine with me. I can respect that but will not be teaching it as such.
By the way, if anyone has photos of Uechi Kanbun performing Uechi Sanchin with sai, I would be most pleased to see it.
'Archeology' is just a way of talking about the sai/kobudo section of our style. Its research into Uechi Sanchin and Seisan ( the first and advanced sai manipulation kata in OUR style). It's a bit like a history course. We are not teaching people to arm themselves with sai and go out attacking people. Sai need a context; this would be China in the past (and Okinawa by extension) at a time where weapons were banned by the authorities and so kobudo kata were almost outlawed. Those who continued to practise them had to do so without the weapons.
To use a sai you need an opponent who is armed with a bo or a sword (to be used by both hands). Their choice of weapon reduces their freedom/possibilities of attacks and so the sai is more adapted to civil arrest techniques than another sword or the such. We are also talking about a certain mindframe at the time where civil arrest techniques were favoured over barbaric attacks. This does not mean that people didn't clobber each other or bite, or kick or maim etc. It's just that noble gentry, who might be trained in kobudo as they would be able to obtain metal weapons (as opposed to farm tools like a bo/staff for the poorer masses)probably had a higher position in society and could not beat up people officially.Like an olden day police force with jitte.
The sai were taught, WE believe, to stop a swordman or bo-weilder before they started swinging widely.
We do not believe that two sai could stop a sworsdman in full flow. The idea was to anticipate and disarm him before he started the momentum to cut the "sai-man" to death.
In the same way that naihanchin is useful for stopping someone before they get too balistic. In the same way that the police should arrest someone with wrist locks and not just beat the life out of them.
However, we do not practise grappling (and certainly not sai work) with a view to fighting. We don't teach self -defence (although our techniques do have a practical basis).
We enjoy using these kata in our pushing hands format.
Goju Ryu has named sanchin and rokushu as the two jewels in their crown and we also acknowledge their fundamental position. Goju Ryu kakie and our pushing hands have similarities. Chinese tui shou shares similar traits to both these styles.
Therefore, we must ALL be on the same lines and heading in the right direction.
Nathan is not selling the "truth".
The fact that the book is on the market and is not available on PDF is not something to explain. Yes, you have to buy it unless someone lends you a copy. That is how books are circulated. But, there are no secrets. Get a copy somehow and read it. Watch the dvd and then see what you think. If you don't like it, fine. Don't do what it suggests.
I imagine that most people on this forum own karate manuals from other teachers. Were you bitter to pay so much for them? Or do you retain something frothese books which helps you to train well and enjoy your style?
And yes, it seems to outsiders that Nathan has made a huge change from Zen to Ko-do books but it's not so shocking. The grappling kata are just as before.The intention in using them is still just as "zen" as before. The pushing hands format used in ZSD is the same as now in Ko-do.
All Nathan has put forward is that certain kata were for weapons, and in particular Uechi Sanchin and Seisan. They do not work with other weapons instead. Try Sanchin with a nunchaku or a sword. Try to explain the advanced techniques of Seisan with a tonfa in your hand. It doesn't work. Body mechanics seem to be the indicator here. Not Nathan.
And they say here that "seuls les imbecils ne changent pas d'avis", meaning that "only fools never change opinions".
Nathan had to swallow his pride when he published the last book. He knew he was flying in the face of his own work and contradicting his own findings. He says that Barefoot zen was the culmination of his findings then. Things have changed and he's the first to admit it.
Once people thought that the world was flat and at the centre of the universe but now we accept other ideas.
Maybe if you read more about The Great Karate Myth you might also agree with Nathan, or it may help you to feel more secure about your own style.
Gaug
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 04:57 PM
"only fools never change opinions"
holding your ground on that position are you?
"Some build castles in the sky And some go and live in them."
hope the next theory is better researched than this one....or at least better defended.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 05:03 PM
gang
So your a uechi-ka then?
Thus qualified to speak on exactly "what" a given hand formation is "for" in your specifc Uechi tradition?
Are you getting the point here---you issued a statment of FACT earilier--no "if's "and" or "other" qualifiers.
You stated a titular "fact" when no such facts as supported.
That may be your intepretation---but a fact it is not.
In term of 'stopping a sword weilder" do you train with the sword?
I ask because if that is what your claiming the sai to be defending against---it would be rather nice to know exactly how extensive your sword training might be and from what ryu.
It also begs the question, givent he manner of handleing the sai and its range, if one can "anticipate" a sword or bo BEFORE it gets into play---then why the need for a sai at all??
If the logic is based around "atticipation" then one would presueme that one could use feet/hands far faster than one could draw and or use their own weapon--thus its use in that regard would seem rather pointless.
2nd-why bother with a sai at all?
2-A--A single tiened jutte would be easier to make/balance, and its actually USED vs the sword in some schools.
Its also generally smaller, thus "faster" and thus more easy to used to "anticipate" a strike.
2-B, a smaller, more easily concealed weapon would work just as well if one suppsositon is that "anticpation" is the "key" here.
Sorry, but the logic is faulty, "anticipation" as a stratgy/tactic simply does not require the use of a sai.
In fact, its can be rather strongly shown that such a idea is NOT all that likley.
No, just becausue YOU claim to be going the "right" direction because you "borrow" some kata and principles from goju does not automatically mean that you are.
Goju may well be heading in the right direction--you riding its coattails in terms of claims does NOT automatically follow.
AGAIN, one of my main problems here is that a concise, well spread body of sai kata ALREADY exsisted, and was easily available for study, thus there is no need what-so-ever to add MORE kata of dubious conjecture to the mix.
In effect you wish people to belive that rather than walk down the street to sensai A--who is DIRECTLY teaching "sai vs bo" etc kata and bunkai with the real weapons--INSTEAD they DON'T practice the weapons at all--and just go thu highly changed motions WITHOUT actually training with the weapons actual weight and handleing.
Not bloodly likely
If nothing else, not actually using the weapons to train would make it VERY hard to effectivly use them when the time came---you kinda need to get used to the weight and how to use them.
A much better explaination is that the 'empty hand" kata can be pressed into serve with weapon training--much the same way I can pull up stumps using my car.
Not what I bought it for, not what its generally used for, but it CAN be used for such--if "better" equipment is not avaialble.
That is "at best."
Our grappling studies are based on three Chinese kata; Sanchin, Rokushu and Naihanchin.
If you only practise these kata without a pushing hands format they lose any adaptability.That is why Nathan, aided by his club members, developed a pushing hands format based on previous tui shou.
If not we would have been obliged to just practise for example the six wrist escapes in Rokushu in a two-man preempted drill.
Now we can push hands and add our applications from Sanchin, Rokushu and Naihanchin giving a more practical emphasis.
The kobudo section is a bolt-on as said. It is less practical by its weapons nature. But it can be perfomed in a "zen" way with the same degree of civility and with the same mindset as our pushing hands. However it involves a more choreographed backdrop because weapons are more harmful if used badly. And for this reason we practise drills in a less freestyle way.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 05:20 PM
gang
Wow, so I CAN'T "adapt" a technique I learned in naihanchi, unless I filter it thu push hands work???
Really?
Wow and to think I was waseting all that time working my techniques on the heavy bag.
Oh, you still have a whole bunch of stuff to address from my previous post---just a reminder.
No I am not from uechi ryu. You can see that from my profile.
But you needn't be from one school to see how to use their kata. The kata are universal. I just cannot believe that fingers jabs and open hand fighting techniques work with this kata, as is often taught here. The range is wrong, the trajectory is wrong in MY opnion.
However, someone armed with a bo has a distant to respect in order to manoevre properly. This distance can then be closed down. And that is what Open-hand sanchin teaches for us. As does Seisan.
What do you use these kata for? I would very much like to see other possiblities. For fighting in a bar? For blocking a slow punch?
When we train with sai we have to use a bokken or a bo. Otherwise how can we practise? The sai is redundant without an attacker who is armed. That's the point.
Any kata supposes an opponent or a training partner. Otherwise why develop a "fighting/grappling" kata if you have no-one to work with?
So yes, we use bokken or a bo, and carefully.
I DO agree that a jutte is a good option; the form of both the sai and jutte are similar. As is a butterfly sword from Wing Chun.
Whether a jutte would be faster depends on the athletic prowess of the weilder.
And anticipation of an attack before the swordsman draws his weapon would not require sai. If he has empty hands then you could grapple him as I said.
The sai or jutte would only be useful when the sword was drawn. And before it started swinging.
Now, can you tell me of any kata taught for fighting where the students are not anticipating an attack? Surely all kata in modern karate explain this.
Teachers spend hours developing applications for fighting in bars, in the street etc. using traditional kata. I name Naihanchin as a one-man-versus-several as a prime candidate from the Shotokan school. Teachers would have you believe that this kata explains how to fight lots of people at once (and in a paddy field or on a cliff edge - that is very precise anticipation); in fact how to anticipate certain moves from multiple attackers in a pre-ordained order. Surely that is very exagerrated.
you don't need a pushing hands format to adapt your naihanchin if you are using it for grappling. But it would help.
How do you use your naihanchin if it's not based on some pushing hands contact?
no-one is borrwing kata. They do not belong to one school or another. We are not into lineage and my master was Bruce lee neighbour.The kata is the master or the school. Not the political choices or kata taste of previous masters.
Certain masters favoured one kata over another and so chose to only study them and drop other kata.
Certain schools have chosen certain kata.
We have chosen three and have studied them extensively. Shotokan chose Tekki but doesn't perform Tensho. Goju doesn't do Tekki. Wado does Niahanchin higher up. These are choices from teachers before.
We just feel that our three kata sit nicely together as they share fundamental common positions and history. Look at the body mechanics.
Ed,
maybe the defense is poor in your eyes but you cannot judge the research as you haven't read the book.
Come back when you know more about Nathan's findings and then we can debate stuff properly.
And yes, only fools don't change their minds. I wasn't so keen on sai being part of certain kata but I have changed my mind having seen the work of Nathan.
Guess that means I'm no fool.(Careful with your replies guys. LOL)
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 05:58 PM
gang
No, kata are NOT "universial"
As a goju-ka we do "our" Seisan differently than does Uechi-ryu
We also do it differently than they other goju groups.
And the Shorin Seisan is even MORE different.
Commemting on "why" a given group does "X" without studing that style or with that group is ludicrous.
Asserting that they all are the same or universial rather stongly imples another basic problem here---a lack of exposure or understanding of kata.
Actually no, AGAIN, having a weapon to use vs a non-armed oppt is NEVER "redundant" if anything its EXCELLENT planning.
So if the jutte is better and we know that the jutte was most defently used vs the sword---then why not use that?
Still waiting to read your background with sword traing for obvious reasons.
Because the whole "antipation" thing is smoke screen in terms of weapons--if your saying that "anticipation" is the "key" then one needs no weapon at all--thus the assumeing its "sai related" is erronous.
Your linking those 2 things as if one somehow "means" the other-and that just ain't so.
Again, there are other, much less complex and more historically accurate explinations for things--thus as Occams Razor would tell you--they are much likley to be "correct."
Where people developed the delusion that if one "CAN" claim/assert/argue something that somehow "MAKES" it correct is beyond me.
Posted by: CVV
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 06:33 PM
Quote:
Quote:
By understanding that Uechi Sanchin was the first taught in Okinawa, we have studied why Miyagi closed fists and perhaps what he hoped to achieve.
BUT we CAN NEVER be sure of any of this. Who can? None of your instructors. But the kata point to weapons, in just the same way that Sanchin, Rokushu and Naihanchin point to grappling and not multiple-opponent scenarios.
Where does the idea come from that the Uechi sanchin was first studied in Okinawa ? If you would state that the open hand sanchin was first studied, I would agree but not perse the Uechi form. KNow that the Higashiaonna form was imported before the Uechi form and that the Aragaki form was also known before the Higashioaonna form.
According to people who trained with Higashiaonna, the closed fist form was first introduced by him and not by Miyagi. Miyagi adopted it as the standard in Goju-ryu.
BTW wich closed fist Miyagi sanchin do you study, with or without turns ?
Do you study the Miyagi sanchin for grappling only or also like Goju-ryu as basic kata for understanding power sourcing and transition in coordination with body/mind/spirit ?
Do you apply the principle of sinkuchi or do you, like shorin does, primarely generate power through whipping like motion not locking the lower body ?
Have to admit that in some movements in kata the difference is not always clear to me but I lack a lot of klowledge in shorin ryu.
I saw the Uechi sanchin sai application on the Kodoryu site and have a question regarding. Kodobrighton described the sai use as restraining weapon for disarming, yet apart from once, one sai was used to block and lock and the other one to stab. Outcome is indeed disarmerment by fatal injury. To what point do you consider restraining and disarming ? Till mostly fatal injury or not ?
Still waiting on an answer here ?
Tom…
Q3. During training how do you move from a gap to a position where you have both hands tied up in Naifuanchin lock type configuration. How do you subsequently prevent them from escaping using brute force?
Q4. Why do sai not have sharpened edges? Do you use the side prongs for trapping?
Ed…
Quote:
the quote was what was written on the amazon site in it's entirity. you are trying to confuse issues by splitting hairs, and to tell you the truth...I could care less.
Please use the search inside function on amazon.com to look at the back cover and you will see that I am right. I don’t think that Nathan should be held to account for what is written on amazon.com.
Gary…
Q7: How long are the sai, bo and sword in Kodo Ryu.
Quote:
The sai were taught, WE believe, to stop a swordman or bo-weilder before they started swinging widely.
Q8: Let’s say the person who you are trying to arrest is “in full flow”. What happens then in the system?
Martin
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 07:32 PM
'Teachers would have you believe that this kata explains how to fight lots of people at once (and in a paddy field or on a cliff edge - that is very precise anticipation); in fact how to anticipate certain moves from multiple attackers in a pre-ordained order. Surely that is very exagerrated.'
OK fair point that this kind of rubbish was commonly believed, and not so long ago, but hardly the case now is it.
There are several such statements and examples in the book and DVD and I have to say I felt it let the work down, as im sure Nathan and the other Kodo Ryu Seniors understand mainstream karate better than this 'image', and they know that many others do as well.
Q4. Sai were a civil arrest tool not a battlefeild weapon so the nature of the tool does not require them to have bladed edges.
Q8. If the swordsman draws his sword and starts attempting to cut the person attempting to arrest them they are in trouble just like when someone goes ballistic and it takes several police officers to pin them down and restrain them. The likelyhood is there would have been several people armed with sai disarming the swordsman.
CVV
According to which people that trained with Higaonna Kannryo did he introduce the closed fist Sanchin? could you point me to some sources?
Arakaki Seisho was the first known exponent of Sanchin on Okinawa he taught Kanryo Higoanna before he went to China so it may be possible that the version of Sanchin practised by Higoanna was the same originally as Arakaki's and Higoanna studied other kata in China. You are right that Uechi was the last of the three(Arakaki,Higaonna and Uechi) to bring back Sanchin.
The Miyagi Sanchin we practise is a later version with no turns and with the steps backwards. Yes we do practise it for power sourcing, breath control and coordination of mind body and spirit to name one of the three conflicts. The principles of float sink spit swallow are all practised too and provide different ways of practising Sanchin. Sink for example - heavy, rooted and powerful or if its practised with float in mind then light and soft force.
With regards to the Sai applications you saw there is no stabbing done at all. The pommel at the end of the handle is used to strike the arms only, no other part of the body is struck or hit as the aim is to simply disarm. the long middle tong is also used to strike the wrists and forearms much like a kosh.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 09:32 PM
you are right about what exactly?
my summary: "his main argument/theory was that all kata were not intended for fighting, but rather for spiritual reasons"
amazon summary:
Quote:
This brave new approach to the martial arts clearly demonstrates that the traditional movements of both Kung Fu and Karate grew from the spiritual practices of the Shaolin order of Buddhist monks and nuns. Contrary to popular assumption, Johnson contends that it was never intended to be an actual means of self-defense. Includes practical instructions for preforming kata.
amazon UK summary:
Quote:
The author demonstrates that the traditional movements of both Kung Fu and Karate grew from the spiritual practices of the Shaolin order of Buddhist monks. Contrary to popular belief, they were not intended as a form of self defence, but used as a method of kinetic meditation to transcend fear.
http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=9368&MATCH=1
Quote:
Johnson shows how the traditional movements of Kung Fu and Karate grew from spiritual practices of the Buddhist Shaolin monks and nuns. He contends that the original use of such a system was the kinetic meditation between pairs of practitioners, and as a tool to assist in transcending fear.
etc...in fact, I can't find summary anywhere online that doesn't mention those two summary points I made. non-fighting with spiritual origin.
the back cover you reference says the same thing. here it is, click on 'back cover' and people can judge for themselves.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1578631424/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-5730405-7639002#reader-link
I'm not trying to re-characterize his book ...the overwhelming majority of summary (including his own) have the basic premise I stated.
I'm getting conflicting characterizations of he works right here in this thread. What I want to know is: in his first book 'Zen Shaolin Karate', 1994, the focus is on Goju Sanchin and Shorin Naihanchi for grappling applications. then 6 years later, 'Barefoot Zen' is the theory kata is not designed for fighting. Then a year or two later he did a 6 volume set titled: "Martial Arts for the Mind: Essential Tips, Drills, and Combat Techniques". ('Combat techniques' - so I guess there was a change of thought) here is one of the volumes: http://www.masoncrest.com/book_view.php?bookID=295
ref: http://www.masoncrest.com/series_view.php?seriesID=38
then, this year, we have the 'myth' book and DVD with accompanying seminar tour at $60 per head. private lessons at ~$60 an hour (~$30 per additional hour). marked-up chrome, aluminum and rubber sais: http://www.kodoryu.com/sai.php
It's likely he has less than 5 years of kobudo training from an unknown source, and he's selling sweeping theories in print. (notice too his earlier book draws from the goju sanchin for grappling...but then changes focus to the Uechi sanchin for sai - convienient since Uechi makes more convincing 'gripping' hand formations which match closer to the theory).
He probably is a really nice and sincere person...but the appearances of publishing actions, lack of supporting training background, (especially in kobudo), and questionable research raises huge and obvious flags.
anyone paying attention and willing to ask themselves tough questions will see the warning signs and save themselves money + time. nope, don't have to read the books. I'll use my common sense on this one.
Jim,
You impugn my honor....a book received will be a book returned <GRIN>, but obviously you’ll have to experience it first before you believe it.
I highly doubt it will take me a month to fully review Mr. Johnson’s work ‘The Great Karate Myth’.
I do expect it will be an interesting experience
I also agree it is unfair to comment on a book one hasn’t read, on the other hand it is fair to comment on the discussion taking place here.
In general to this discussion the past few days is floating fast and free with claims and counter claims.
I realize what karate means is very different depending on which side of the pond your on. I doubt those in England and Europe can appreciate the varied state of karate here in the states, and similarly I doubt those of us here can appreciate how different things are over there. We may share a common passion but I doubt we mean the same things even using the same words.
Among the things I find interesting is that some might consider the study of karate for religious purposes. How quaint, in my 35 years I’ve never met such an individual.
Nor have I seen any sign of ‘zen’ (that which cannot be spoken) or meditation in the practice of kata or tai chi chaun. I’ve read of such things (such as Trevor Leggett’s ‘Zen and the Ways’ as well as the controversy around his claims), have know a Shorinji Kempo stylist who did practice zen meditation, and understand some karate instructors have been students of zen, but the reality I live in doesn’t find a religious cant to the arts. Then again one of my primary instructors is a minister and he doesn’t believe it either.
There is a tremendous amount of ‘retro-fitting’ that is taking place in the arts around the world. No problem what someone wants to see, but the problem always exists how to prove it retro-active of the current perception. I will be interested in seeing how Mr. Johnson addresses this.
Personally my study doesn’t lead itself to saying the practice of karate has any restrictions. It is a percussive art, it is a grappling and projecting art, it is a breaking art, and a lot more. All of aikido flows through karate’s technique as well as almost any art you can name.
The only limitations I see to what a technique usage might be is the limitation of the person who says, this isn’t there and is unwilling to practice to the point they can make that usage work.
Among the other interesting discussion points:
Rokushu Kata is a Goju Kata. Interesting because the only reference I can find is Tensho is a Goju kata. There is a theory that the 6 hands of the Bubishi were the inspiration of Tensho, but there are also very serious Goju researchers who hold that there is no relationship at all. The count is 50-50 last I called it, with no decisive proof either way that I’ve seen.
Sanchin. Let’s see the quickest source I have is John Sells ‘Unante II’ describing that the closed fist version was a Higashionna innovation in his later years, and ‘perfected’ by Miyagi.
Uechi kata had absolutely no historical relevance on the Okinawan scene. Uechi did train in China roughly after the time of Higashionna, but he returned to Japan in the early 1900’s (I’m not digging out the date at this time), and lived in an Okinawan community in Japan. This was due to so many Okinawan’s having to leave Okinawa because of lack of work. The Uechi family returned to Okinawa in the later 1940’s after WWII and began formally teaching their art there then. They were Okinawan’s and became an Okinawan tradition, but a later import.
There is no doubt there is a relationship between the Sanchin taught by Higashionna, that of Goju and Tou’on ryu and that of Uechi ryu, but specifically what the relationship is remains undefined in a historically verifiable way.
And where I’m looking forward to seeing Johnson’s book about the original use of sai in the formation of Sanchin, is I’m curious how he makes his case.
In my mind it should be simple. Show me a Chinese instructor who has kept the practice, or if not that show me a serious Okinawan instructor or a serious Okinawan Uechi instructor and there will be no discussion from me. But baring that there will remain logical analysis of the premise.
I find it hard to accept that the Okinawan weapons traditions spawned the open hand ones. For example the Okinawan home guard lasted less than 24 hours in the 1500’s trying to stop the Japanese from taking over. Is it those highly effective weapons arts which formed the basis of empty hand technique? Or is it more dubious Chinese traditions?
Personally I really question that the Okinawan weapons studies were ever seriously used against any sort of armed attackers. Then again until the pioneering work of Taira Shinken, the many private weapons traditions were not available, nor may not still be. And his efforts likely drew out individuals like Matoyashi, Kashiba, Yammani and others, to open their own traditions.
But my words are just that words. Let your eye’s do some analysis.
Here is one Okinawan Sai tradition. The rounded fluid manner which the entire body uses the sai is similar to Shinken Taira, and Akamine’s sai work.
Ryukyu Kobujutsu - Sai
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COV_F-fZFRMThen we can compare that motion to that of Mr. Johnson.
Ko-do Ryu Kobudo (Uechi) Sanchin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsXj8NJHSxgNotice how different the use of the body with the sai.
I think there is an explanation. The sai technique is being adapted to the karate technique and not the other way. Isshinryu has a sai tradition. Here is Isshinryu’s founder doing a walk through of his version of Taira’s Chatanyara no sai.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTV2PmjAOVYAdmittedly not a high level performance. The body sai movement really is a parallel of basic Isshinryu kata technique. This is not a bad thing. Decades of work on the Isshinryu sai really re-inforces the bodies ability to fully utilize the empty hand kata applications. It is here, not as a took to impale someone, but as a way to generate increased power and then learning how to apply that power usage against attacks, where the kobudo training takes hold.
The world is vast. How we perceive it’s infinite potentials shapes our reality.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/20/06 11:39 PM
just curious Victor...could you confirm something I don't remember seeing from the Uechi 'blue book'? Kobudo was not combined with Uechi ryu until after WWII...weapons were added to Uechi ryu from later cross-training by students of Kanbun Uechi. is that right? because I don't remember it attributing early Uechi with Kobudo.
also, your opinion, if you could... looking at Okinawn kata as a whole, couldn't it be argued fairly easily that 'Seisan' seems to be a central importance and wider reaching across style lines...much moreso than say 'Sanseiru' ?
also, you are correct about Tensho (as far as I've heard). The Rokushu-Tensho connection is based loosly on shape. At best, using a method of form-matching, one might say Tensho was perhaps partialy based or inspired by Rokushu...but again, it's opinion. It's well known Miyagi composed Tensho...and that is what was passed on. anything else studied which resembles some segments of it, such as Rokkushu (that must be the japanese word for it...is there a chinese romanization?) - would certainly be an interesting study. I look forward to the time someone actually does take an in-depth look at that. Tensho in it's present form has an overwhelming amount of goodies...plenty to keep me busy.
People who I've spoken with that have decades of first-hand Okinawan Kobudo training have seen the 'sai sanchin' video and just shook their heads.... whats next? Gekkisai no sai? Fukyugata no kama?
hey Victor! have you seen 'bassai dai sai' yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqhBA7OxKHIshisochin no sai: (or is that 'Shisochin with sigh')
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMCPxpnSeM8and my favorite:
"boba fett bassai dai wit sai"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUOKZY2VYh0 I don't know...either people are bored with their study or they are trying to sell a new thing for the sake of selling a new thing. I don't get it.
Posted by: Unsu
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 01:27 AM
I'll reiterate what I said in an earlier post. I know you cats don't dig my delivery, but if you read what I posted originally this crap would have been dead long ago.
There is a delineation between what is an "empty hand" kata and a kobudo/kobujutsu one. Yes you can perform some of the emptyhand kata with weapons. An example of this is the use of Sai in Chinto or Ananku. It's been done. The absolute truth is that there are "hands" kata and there are "weapons" kata. Only someone with a gendai budo background or no real advanced training in a true Okinawan art would even have the bullocks (for you English guys) to make these claims let alone challenge what dozens of Okinawan born and bred shinshi have been teaching for decades now.
I want to know who graded this cat in Okinawan karate? I don't want conjecture and hope philosophy, I want some proof. If he is a Goju or Uechi yudansha under a legit shinshi then cool. I just doubt that he really knows anything beyond journeyman, schoolboy karate. Maybe he can even fight, but should he be trying to redefine what Okinawan karate is?
I mean what right does the guy have to assume when there are still those out there who know the real history and reasonong behind the Okinawan karate they do.
I have no qualms against good karate, whatever the lineage. The problem I have is that when you give these so-called "evolved" karate guys an inch they tend to take a mile. Next thing you know some Shotokan guy will try and tell you that his art is a royal palace art made for hypothetical scenarios thought up by someone a century or more after the facts. Hey someone did do that. Crrrrrazy!!! We all know that Shotokan is just a Matsumura-Ha style, missing the original Matsumura intent. It's Asato-Shishu Shorin Ryu with a smattering of Miyagi-Ha. It's modern schoolkid karate. Funakoshi never taught the intent because he wasn't taught it.
As for Johnson, I suspect he is even less well informed and trained in the ways of Okinawan karate. If not, my bad, but that Clayton guy is at least a fairly high yudansha in Shotokan the most Okinawan of the Japanese styles--- whatever that means.
If it ain't broke don't fix it is a good maxim to follow if you are lucky enough to study under a real shinshi/sensei/shifu. Yes you can "fit it to you", but don't try and make a t-shirt and a pair of jeans into a three-piece suit. It won't and can't work.
For those of you seeking and figuring it all out with time and honest training, you feel what I'm saying. For those with a limited vantage point willing to jump on bandwagons, whatever, reverse engineering and guess-work is all you have so run with it---- far away from the real karate guys. We'll be busy just laughing our arses off at all the snakeoil salesmen out there who couldn't even tell what real karate was even if it slapped them in the chira.
Sigh... It's just fruitless....
By redundant I meant that we cannot teach this idea with a view to self defence. It's redudant as it's a crime to walk armed in the street over here, especially with sai. So, it remains a type of history class. We don't do self defence like some of the "real karateka" on this forum.
Maybe we are just soft, or not concerned with fighting. Obviously the influences of Barefoot Zen still echo today. Martin has already made the point that we don't care about defence.
And some guys out there seem very loyal to an Okinawan lineage and would not dare to challenge the authorities on kata applications. What if those Okinawans were wrong?What if your emperor is not wearing any clothes but you just haven't considered it.
I teach a Wado 2nd dan guy who was asked to shut up when he questioned his seniors about the use of Naihanchin and other advanced kata; and he trains the Belgium karate semi-contact team but cannot apply any advanced kata to his competitions. I wonder why. Could it be that the kata Wado teaches only work for grappling or with weapons? And they are trying to hammer nails in with a screwdriver? Just like Shotokan and naihanchin?
(We invented football (soccer) over here but we are not the masters of the game anymore. Sniff.)
Just because Miyagi and Uechi adapted certain kata does not mean you guys can be sure they knew what they were doing or had the right forms. Their limits may well be your limits in time.But you are quite happy to follow all their teachings depending on which style you train under.
And why are there so many variations of kata? Surely your "masters" learnt the same form; they were that precise in their learning. In that case the forms would all be the same. But they are not because some teachers adapted them when they ran out of applications or when they got bored.
Shotokan boasts loads of kata which are maybe only 50 years old. Just extras to keep the beginners paying for classes.
The big masters said that three kata maximum were all that was needed for mastery of the MAs. Some only ever did Sanchin and concerned themselves with just the kata.
I would just like to know what forum guys, who HAVE read the book, think of Nathan's work. Tom, I know.
Jim, what did you think when you saw Seisan with sai? How did that relate to your teachings of the kata?
Are you training with Nathan now after the Seni?How do you view Nathan's ideas of Naihanchin as a two-man grappling exercise/ arrest device?
This is about having an open-mind to Nathan's ideas and then making an educated opinion of his work.
I have studied plenty of forms here from other karate clubs. I train with other karateka from other styles. I guess that means that I have more experience of what they are doing over here AND what Nathan is doing. So, my eyes are opened wider than those of you who just say "NO" before reading anything.
Unforunately I cannot judge the level of MA in the States; but given the backlash on this site over the first 21 pages...
As for the other guys, get back to us when you have read the book/ seen the film.
It's tricky to discuss this by keyboard, especially when some haven't read the topic.
And those who went to show the videos to their senior kobudo instructors are at least trying to get onbaord with the topic.
The Japanese had to swallow their pride when they saw Nathan's findings on Naihanchin years ago. And Rokushu/TENSHO.
It may well be happening again shortly.
GaUg.
We perform closed-fist sanchin on both sides. It teaches strong positions for footwork, the back, personal space and some parts of the pushing hands format. There are also grip positions, which are also seen in Naihanchin. Many key positions repeat thanks to regular body mechanics.
Dealing with forces is also in the kata.
Gaug
Posted by: CVV
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 05:07 AM
Quote:
CVV
According to which people that trained with Higaonna Kannryo did he introduce the closed fist Sanchin? could you point me to some sources?
Arakaki Seisho was the first known exponent of Sanchin on Okinawa he taught Kanryo Higoanna before he went to China so it may be possible that the version of Sanchin practised by Higoanna was the same originally as Arakaki's and Higoanna studied other kata in China. You are right that Uechi was the last of the three(Arakaki,Higaonna and Uechi) to bring back Sanchin.
The Miyagi Sanchin we practise is a later version with no turns and with the steps backwards. Yes we do practise it for power sourcing, breath control and coordination of mind body and spirit to name one of the three conflicts. The principles of float sink spit swallow are all practised too and provide different ways of practising Sanchin. Sink for example - heavy, rooted and powerful or if its practised with float in mind then light and soft force.
With regards to the Sai applications you saw there is no stabbing done at all. The pommel at the end of the handle is used to strike the arms only, no other part of the body is struck or hit as the aim is to simply disarm. the long middle tong is also used to strike the wrists and forearms much like a kosh.
Interview with Seibun Nakamoto in 1984 by Morio Higaonna, from his book 'The history of Karate' page 180. Question : 'When performing sanchin kata under Kanryu sensei, was the fist closed or open ?'
Answer : 'Kanryu changed from the open hand nukite to the closed fist.'.
There were still more versions of sanchin at that time. There is the Kojo versions and there was even a match described between Higashiaonna and a member of the Kojo family to perform the best sanchin. There is the Nakaima version. And there is the Kanyo Higashiaonna(nephew of Kanryu) version. Must admit I have never seen these versions but they are mentioned in books by researchers.
Motobu Choki states in one of his books (1926 ?) that sanchin was a popular kata handed down from the time of the RyuKyu kingdom (=before 1879).
Spit swallow, sink float are principles that are trained integral in the execution of sanchin (or goju ryu entirely). To my knowledge, you do not train them apart, at least not as I understand these terms. (I practise goju-ryu).
The tensho kata was inspired by the rokishu kata according to most sources but it is not rokishu kata. Toon ryu apperntly still practises the rokishu kata handed down by Gokenki. This version apperently inspired Miyagi to create tensho. To my opinion, it has nothing to do with the six ji hands described in the bubishi.
As for the sai application, I thaught you were stabbing but it was not clear in the video. Hitting the wrist is indeed also an application used in Matayoshi kobudo. But I cannot find the video anymoer on the Kodoryu website. Was it removed ?
Hi Ed,
First I’m not a Uechi scholar. I truly appreciate the system as there is a lot of it in the New England area where I live, and several of my students have Uechi backgrounds.
I really suggest those who want to understand these issues from a Uechi point of view go to George Mattson’s site
http://forums.uechi-ryu.com/ and talk with the real pros about these issues. You will find their point of view informative and interesting.
Now ‘Have I seen Bassai Sai’ and all the rest? Sure there’s absolutely nothing new about it. Taking a systems kata and adding a weapon is an old Okinawan study technique. Taira Shinken, when he trained outside instructors in kobudo normally only gave them 2 or 3 with a weapon, but was known to encourage them to use one of their own karate forms with a weapon too. I believe it was to quicken the learning experience so they didn’t have to learn another new form, and it was designed for weapons handling development.
In the States the most common form I’ve seen this done with is Empi (as a kama, tonfa and a sai kata). I’ve done it myself using Isshinryu’s Wansu as a platform to teach basic tonfa techniques. The practice is what it is, nothing more or less, but that doesn’t make those kata traditional kobudo studies.
Using Isshinryu as an example, in that video I posted Shimabuku had only been practicing that kata say maybe 5 years at that time. On the other hand I’ve been doing that kata for 30 years and the Isshinryu seniors for about 50. How the sai technique integrated within Isshinryu is our quest. I would firstmost agree our sai technique execution is not that of the Taira lineage even though he was the source. But as sai is irrelevant from a modern self defensive practice (metal detectors make it useless for one thing) it has tremendous usage in developing advanced application ability, assuming one 1) studies sai for a very long time one 2) actually works on kata’s application potential to its fullest.
But as kobudo lineage was almost separate from karate lineage till the more recent past, this understanding is a personal one.
For whatever reason the kobudo kata were developed and passed along, it is unlikely the Okinawans studying kobudo were in the least concerned about their subsidiary value to empty hand study. Nor did many of the karate lineages worry about kobudo and in turn eventually incorporate them for their subsidiary value.
More telling would be listening to say long term Shito Ryu stylists on the issue. Their linkage to kobudo predates Taira, as Mabuni helped guide Taira into his kobudo studies.
But this subsidiary value I find does have Chinese roots. China having invented gunpowder realized long ago how futile the traditional weapons studies were for war, but kept the practice for those subsidiary reasons. Stronger grips, increased leverage during technique execution. On the whole many of the Chinese systems kept much deeper weapons studies than the Okinawan’s even guessed existed.
Now gaugustcrane has concerns nobody really understands what kata can be used for. That claim has been made many times, I have a very different take on this.
My instructors in many different systems can effectively demonstrate how to drop you with any aspect of their system, and I work very hard to train my own students in that same manner. They practice Isshinryu, Shotokan, Siliat Tjimande, Faan Tzi Ying Jow Pai, Yang Tai Chi Chaun and Wu Tai Chi Chaun. I really listen with amusement what Shotokan has or doesn’t have. My instructor’s father trained with Funakoshi and spent the rest of his life passing along a vision of Shotokan that does not match any of the discussions I’ve seen anyplace. So there’s Shotokan and then there’s Shotokan I guess.
That instructor is Tristan Sutrisno, who recently shared a work ‘Error Detection in the Martial Arts’, a topic to consider. But no book captures much of any person’s art, only a glimpse.
Why are there so many variations of kata? The answer is very simple and an open record. Okinawa karate trained the new student exactly. It contained no binding reference to restrict the long term student. So the real lesson is karate adapts over and over and over. And the truer a tradition is to that lesson, the more likelihood the real lessons will be retained.
Just like the oft quoted fable, there should only be 3 kata. Sure in Uechi’s original art there were just 3. But show me any Okinawn system or derivative in the past century that followed that dictate. A phantom, nothing more. All karate studies, as time progresses, consider as much as they can get their hands on.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 07:51 AM
thank-you victor. classical kata with weapons incorporated is certainly not a new idea, nor a particularly inventive one. The bigger challenge was in finding authentic Kobudo training with it's own proper distinct and classical kata. Our Goju class when I was growing up initially used sai and bo for, as you say, hand/wrist strengthening. It was a form of hojo undo. the instruction never went beyond that level as far as 'kobudo training' (and we didn't even call it that), since my Goju instructor at the time had just a surface knowledge of it, but didn't pretend to know more. As kids, before class, we used to add sai to classical kata in an adhoc way just for fun and then chuckle over our inventiveness. to us at the time, it seemed as silly as doing clasical kata using a chiishi (which we also toyed with the idea. lol). Little did we know, that people could design entire curriculums from that same adhoc process.
The videos of sanchin-sai and bobba-fett sai seem equally as silly. people will truely buy anything. To present and experiment a theory is one thing...to tout and advertise it as 'myth-busting truth' is another. In effect, someone with less than 5 years 'kobudo' training and unknown okinawan karate experience (since he doesn't believe in 'lineages'
), is telling the world they've all got it wrong. If I were a Kobudo-ka, I'd probably be insulted if I had less a sense of humor.
whats funny is, if someone came on the forum here and started giving weapons advice ...someone would eventually ask the person their Kobudo training background. but someone writes a book, and it's considered 'disrespectful' to ask. or worse: the answer "We don't believe in lineages." is accepted at face value.
go figure.
What is the background of mr. Johnson?
Kobudo ? (sai)
Goju ? (sanchin)
Uechi ? (sanchin)
Shorin? (naihanchi)
To'on ? (rokkushu)
exactly from who did he learn these kata? can anyone say? isn't it reasonable to ask before investing in his words?
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 10:00 AM
gaug
Then I suppose that I would be wrong.
One of the major differences between "me" and "you" is that you are unwilling to confront the problems with the logic and reasoning and accuracy of your/the books claims.
I'm not.
I don't fear harsh analysis of my points--mainly because I have actually done my homework.
As far more likely explanation from the "Wado" guy is that his specifc school simply does not teach the applications---a MUCH better explanation than every single Wado guy/gal on the planet is somehow "doing it wrong."
Plus, you base your guesswork off one guy----yeah like THAT is representitive sample.
Dude, if your suggesting that Miyagi and company did not understand what they were doing YOU JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT "jenius."
A-If folks of that stature and level of training can make such can make such errors and mistakes, if they didn't understand what they were doing--so can YOU, all you have done is give people ANOTHER reason NOT to take you seriously.
B-Since your "springboarding" your ideas--in part--from pictures of various "hand/finger positions" taken by folks like Uechi.
"IF" HE WAS DOING IT "WRONG" THEN ALL THE GUESSWORK BASED ON HOW HE "LOOKED" IS EVEN MORE "WRONG."
Way to go there gang--you just took 2 rounds stright in the foot from your OWN pistol.
AGAIN, your comments on "why" kata look different shows a seriously poor grasp of kata.
How its taught, why groups "differ," why some groups have many kata, why some groups only have a few, where the "variations" come from etc.
Like people keep saying---if you don't grasp/understand that--then your guesswork on the "why's" simply will not hold up.
Its a house without foundation, built on beach sand--nothing to hold it up.
Actually YOUR the guy with the "closed mind"-demonstrated by your utter unwillingess and failure to deal with substantive critism of the book in question.
That is called "projection"---where you "project" your own actions/feelings/behavior/motivation on to other people.
The guy/gal makeing the claims shoulders the burden of proof.
If people here seem unconvienced---then that's because YOU have failed to make a substantive, belivable case for the book.
And since your basing you posits on the book---then I would say that the book is seriously jacked up in terms of logic, reasoning and support.
Don't blame me for mistakes and errors of the text---and don't blame me for your failure to answer direct, informed questions.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 10:24 AM
Quote by Unsu
Quote:
I'll reiterate what I said in an earlier post. I know you cats don't dig my delivery, but if you read what I posted originally this crap would have been dead long ago.
THERE IS A DELINEATION BETWEEN WHAT IS AN "EMPTY HAND" KATA AND A KOBUDO/KOBUJUTSU ONE. Yes you can perform some of the emptyhand kata with weapons. An example of this is the use of Sai in Chinto or Ananku. It's been done. The absolute truth is that there are "hands" kata and there are "weapons" kata. Only someone with a gendai budo background or no real advanced training in a true Okinawan art would even have the bullocks (for you English guys) to make these claims let alone challenge what dozens of Okinawan born and bred shinshi have been teaching for decades now.
Neko456- I agree totally with Unsu and the others that object to Kodoryus method. Writing a book doesn't make it so, it only just an opinion based on his belief. Sorta like if 12 people saw it or 1 person wrote it who do you want to believe.
Saying you don't concern yourself with defense to ME, makes what you are practicing a soft "DO/way" what does that have to do with Real Karate or Real Empty hands/Chinese Hands or whatever you want to call the real stuff.
Alot of old Uechi people talk about 3 kata, some contend that Soke Uechi didn't learn the entire system, others say different people were taught different forms. Its all politics Te is a progressive art, that you shouldn't step back but forward in development. Saying that Empty Hand Katas were design to be used with weapons, is sort of a Arnis idea. But saying that they are not meant to be used empty hand is only his idea.
As for mr. Johnson Lineage just looking at his movement and seminars it seems to be Uchei and Wing-Chung(Since WC is concern with defense) maybe designed for health Tai-Chi, maybe. I enjoyed his version of Chi-Sao looked more compact then Tai-chi. Notice I didn't put the Chuan behind Tai-chi because they are not concern with defense.
I've personally enjoyed this discussion but since what he talking about and doing is cute, but has nothing to do with what I beklieve and know works. You see I am Concern with personal self defense, some of us believe its the essence of what we do.
By the way I won't buy the book, I might as well buy book on knitting/no defense concern. The connection would be same. Not downing what he has developed but sounds like snipe hunting to Me.
Those that are into it, keep practicing. Hopefully the truth don't later take you to the same end as Malcom X.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 10:55 AM
Man, everytime I log on there are a few more pages to read in this thread.
I don't believe the idea that empty hand kata were originally created with weapons.
I do not buy the idea that empty hand kata are not related to self-defense and are more spiritual or zenish.
None of it makes sense to me,but to try and sell something to a whole bunch of karate guys searching for answers.
Not this country boy.
CXT
How can we debate the logic of the book if you've not read it?
How much of your homework on this thread have you done?
Miyagi's reason for synthesising Sanchin and Rokushu/Tensho are not clear. Goju people try to use the former to explain swallow, spit etc. just as we do.
You trying to fight the same argument as us?
Uechi copied a certain hand position and taught it to his students in Seisan. The little and index fingers are raised, the hand is near the face and the other seems to be gripping. Why this elaborate fist? To hit someone? Not effective. Can you explain why he dilligently taught this fist?
I think I can and have, but let's hear your ideas.
The fingers are both up, the wrist is cocked. How many boxers use that style? How many grapplers can pin someone with that?
Tell me what's it for.
We have studied why kata change shape. So, are your kata the right ones? Are your applications right? Or do you just believe what your seniors taught you at face value?
Again, answer the finger positions question and I might start thinking you have a serious point; at least until you can get a copy of Nathan's ideas and then blow it out of the water.
And as for a closed mind; I can't compete with you if you have no knowledge of the book.
When academics present a uni paper, or a scientist presents a theory, other peers take the time to read it and analyse it before teaing it apart.
Perhaps you could do the same with this topic.
Study before you criticise is often a better way of knowing what you are talking about.
Is Jim sending you a copy? If so, we'll then have a decent discussion and I'll answer your INFORMED questions about the claims then.
Then you'll be able to prove why Nathan is wrong or otherwise.
And again, I'm not defending the book perse. I'm asking people to discuss its content.
I didn't write it and don't think that a forum does this book or any other justice.
Can you explain all the elements in detail of one of your kata in words on a forum? I hope not.
Such things need to be experienced.
And I have trained with many karateka, aikidoka and kung fu people, not just one Wado guy.
Nathan's background is Wing Chun and karate. And now kobudo.
Just because he is new to it means he can't it?
When you guys were new to karate you felt if you had skill for it or not.
And we are not debating that other kata existed for sai or the such. We are saying that open-hand sanchin and seisan were designed for sai.
And sanchin is the start and finish of all MA they said. Well, maybe in its various forms it taught grappling, body mechanics, tough reflexes and kobudo. A full circle of skills with rooting and breathing etc.
So maybe people should train in various sanchin kata to get the whole picture.
That's what we are trying to do and we feel we are making progress.
Eyes Open fellas!!!!
we don't say that empty hand kata are "zen" like "peace and love". We think they are for self defence; but armed or grappling techniques.
Naihanchin is for arresting, but the intention can be more zen like and still effective. It's an efficient way of subduing someone by wrapping up their arms and rolling them, dropping them on their back until they give up. and then arresting them. The naihanchin expert remans calm while stopping the "misbehaver". That's inline with Chinese Confucian thinking and a country which had a great Buddhist tradition.
It's not hippy sh!t. It's practical.
But we don't get worked up here teaching students to anticipate fights that they will probably never have and showing them how to stop a haymaker or fend off five attackers at once. Why bother with these scenarios?
I don't think the "creators" of any traditional grappling kata considered full fights. They studied body mechanics and locking as a more noble way of stopping someone.
And their kata dealt with two people in constant contact and grappling; the permutations and body mechanics of locks, rolls,leverage.It's in Rokushu, closed-fist sanchin and naihanchin.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 12:33 PM
gang
I can comment on YOUR comments--based upon the book, according to you.
Unless of course your now going to suggst that YOUR not presenting the points correctly.
Since you have the book in your hands--why not do what people have been asking for the last 20 or so pages---start presenting direct quotes/support from the text.
I say you folks are not doing so because you know they will get chopped apart by informed people---there-by depriving you of your excuse "you haven't read the book"
Hey, like I said--you simply CAN'T call into question "if" Uechi "knew what he was doing" THEN use static isolated pictures from a book on Uechi to support your points.
A-If he knew what he was doing then you HAVE to listen to disagreement as to "why" they are doing it.
B-If its "wrong" then it clearly CAN'T support your contentions.
C-If not having "read the book" means that I can't comment on its conclusions--then SURELY YOU NOT BEING A UECHI-KA OR A SWORDSMEN MEANS YOU CAN'T COMMENT ON "WHY" THEY DO "X"
As YOU say "study before you critise."
So AGAIN, what sword ryu do you train at and for how long??
How long have you studied Uechi-ryu, with whom and for how long?
Since you do NEITHER--then according to YOUR OWN statements--YOU have no clue what YOUR talking about.
Thus YOU should be ignored.
Pick one "jenius"
Heavy sigh---dude, your ahm...."logic" has more holes in them than a pair of my girls fishnets.
(ummmm fishnets........sorry, lost my train of thought for a second)
And yet you keep insiting that your group and ONLY your group has the "secret decoder ring."
And you accuse US of being "close minded"--sheesh.
You do understand what the words "close minded" actually mean---right???
The reason you can't "compete" with me/us is that you have nothing backing you up but sperious conclusions, flawed guessowrk, sloppy reasoning and ignorance in action.
Again, the notion that various kata ARE SUPPOSED to be used to train sai, raises more questions and problems than it provides a solution for.
That alone, according to Occams Razor, would put it well below other explanations in terms of quality.
And that is BEFORE we even start in on the specifics.
Lord save me from those that confuse the capacity to put ink on paper, with the sklls needed to do it correctly.
Posted by: Saisho
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 12:50 PM
Ed,
I really think you need to come out of your shell. You are just so timid and reserved. It would also help if you could research your statements a little better and maybe even throw in some quotes or links.
I can't keep up with this thread and I am not sure why I have been trying to. I think it has been the amusement factor. I think I will go practice my Naihanchi katas... without weapons, push-hands or anything else that was mentioned.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 02:35 PM
hehe...wiseguy.
Quote:
Just because he is new to it means he can't it?
looking for the verb here, ganguscrane.
he can't.... DO kobudo? nope, anyone can 'do' what they like.
he can't.... write a book on kobudo? sure he can, but if people are informed that he has comparitively little Kobudo training, he'd be less viewed the expert he's positioned himself to be. (then you'll say...he doesn't consider himself an expert) - then I'll point to his actions: claiming to be a myth-buster. hosting seminars. selling books. selling DVD's. selling junk kobudo weapons (well ok, nothing self-expert claiming about that). rubber sai sold on his website? are you kidding me? lol
he can't.... create historical and contextual theories on Kobudo? again, sure he can - freedom of speech/expression and all that. but c'mon. Nathan-san probably has less time with okinawan weapons than most kobudo green belts. People who have trained directly with respected Okinawan Kobudoka for decades wouldn't be pretentious as to claim THEY figured out the secret of kobudo's TRUE purpose. cripes.
Quote:
When you guys were new to karate you felt if you had skill for it or not.
The difference being we didn't write a book, record a DVD and host seminars based upon a surface knowledge of Kobudo.
OH! the Humility! lol
I have an idea...instead of telling people that they need to read the book to be qualified to comment on it - I'll say instead that people should be qualified in the material presented to write a book or defend it in the first place.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 03:05 PM
Quote:
we don't say that empty hand kata are "zen" like "peace and love". We think they are for self defence; but armed or grappling techniques.
I wasn't referring to you there, homeskillet.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 03:25 PM
"The claw is our master. oooooo. behold the claw."
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 03:31 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!
Ed…
Quote:
I'm not trying to re-characterize his book
Again what is written online is irrelevant, especially when it is badly paraphrased. Only what Nathan allowed to be written on the back cover of his book is relevant here. The “it” in the phase “it was never intended to be a means of self defence” applies to “this mystical non-violent teaching” in the previous sentence. The “this” in the phase “this mystical non-violent teaching” applies to “the spiritual practices of the Shaolin order” again in the previous sentence. To me this means that the spiritual practices of the Shaolin order started a chain of events which eventually lead to the creation of karate kata and does not mean that all karate kata were intended for spiritual purposes.
Quote:
I'm getting conflicting characterizations of he works right here in this thread. What I want to know is: in his first book 'Zen Shaolin Karate', 1994, the focus is on Goju Sanchin and Shorin Naihanchi for grappling applications. then 6 years later, 'Barefoot Zen' is the theory kata is not designed for fighting. Then a year or two later he did a 6 volume set
The material presented in Zen Shaolin Karate was essentially the same as the material presented in Barefoot Zen i.e. pushing hands, hand grappling and some Zen stuff. The six volume set was designed for children to have an introduction to martial arts.
- Kickboxing (Martial and Fighting Arts)
- Jujutsu: Essential Tips, Drills, and Combat Techniques (Martial and Fighting Arts)
- Karate (Martial and Fighting Arts)
- Kung Fu: Essential Tips, Drills, and Combat Techniques (Martial and Fighting Arts)
- Martial Arts for Children (Martial and Fighting Arts)
- Martial Arts for the Mind: Essential Tips, Drills, and Combat Techniques (Martial and Fighting Arts)
The only significant change to his arguments is that he has introduced a civil arrest dimension.
Gary…
Quote:
Q3. During training how do you move from a gap to a position where you have both hands tied up in Naifuanchin lock type configuration. How do you subsequently prevent them from escaping using brute force?
Tom sent me a PM saying that he is not going to answer this question, although I didn’t understand his reasoning. I’ve just wrote back asking him to explain himself but in the meantime perhaps you can answer this one.
Quote:
Q7: How long are the sai, bo and sword in Kodo Ryu.
Hopefully you have a tape-measure.
Jim…
Quote:
'Teachers would have you believe that this kata explains how to fight lots of people at once (and in a paddy field or on a cliff edge - that is very precise anticipation); in fact how to anticipate certain moves from multiple attackers in a pre-ordained order. Surely that is very exagerrated.'
OK fair point that this kind of rubbish was commonly believed, and not so long ago, but hardly the case now is it.
There are several such statements and examples in the book and DVD and I have to say I felt it let the work down, as im sure Nathan and the other Kodo Ryu Seniors understand mainstream karate better than this 'image', and they know that many others do as well.
They see this as a classic example of how lost the karate world is when it comes to applications. The karate world has changed a lot in terms of applications, who’s to say that the applications that are believed now will be believed 20 years in the future. If things are always changing then all that means is that no one knows what anything is for. That is why they do their research, in order to find solidity in kata application. That is also why they are so forthright about their conclusions because to them they represent solidly. Unfortunately they are not so solid about what context to use their applications in; hence the apparent swing from meditation to civil arrest. One of the problems with Zen Shorin Do was that it was defined by its applications which it made it difficult to understand. If it was just an art that taught pushing hands, civil arrest, kobudo and zen and used whatever kata then there wouldn’t be an issue. But actually it is the work of a group of people who are attempting to find solidly in karate kata application and re-educate the rest of the karate community. If anyone wants to get the benefits of Nathan’s work they should go right to the heart of the matter, which is specific kata with specific applications as defined by the pictures in his books. Simply do the techniques and ask yourself “Is this what the kata is describing?” if the answer is “could be” then it was worth it. If the answer is “no” then write down your criticisms and publish them somewhere and sell the book(s).
Personally I am going to buy a boken, sai, bo and The Great Karate Myth and decide for myself; and if I find this is just load of nonsense then I will publish exactly why on my website.
Martin
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 04:57 PM
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 05:01 PM
founder
And although you should be commended for your "try it myself" appraoch--seriously
A given indviduals abilty or lack there of in applying the ideas presented here is really not the point.
The point is how valid are the suppositions so far relayed, what support those conjectures have, what they fail to consider/take into account, and from what assumptions do their specualtions come from.
If the comments presented so far are a fair indication of the "worth" of the buying the "book, bo and sai" then I would strongly suggest that you save your money.
Or better yet, if you really wish to learn/understand bo, sai and sword are trained and used, spend your money on legit schools of Okinawan kobudo and japanese koryu--that actually teach the very weapons you wish to learn.
Think legit education rather than highly speculative claims of "re-eduaction" as you put it.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 05:02 PM
Quote:
Personally I am going to buy a boken, sai, bo and The Great Karate Myth and decide for myself
that is your flaw.
thinking with those things you will be equipt to qualify yourself to be able to make such a judgement.
I challenge you to seek a qualified kobudo instructor, study for a few years...then re-evaluate.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 05:09 PM
Ed
Darn it Ed!
How are people going to advance their weird, poorly researched and poorly supported claims if you INSIST on be all "logical" and providing pictures and everything to counter their claims????
Really how??
Plus--in all seriousnes now---the pictures presented, the ones that Kodo/gang and company are referring to represent a "claw" or "even a "four knuckle" strike.
Either way--that is SO NOT how you hold a sai.
And if they "switch gears" and argue that its sort of "hidden" then the finger postions they point to cease to become even ertz support.
You got them coming AND going.
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 05:18 PM
Just to clarify that the reason I havent posted direct quotes from the book is that I believe it would be taken out of context,
and whilst I disagree with much of the book I dont want to be seen to be trying to discredit Kodo Ryu as I find their view on things interesting and usefull, particulary the research aspect.
Im also not sure of the legal or morale aspect of posting direct from the book, I guess I could have asked for permission??????
Anyhow no matter as my copy is on its way to Victor, who is the Sokey Dokey and im sure will give his balanced view.
If anyone wants a peek after Victor then let me know and we can try and arrange (Ed?).
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 05:31 PM
Did you see Ed photos of the empty hand purpose of those hand positions? Now who is close minded the people debating here are not saying you can't use the sais in that position but thats its not the ONLY interpetation for that move.
It reminds me of the time I taught Gaisai-di-ni with sai it only suppose to be a training drill to get them use to sai movement with a Kata they already knew. A group went to a Tournament and won with it. The Next tournament I spent the whole time explaining it was never suppose to leave the dojo!! I had an excuse. People that know me know I don't think much of Tourneys accept for fellowshiping.
I commend your steadfastness but most have already cross that bridge and no matter what you write or say, won't make what you think and practice true. Really whose close mind could you even imagine Miyagi, Oyama, Uechi, Funakoshi and on and on, that maybe they are right to bow and call "it" empty hand art.
This Zen stuff is a Kendo process, from Japan. Te or Karate is about developing the mind, spirit and Body to whip a$$ empty handed if need be but adapt to ones enviroment and you are right here use a weapon if you need to.
Please take your dark glass off you are among peers, you are not a Super Star or the only one with concret ideas. Could you imagine anyone else but Nathan being Right???
Great call Ed, he acted as if no one knew but him, Goju has those clawing hand position all throught it, empty hand 1st.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 05:33 PM
Sho
Fair enough--don't think "context" would be all that hard to overcome though.
In terms of "fair use" you should be allowed to quote directly with proper attibution.
The same things that make it a "good" quote, title, page number, author, decent context background as the same things that keep you from "stealing" a persons work.
You can quote chapter and verse from almost any published work---AS LONG AS YOU ARE QUOTING CHAPTER AND VERSE.
Of course, there ARE contextual matters to consider.
What a discussion is for.
There has been some pretty sloppy "logic" presented so far--including a statement that you need to train in an art PRIOR to knowing what its about.
This from a guy that does NOT practice Uechi-ryu or any type of sword--then makes claims about sword and Uechi-ryu.
Man can't follow his own advice--then why should anyone be listening?
Context, at this point, is the least of their problems.
My supplier tells me I should be able to get a copy from him in 3 or so weeks.
Don't know if that the case, or if I can wait that long....as long as I can pay someone back for the costs of shipping and "wear and tear" I would like to see it.
If we can't spell names properly this is going to be a crap discussion. A
Top pictre please. Right hand. And any reasons why he performs this hand position would be welcomed.
Thanks.
place the sai in the right hand, pommel up with the centre prong of the trident against the forearm. The little finger and the indew are raised as they press against the foil of the sai (on the right side of the handle) to keep it pressed against the forearm.
The left arm is blocking and catching with the second sai.
Or use your teachings and explain why he's doing that. Show me I'm wrong. He's punching someone with two fingers? No, he's grappling? or just thought it looked good?
Give me what you think? You obviously know.
You giving me spelling and grammar classes now?
Petty. You got the meaning, "DO".
So you didn't write a book or produce a dvd? Okay. That makes Nathan stupid because he's thinking about what we are doing? Perhaps you didn't find anything to write about because you knew it all.
Doubt it.
Ed, you seem bitter about books being written and you having to pay for them.
You don't think Nathan is qualified to write on this topic; then drop it from your Christmas list.
Many sources state that Miyagi sythesised Tensho from Rokushu, over here.
"Encyclopedie des arts martiaux" amphora, france for one.
It's common knowledge in most parts of Europe.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 06:42 PM
gang
So instead of dealing with the reams of objections, counterpoints, and outright self negating contridictions YOU, YOURSELF have posted.
Such as the whole "you need to train in an art prior to offerering ctitisim--still waiting for your training in Uechi or sword BTW.
You instead wish to discuss a static picture.
Ok, fine--not any stonger there.
A-As Ed already pointed out--with MULTIPLE pictures, there are other much better explanations for the finger postion.
I have yet to see ANY photos of Uechi holding a sai.
Ed 100, gang 0--whuch one do YOU think I sould be beliving here.
The guy with NO proofs or the guy with A LOT of proof?
Why do I have to even ask that question.
2-Nope, your still wrong, sure you can argue that fingers are in position to do "X"
But since you already stated you have NO training in Uechi-ryu or kobudo---then there is NO reason to give your ideas any weight.
Plus the hand postions still don't add up--sai are not held like that--ther may be sections/times in which a sai might be in that position---but that is pretty much it.
In effect your argueing that because a sai CAN be held in that positon for a supposed "use" then they MUST HAVE BEEN USED FOR THAT.
Like I said, I CAN use my car to pull tree stumps.
By your post hoc rationalization, that means my car is REALLY a "stump pulling machine."
Brian,
Perhaps you could help the debate along a little.
We are talking a lot about tradition, who knew what, whether Nathan is right to question kata, whether Miyagi knew what he was teaching.
I also see that you teach groundfighting techniques.
So, can I just ask which of the TRADITIONAL Goju kata teaches such techniques?
Did Miyagi teach groundfighting? Is Sanchin the key? Or maybe Tensho?Would you agree that open-hand sanchin and seisan are not for sai?
In that case, do you teach seisan for groundfighting?
All of these kata teach the pupil to remain upright.
So, if we are ALL talking traditions and skill and experience, (not aimed at you, Brian) then I would like to know what Goju kata were intended for according to Miyagi or Higoanna and their pupils/ your instructors.
Thanks.
This is not a personal challenge, just a way to see how traditional the kata are in the USA etc. And why some of you guys think you are so right.
And I'm still waiting for the Uechi explanation from those who "know"..
Cheers.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 06:59 PM
gang
Again, if guys like Miyagi/Uechi DIDN'T "know what the were doing" then your OTHER arguement about what various kata/hand positons "mean" are now shot.
If they didn't know what they were doing then the hand postions mean squat.
Only if you "buy" that knew EXACTLT what the were doing can you even advance a arguemnt based upon "hand/finger" postions.
Problem is if you do that--then you have to deal with neither Miyagi/Uechi ever so much as suggesting the use of the sai in their kata.
Pick one.
Its a "circle jerk" of the worst kind.
Oh, people think that they are "right" because YOU have failed to prove YOUR claims.
Burden of proof is on the person makeing the claims--in this case you.
You fail to prove your case, which you have--then we are "right" by default.
I AM studying uechi sanchin; that's why we are debating this.
And the fact that you are still holding the sai like a tennis racket or sword shows your lack of understanding of how to use them. Are you going to hammer in nails with them next, too?
Have you done kobudo? I obviously haven't done as much as you, I guess, but only a fool thinks the sai can be held only one way. Or are you still throwing them at people?
The pommel is used for punishing, whilst the inner prong is used for catching a pole or sword; the sai-man then twists the foil to temporarily lock the pole/sword as he strikes with the pommel of the other sai. This is not Elektra the film and we are not cutting with sai.
Section one teaches that in open-hand sanchin.
One hand at 45° to intercept the opponent's weapon and lock it in the foil. The other hand retracts in an arc, the prong is flipped towards the chest so that the foil is ourpointing and the hand strikes back and hits the limb of the opponent.
And yes, the opponent does remain "trapped" because the choice of his weapon (pole or heavy sword) means that he needs both hands to wield it.
So the sai-man traps the weapon, and punishes the second hand disarming the opponent or at least one hand.
Now try to wield a bo with one hand. Or even a heavy sword. And you have no space to retract for a strike as the distance has been closed.
This is not too tricky a concept, even for kobudo pros like you.
Perhaps you should buy a third sai in case you lose one as you throw it.
And funny that sai are NOT sold in packs of three.
Your third picture refers to section three of the kata at the end of sanchin.
But you tell me why the master is scrunching up his fingers; to lift pots a la Jackie Chan. Or to grab your throat and balls? Or is it a dim mak?
Especially at that speed and intensity. Deadly.
LOL
Martin said he'd get some equipment to try.
At least the quote shows someone willing to try and experiment. Get a sai, a bo and the book, try the kata and see. Clever idea, shame not all of you are heeding this.
It's so much easier to just scream "no".
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 07:12 PM
gang
Uh, your studying one kata and you think that qualiies you to speak with authority about an entire system?
Wow, check the hubris on you!
What Uechi group/teacher is teaching you the kata?
Then please please pretty please listen to folsk that DO and have trained with the weapons.
As people keep pointing out--lack of experience in kata/weapns is exactly why you guys are makeing serious errors in your reasoning.
But of course, since you guys are perfect and infallaible in your reasoning
There is no reason to listen to us
"Shame" on YOU for being so arrogent to refuse to consider other viewpoints.
"Shame" on YOU for presenting uninformed, spacious speculation as facts.
"Shame" on YOU for your dogmatic adherence to series of unsupported, overly complex claims, when more effective, more simple exlanation exist.
Miyagi closed the hands so was not interested in open sanchin. Does anyone here know why?
And Uechi saw the benefit of the claw-like positions; that's why he taught it and even posed in photos for it. But perhaps he didn't know how important it was.
I would say he was practising a kata which he knew was strategic in Kung Fu and he mimicked the hand positions.
But what if no-one had explained why those hand positions were important? He was just following the kata without any applications.
Or would someone like to support the idea that Uechi did Sanchin for groundfighting or multiple-opponent scenarios?
In fact, any Uechi-ka out there; could you tell me what Uechi said Sanchin was for? Why do you do it?
Or even better; let's throw the debate open.
Next time I'll explain our view of section one of open-hand sanchin in detail and you can explain your view.
we'll take the three sections in turn.
That will make for a more precise discussion.
Read you soon.
Gary
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 07:22 PM
gang
Again, some basic information on the kata you claim to understand would help here.
Nobody really knows why Miyagi closed the hands in Sanchin, indeed, some people attribute the change to Higashionna.
The smart money is on a "change" because he wished to focus on certian aspects of the kata.
"Why" they do it is a question you would have a better grasp of if you had more exposure to goju/uechi training/kata.
Best answer is MANY reasons, as well as an entire conditioning aspect.
What does the Uechi person teaching you Sanchin kata, say its for.
Posted by: Saisho
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 07:40 PM
I can't believe I am still reading this thread! I don't even stretch my neck to look at car wrecks when I drive.
This had me a little curious..
Quote:
The little finger and the indew are raised as they press against the foil of the sai (on the right side of the handle) to keep it pressed against the forearm.
I don't claim to be an expert at sai, but I have never seen the index finger used on the prong. It usually extends up the handle. Also, I tried that position and my little finger was not what helt the "blade" against my arm. It was a curling of all fingers.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 07:40 PM
gaugustcrane,
You got me twisted brother!! I did not learn groundfighting from any of the kata I was taught. I did,however,learn throws and takedowns from them,but that preferrably left me standing most of the time.
The groundfighting I learned comes from wrestling abd BJJ,it was just integrated into our system and we teach it that way,seperate from the kata.
When I do the bo kata I use a bo,when I practice sanseru,I don't.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 07:48 PM
BTW,
I think it is important that you understand I do not practice traditional okinawan goju-ryu. Would not want to, to tell the truth.
Ed,
Quote:
I challenge you to seek a qualified kobudo instructor, study for a few years...then re-evaluate.
Never said I wouldn’t, although I was hoping that the threat of being beaten with a big stick would sharpen up my sai skills quite fast; I’m a strong believer in DIY. Also I trust Nathan when it comes to kata applications, which may be misplaced, but he was my sensei for eights years. Can you recommend anyone in the Birmingham area?
Gary,
Q3. During training how do you move from a gap to a position where you have both hands tied up in Naifuanchin lock type configuration. How do you subsequently prevent them from escaping using brute force?
Q7: How long are the sai, bo and sword in Kodo Ryu.
Martin
Posted by: nahate
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 08:53 PM
The top picture of Kanei Uechi is a snapshot from Uechi Seisan. He has just completed an elbow strike with the upper hand. The purpose of the open hand position as explained to me by my Uechi instructor was simply to tighten the forearm muscles around the elbow to enhance the strike. Similar to the full twist punch ,much debated on other threads, the primary effect is to strengthen the striking tool and prevent any dissipation of power rebounding into a weak structure. A secondary value is that it permits a quick follow up strike with a "leopard fist."
I have little kobudo training, significantly more Uechi Ryu and over thirty years of Goju. It would not be proper to say that Goju katas teach groundfighting per se, but the katas include close contact with arm bars and breaks, unbalancing and hard takedowns. A strong grip is vital and is evidenced by the open hand techniques displayed in the katas. They are for gripping the opponent, not a weapon.
I have heard my sensei (who has over 40 years of kobudo, his formative years as a close student of Matayoshi Sensei) observe that kobudo evolved from adapting karate like body dynamics and enhancing range and power by using weapons and implements that worked as weapons. Nathan seems to have the relationship exactly backwards.
Innovative ideas and intuitive leaps are fine and to be commended, but they need to be checked out by more than book and internet research. Some training with those with decades of experience in kobudo and Okinawan karate would have saved a lot of embarrassment for Nathan and his adherents.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 09:31 PM
Quote:
Can you recommend anyone in the Birmingham area?
Can't say I can...besides, I'm not a Kobudoka - but I'm around it. At less than 8 hours of training a week, the empty hand material keeps me busy and engaged enough - my limitation that I've come to terms with - maybe someday, but not now. It's too bad, people feel sufficiantly lost, that they feel the need to absorb every new theory that hits the market. There are a few on here that are very lucky to have/had the instruction they do/did. I enjoy having discussions with them lots more than the uninitiated bandwagoning mass-consumers of MA.
as far as the other questions/comments that were directed toward me...they don't warrent a response.
it's clear no technical discussion will come of this, given the obvious uneven backgrounds of sides to the argument.
In years to come Nathan will once again change his theory. Personal journeys happen that way in varying less-public extremes. Some seek long, trusted and in-depth guidance from those who went before, some attempt to go it on their own. Whether he is aware of it or not, Nathan is documenting his journey in the form of publication...he's sharing his path and collecting from the followers along the way. I don't judge that course, and since he's no doubt a nice person, there will always be those who follow him.
The personal question his students need to ask themselves: how far will you follow his current state? will you be doing Uechi Sanchin with sai 6 years from now even if Nathan goes on to completely different and other things? or will you branch off as Martin did with Ryoute? sort of left 'high and dry' trying to make the older theories work for you as a base to support your own theories?
how many 'Zen Shorin karate' practictioners are there still today? any? and thats just 12 years (or 2 theories) ago.
Test of time. If Kodo ryu is still around in 6 years, I'll read the book. turns out, I saved alot of time/money by waiting for 'barefoot zen' to mature. It's matured into a dead and well debunked theory.
In any event, may everyone be happy.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/21/06 09:54 PM
Hi Ken, glad you joined the thread. Of course! Leopard fist! I didn't recognize it at first from Uechi's photo since the setup looks different than Goju...but yup, there it is. I thought it was called 'bear claw'. but the hand-form appears in Goju's Saifa as you know....strike to the neck with secondary finger knuckles using a circular path (the stylized version of saifa often shows/explains this as double straight punch strike to the base of the neck)....Uechi's 'leopard fist' is just more like knocking on a door. by itself, not a particularly dangerous looking strike, but just after an elbow to the chin...rapping them on the face (or I suppose neck) to followup makes perfect sense. kindof like a reverse-hand Uraken.
thanks for adding that. most I've learned all thread. lol
Posted by: Unsu
Re: Kodoryu - 11/22/06 02:26 AM
Quote:
If we can't spell names properly this is going to be a crap discussion. A
Top pictre please. Right hand. And any reasons why he performs this hand position would be welcomed.
Thanks.
Sure I can explain this "loose fist" interpretation. In order to get more bone contact with an upper elbow strike versus a muscle padded olecranon process (elbow point), the fist can be kept relaxed which keeps the muscle of the medial forearm from padding the ulna/elbow. The other hand is used to grab the lapel or shirt in order to bring uke into the strike. It's very common in Okinawan karate to pull your opponent into your strike.
The Sai is held one way in Okinawan kobudo regardless of ryu/ryuha. If you have ever manipulated the Sai this grip makes perfect sense. If you have never done Okinawan karate or at the least a style with sound fundamentals then what I'm saying may seem like conjecture, but those of us who have trained for decades in Okinawan karate know that what I speak of is pure truth. There is no opinion in this instance. That's just how it is.
Again I'll ask you and Nate if he wants to answer, what rank is this cat and by whom was he graded a yudansha? I really have nothing against the guy. I don't doubt he knows some karate. The question is at what level and what style? It really does make a difference, because contrary to popular OPINION not all styles hold the same merit. Some ryuha and sensei/shinshi just understand and can convey real techs against resisting opponent AND can describe what bunkai really is. This analysis and teaching method is not something that Nate needs to reinvent. It's already there and present in a myriad of styles and dojo.
This guy is taking advantage of the fact that karate in Europe is on an even lower level than the karate stateside. You guys in Britain are always tring to reinevent the wheel, even moreso than the guys here who usually just do what their taught and continue with bad habits and lack of knowledge. Instead of you English guys going and learning from a qualified Okinawan yudansha you just want to hope your way through it. Bad form. You must have a solid foundation in order to even begin to try and make up your own karate system. 6th dan is probably the minimum and you won't reach that rank before 45-50 if you do a real style.
Nate will not teach most of us on here a thing. He will succeed in us viewing him as another fly-by-night gendai budoist.Think about it--- he knows more about the system he was a beginner in, in a dojo that didn't probably know how to interpret the kata they trained in, than the guys who created the style(s)? The initiated see through the ruse.
We understand that he is teaching based on some knowledge and a lot of gimmick. Trust us, why would WE need to lie to you? To keep you as one of our fold?! Hahahaha, think about it and don't be such a follower.
Right gents,
seeing as this is now becoming a question of America versus the low level of karate in Europe and Britain, I think it's time to bow out until some of you actually study what has been put out there by Johnson.
Of course the fact that everything is better in the States was a point I overlooked. Just like when America wins the world baseball series every time. No surprise, as there are no other teams.
Yes, you can have the monopoly on all your kata because you spoke to the Okinawans and they must be right.
You are trying to fit kata into take downs and ground asaults. It's not what your original masters intended to my mind and it doesn't work unless you bastardise the kata as some clubs do.
Just like the Japanese were right about Naihanchin until Zen Shaolin Karate.
And to be honnest, few of you will ever view this open-mindedly, so there is little point discussing this.
Thanks to those who explained increased power for an elbow strike from the Uechi picture. I don't believe it for a minute but if it floats your boat.
And a grab to the lapel afterwards? Was that a joke?
Increased muscle power in the forearm by cocking your wrist, raising your little finger and index? Nice idea. Perhaps they should use that in the ultimate fight to punch or grab someone. Great stuff. Or a Goju punch at slow speed to the groin.
Perhaps then we can use Rokushu to "paint the fence", or "wax on" when cleaning the car. Just before you "stomp" with it, Daniel san.
I say we all get back to our own styles; afterall that's what we each enjoy.
We all think we are right or the other wrong. So, let's agree to disagree.
Cheers, boys.
And not reaching 6th dan until you're 45/50? What a laugh. The Japanese added loads of belts to keep the students training longer. It's politics and marketing. Europe saw that ages ago. Who would want their greatest export quickly perfected by Westerners? Business would not last long.
Like belts for kids. And no room for free thinking.All in line, one direction, one leader, no questions.
I guess some aspects of Okinawan or Japanese culture were not really a good idea to adopt. "Martial" arts, indeed.
Posted by: CVV
Re: Kodoryu - 11/22/06 06:08 AM
Gaugustcrane,
I give you an eye witness (from an interview), somebody that actually trained with Higashiaonna states he changed from open hand to closed fist and you state that Miyagi closed the fists without any explanation. Do you have any reference to your statement wich makes this believable ?
Let's put the focus on tensho for a while then. You catagorize it as rokushu/tensho. Why also rokushu ? Was tensho not a proper name for it in how you exercise it ? Is it different from the goju execution ?
Tensho means 'rotating palms' and indeed has a lot of tuite/china in it, if you want it to be like that. It can also be used as soft slapping or hitting with palm or fingertips. We use it primarely as cool down kata, to regulate breath and chi and calm the mind at the end of the training. That's why it's called closed hand kata (heishu kata). It has a different purpose as the application of technique (kaishu kata, open hand kata).
As far as I understand it, Gokenki assisted him in the creation of the kata tensho based on the rokushu kata he thaught and based on experiences he had in China during his first 2 visits. Although based on the rokushu kata it is not the rokushu kata. If you have different info I would like to hear it.
Quote:
The Japanese added loads of belts to keep the students training longer. It's politics and marketing. Europe saw that ages ago. Who would want their greatest export quickly perfected by Westerners? Business would not last long.
What a blunt statement. I trained in Japan for a month and had to pay about 75euro for the entire month to chip in for rent on the dojo where we slept ate and trained. Whenever I go to a siminar in Europe (with or without Japanese masters) I usualy have to pay about 30euro a day just for a 2 or 4 hour seminar.
Training your entire life searching for your own limits together with friends more or less knowledgable is the ultimate goal of training imo. It has nothing to do with the grade you obtain. Recognition of that grade and putting value behind it, is only to the one who distributes the grade and to the one who aknowledges it. It has zero value in these debates/forums.
Unsu,
Quote:
This guy is taking advantage of the fact that karate in Europe is on an even lower level than the karate stateside.
And you base that on what ? Your own ego ?
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/22/06 07:30 AM
I'll give you a tip, so you can walk away from the thread with perhaps something tangable.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Uechi-Ryu-OKINAWA-KA...8QQcmdZViewItemthat is NOT the blue book, btw.
Uechi's "blue book". is a difficult book to get your hands on (It'll run you well over USD $1000), much less an English translation of it - of which does exist but is not published and only available in small circles as far as I know. don't ask me how to get one...I'll tell you e-bay. I have had the pleasure of reading it. I'm not an Uechi stylist, but I would think this would be required reading prior to guessing what their kata is for...it certainly fills alot of voids and bridges gaps between other Okinawan traditional styles.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/22/06 07:56 AM
Hyo boxer (leopard boxer) - the leopard is one of the 5 animal styles.
partial English translation from the blue book:
Quote:
The original Boxer
for the leopard was based on the four knuckle fingers and the first finger of each hand using the
thumb as a brace. The energy around the strike was based behind the knuckles. When one
trained using this strike it was used as an oblique block. The strike was followed by a short quick
emission thru the lips. It was thought that this was excess energy, which came after the strike
and could to be used later. During the strike the posture was also important the feet were half
moon shaped for maximum energy dispersion during and after the strike.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/22/06 07:59 AM
the leopard boxer:
Posted by: Saisho
Re: Kodoryu - 11/22/06 08:54 AM
If that is Leopard Boxer, I don't think I ever want to see Monkey Boxer or Drunken Boxer!
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Kodoryu - 11/22/06 10:26 AM
Posted by: cxt
Re: Kodoryu - 11/22/06 11:40 AM
gaug
No!
Say it ain't so!
Sheesh, and here we are 27 pages later, with the sperious claims people--being unable to provide a shred of evidence, a scrap of real logic or any wild post-hoc rationalization as to why anyone should belive them, slither home to hide under their beds.
If they can't deal with direct questions, by informed people as to the content of their posits and the quality of their argeuements---why bother to waste a week of our time?
Its sad that you guys refused to take advanatge of the information presented here.
People gave you plenty of REALLY good information.
I honestly feel sorry for you guys that you refused to even consider it.
But you left with the same dismissive, ego driven, arrogant attitude with which you entered/kicked off this discussion.
Like I said before, Nathan and his ideas are being poorly served with such behavior.
I'd wish you "good luck" but like everything else on this thread--you won't listen.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Kodoryu - 11/22/06 01:05 PM
Are you sure you are not an Lawyer. Brilliant case and deductions. How can someone debate Uechi-ryu or Goju-ryu or Kubodo having no background in it. Just kyu level sai training in Sanchin kata!!! Having done no Kubodo kata?
Ed like the Engineer you are great Facts, fact finding, all this was very informative and interesting. If all this evidence doesn't sway his concisous mind nothing will. At least question maybe Nathan's wrong?
Unsu good points your usually head strong self, good kick in the balls. Europe Karate low level, low blow. I can say Nathan didn't do much to up lift it. But that Goffery Thomas??? (Is that his last name, I'm way from as precise as Ed and Sho on names and things)an old Brit is awesome!!! amonng many great Europe MAs.
This forum seems to be a wealth of knowledge and not a good place to try to push sells on non substancle ideas with little more then Tekki grappling principles, which could be but theres other interpetations of this kata.
Gaug, do you guys ever do Bunkias (which explains some of the moves of the Kata), Oh I forgot you are not interested in Combat so who needs Bunkias, lets makes some stuff up. How about sais all the time? And Soken Bushi lineage, Uechi and Miyagi with all the martial art world looking at them and examining what they are doing. These guys didn't know what they were doing, but Nathan does?? He wrote a book.
Posted by: Gavin
Re: Kodoryu - 11/22/06 01:58 PM
Perhaps the post at the top of this page might enlighten people as to Nathans view of all of this... and hopefully repair some damage caused to his rep
Kodoryu and Mr. Johnson, while an impossible obscure system in my area. has certainly been drawing a lot of discussion.
It’s ranged from various interpretations of historical events, claims and counter claims about who better represents the future of karate, and a lot of discussion that is based on ‘if you don’t read the book you aren’t qualified to discuss it’s points’, and then refuse to share the detail behind the points.
I have to be honest Jim’s sending me his copy to read is becoming much more interesting than looking at the book on a shelf. Of course after 500+ books, I realize how transitory their value or relevance is and becomes.
Most of the discussion, even points I like, rests on quick arguments and very little source to back them up, which makes for moving topics and little resolution.
I have to be honest I don’t know a great deal about the ins and outs of European karate. Outside of following it’s topics on discussions and seeing some video clips. I have translated a bit of Habsetzer’s works on the Bubishi, and Tokitsu Kenji’s ‘Histoire du Karate-do’ but that is only one glimpse into traditions I don’t know.
It does appear the origins of the European karate resides a great deal in the Japanese schools. In the states I suspect we cover a wider range of systems, from Japanese to Okinawan to everything else, but I’m ready to be corrected about that.
A Karate stands there are vast differences between many of the Japanese approach to karate studies as opposed by the Okinawan approaches. Trying to pick sides ignores the reality it’s not approaches but people who make the systems work. I’ve trained in the states by good instructors in many systems from many different origins.
The hasty generalizations being slung about don’t reflect good practitioners I’ve seen in many arts.
My own system originate on Okinawa, but except for historical study I’m not focused on Okinawa or anyplace, just the faith my instructors shared with me to continue my studies.
A long time ago I spent a short visit to Belgium and among the happy place I saw, I also had occasion to spend the 4th of July in a cemetery for the American WWII dead who shed their lives helping free all Europe. We ought to focus on the larger picture than twaddle about systems that is irrelevant. Yes irrelevant, with the distances involved we can’t do much more than talk, and perhaps on lucky occasions get to shake hands for a few.
I’m really looking forward to Mr. Johnson’s book, first to see how he sources his history and historical basis for his discussion. Perhaps those issues which won’t be discussed till someone actually reads the book will be resolved at that point, and perhaps they won’t.
There has been too much distortion to consider seriously any work that hasn’t made a good faith effort to do better than the past publications.
Book publishing isn’t about making money from the books. If you talk to someone in the Martial publishing scene, except for a few rare books, the real money is in Bruce Lee. The magazines learnt that lesson decades ago and kept putting him on the cover to keep sales up. The martial book publishers know the same thing. That’s why publishers keep coming up with Bruce Lee texts, that’s where the cash is.
That may make the JKD folks happy but does little elsewhere.
The place the money does reside is in clinics, and if a book helps bolster clinic performance it does help the cash flow. Clinics are nice, lots of cash that might be under reported for taxes, etc. Of course I’m not suggesting that about this, but I have seen what others do.
Now the underlying assumption is quite interesting, logical analysis showing several empty hand forms were first weapons forms.
Here are a few observations.
1. I really want someone to show me Okinawan or Chinese sources doing anything remotely similar to these forms with weapons. A long time ago I saw some Chinese sai forms, and don’t recall their similarity to the Okinawna sai kata, but I may be losing it, for it was a long time ago. But I’d rather see than read it, a personal preference.
2. If there is a strong argument, I think the most interesting place to really get it on would be at George Mattson’s Ueichi discussion forums.
http://forums.uechi-ryu.com/ You understand if you really believe something the most fun is to go toe to toe with those folks and make them understand what they’re missing. Why be shy about it, go to the pro’s. Of course they may take exception that their Uechi Sanchin technique isn’t for actual use. But it shouldn’t be a war of words, one should train with them to see if there’s any validity to their point of view. My own thoughts on this, as there is a lot of Uechi in New England, I consider them extremely formidable and credible karate-ka, understand some of their training approach and accept their Sanchin kata as a strong weapon in its own right.
3. Now let’s see I’ve only been training in Sai, Bo, Tonfa, Kama, Stick, Tanto, and Tai Chi Sword for over 30 years, and in several systems of study. In addition to my studies (which anyone who wants to take the time can dig out of the archives here on their own), I have serious friends who practice weapons in many styles, Chinese, Japanese, Okinawan, Indonesian, etc. I began with Sai (Chantan Yara No Sai kata as a brown belt), and have some understanding what Sai can be used for. Viewing Mr. Johnson’s sai kata at YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsXj8NJHSxg I’m less concerned with his historical argument than I honestly believe he’s making less than stellar choices for the sai techniques he’s using with the form. If I was translating Ueichi Sanchin (or retro analyzing it) into Sai, I would choose to do the form with closed position solely. The stability of the sai being my foremost concern. Just keeping it in out position, IMVHO, violates what Sai is to be used for. It comes out to strike/cut/slash, but doesn’t stay out because it makes the opened sai a target to strike if another weapon was involved. Perhaps I don’t know much but I would never choose to interpret Uechi Sanchin Sai in this manner. It more resembles public performance than usage intent. Again only my private opinion, but how I would teach it if I felt such a need.
4. I think the historical relevance of the Sai as a weapon is likely lost. The time people were running around with weapons that the use of the imported ‘sai’ (imported from all SE Asian cultures including China), especially as there was little free metal to make sai on Okinawa, was needed is in dim history. We soundly know the Okinawan militia was a failure in the 1500’s to stop some Japanese Samurai. That some police officers choose to carry sai as a badge of authority, and likely used for simple crowd control if needed, must be placed in context. At the time karate appears to have jelled (say 1850’s) there was little need to stop armed attack, and prior to that is lost, except perhaps in legend.
5. If there is a case made that karate mutated from actual Chinese Study (a case I’m really 50/50 about), it’s obvious that as there are no really similar Chinese kata that anyone has come up with (or they’d be selling the video tapes everyplace), either the Instructors who trained the Okinawans were so bad they didn’t know how to teach them to do it right, or the Okinawan’s were so bad students that they didn’t remember what they were taught, or the Chinese were so distrustful of the Okinawan’s they purposefully taught them incorrectly., or the transmission of the Chinese arts into the Okinawan hands was 100% correct. If you don’t like those options pick a few more. Beats me what the true answer is, the operating word being ‘TRUE’, not ‘answer’.
Believe me I’m waiting for the mail, day by day. This will be interesting, perhaps I’ll even try and make a FightingArts.com article out of this. Who knows.
Times change, the variety of details in the arts is infinite, and as all that is fixed is the underlying desire to make one’s studies work as best they can, change occurs.
How Mr. Johnson’s discussion holds up will be seen.
And the beat goes on….
PS check out the new Beatles album “Love”, it’s very interesting and totally off topic, as if Love has anything to do with the martial arts….
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 11/23/06 11:32 AM
The book and dvd should be with you by sunday Victor, let me know its arrived and enjoy the read!
I would very much welcome your considered opinion once you have digested the informaion, I think it would be a very interesting view for the forum and thread.
Hi Jim,
Interesting, unfortunately we don't have Sunday mail delivery in the states <GRIN>, but I'm sure it will get here.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Kodoryu - 11/24/06 02:11 AM
Ngo cho kun and S. crane looks very much like Naha-Te they even have a Kata that looks like Sanchin I think its called Sam-Chien it is the base of this system. Sais, Bo and other weapons are a part of 5 ancestor Gung-fu and S. Crane.
Because of this I believe Karate is a combination of Te and Chuan-fa. Like most that have studied Chanu-fa its a very complex and more intensive system that you can learn fast. Karate is a much easier system, it seem to decompose and the study into general purpose. Even though the Kuens are used differently then Kata. The Gung-fu is much like Silat the form is the fight. Kata is not the fight.
I beleive and was taught that these changes were done to add to Te to make it more effective not to mimmick the Chuna-fa/Chinese fist way. I was also taught that Hagashionna changed Sanchin to close fist to give it a more Okinawan flair. These are assumptions no one apparent asked Kanryo why.
Though Shorin-ryu doesn't have any katas that look like Shoalin forms it does have Shoalin movement but not its complexity. Which I've resolved is the purpose of Karate.
This is an assumption and I don't need to write a book about it. Karate was the MMA of the past they only wanted what they understood worked.
I can't wait for you to finish Nathan's book I wonderif it will convert you?
Posted by: CVV
Re: Kodoryu - 11/26/06 02:59 PM
I tried to open up the discussion on their forum (www.kodoryu.com) with some questions and remarks regarding sanchin/tensho and use of the sai. As a result, the forum is removed from the website. I guess they lost interest in open forum.
The closing of the forum on
www.kodoryu.com was nothing to do with you asking questions.
Posted by: Unsu
Re: Kodoryu - 11/27/06 12:57 AM
Quote:
Right gents,
seeing as this is now becoming a question of America versus the low level of karate in Europe and Britain, I think it's time to bow out until some of you actually study what has been put out there by Johnson.
Of course the fact that everything is better in the States was a point I overlooked. Just like when America wins the world baseball series every time. No surprise, as there are no other teams.
Yes, you can have the monopoly on all your kata because you spoke to the Okinawans and they must be right.
You are trying to fit kata into take downs and ground asaults. It's not what your original masters intended to my mind and it doesn't work unless you bastardise the kata as some clubs do.
Just like the Japanese were right about Naihanchin until Zen Shaolin Karate.
And to be honnest, few of you will ever view this open-mindedly, so there is little point discussing this.
Thanks to those who explained increased power for an elbow strike from the Uechi picture. I don't believe it for a minute but if it floats your boat.
And a grab to the lapel afterwards? Was that a joke?
Increased muscle power in the forearm by cocking your wrist, raising your little finger and index? Nice idea. Perhaps they should use that in the ultimate fight to punch or grab someone. Great stuff. Or a Goju punch at slow speed to the groin.
Perhaps then we can use Rokushu to "paint the fence", or "wax on" when cleaning the car. Just before you "stomp" with it, Daniel san.
I say we all get back to our own styles; afterall that's what we each enjoy.
We all think we are right or the other wrong. So, let's agree to disagree.
Cheers, boys.
And not reaching 6th dan until you're 45/50? What a laugh. The Japanese added loads of belts to keep the students training longer. It's politics and marketing. Europe saw that ages ago. Who would want their greatest export quickly perfected by Westerners? Business would not last long.
Like belts for kids. And no room for free thinking.All in line, one direction, one leader, no questions.
I guess some aspects of Okinawan or Japanese culture were not really a good idea to adopt. "Martial" arts, indeed.
You don't grab the lapel afterwards, you grab it just before you strike bringing the opponent into your elbow strike. It could be the sleeve, arm or throat, heck it could be the hair.
I find it interesting that I give you a very real and valid interpretation for that kata movement, that is quite detailed and easy to visualiize yet you can't see it.
Your stance on karate is your teachers stance. It's not based on your research or prior level of experience in real karate, but some superficial understanding of what you think kata and karate is, filled in with hope principles from an intermediate karate guy (at best).
It is all about the Pounds bro or Euros or Dollars or Lira or Pesos or whatever. If I were to train with this guy I bet he would tell me that eventually, especially if he were to find out that I and quite a few others actually KNOW what kata is and the movements mean.
Go elsewhere with that G. Dillman-light wannabe junk.
Posted by: shoshinkan
Re: Kodoryu - 11/27/06 04:18 PM
Now im not a big fan of rules, but this is a public forum so we need to keep it civil, a general reminder to ALL.
Profanity, obscene language, insults, criticism of other arts, styles or individuals, or the impersonation of other individuals should be avoided in any Forum Submission. In addition, you may not upload to FightingArts.com, or distribute or otherwise publish through FightingArts.com, any Content or Submissions that are libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, threatening, abusive, illegal or otherwise objectionable, or that constitute or would encourage a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or otherwise give rise to liability or violate any law.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Kodoryu - 11/27/06 06:22 PM
Jim,
I think you would agree that this thread has more than ran it's course. Time to kill this wounded dog.
