Was Tatsuo's teaching method based on what Kyan did?

 
I started a discussion as to whether the teaching style of Shimabuku Tatsuo might have been similar to the way Kyan Chotoku taught. Mainly mostly observing the students and making occasional corrections or new material while remaining on the sidelines watching everyone.  Then Harry Skelter (Davis) added some observations.

 

>Thank you so much. This is enough information to make a case to me that Shimabuku's methodology in running his programs wasn't unique but based on shared tradition from at least Kyan..

 

Honestly Victor I think the obvious high regard that Nakazato holds Tatsuo in would be -apart from his respect for Tatsuo as one who didn't see training with younger students of Kyan as something to overly enforce hierarchy over; "unlike others" (his term) - also an additional (though not necessarily defining) indication that this *particular* aspect was one that comformed to the model set by Kyan, which was (as far as I can see) the model for Nakazato's own teaching method, more than, say, Zenpos.. (though not necessarily Zenryo's) as suggested by Dan Smith (Seibukan Shorin Ryu).

 
I think additionally that Nakazato (Shoirinji Ryu) comes from an academic standpoint in that he as a career school teacher would have been particularly conscious of traditional transmission methods and (perhaps might be said to more than some others) base his evaluation on that exactly kind of thing. I also know from talking to him (many times) that Zenpo recognizes the difference in his own (modern) method ("I know some people let it go but cant just sit there and see something yet not correct it") and a different approach - one outlined prior - which wouldn't intervene to such a great extent. ..and that this is done not only out of tradition but that this tradition was based on reasons such as allowing ie that the student find their own level and practice *to that level*, rather than simulate a (possibly higher) level through *over* teaching beyond the ability or full understanding of that particular student.


My understanding is that this not only assists the student in allowing their own understanding and "making their karate their own," but allows the master teacher (or senior student) to measure that student's progress immediately, on sight. 

 
all the best
love harry

 

Hi Victor

 >Is this similar to the methodology of dojo management in Other Kyan student dojo, or were they mostly classes driven by the head instructor.

 
Thanks for considering I might be able to help, I don't know if I can, but here goes.


I can't really generalize or know how far the model you describe extended but can only speak from my own experience and trying to glean what I can, often in the context of stuff revealed during answers to other questions. What I mean by this is that quite often I have seen not only in answer to my own questions but in recordings of others' interviews, the interviewee quite often doesn't understand the motivation for the western researcher's question and so gives them an answer they think is what the interviewer is looking for... often misunderstanding the intent of the question and hence being very helpful.. but with the wrong answer!


I think this has led to a good number of misunderstandings we have about the cultural aspects of karate and how it is/was transmitted. Sorry this is a long winded way of saying parts of my understanding are keeping my ears open to the particular bits that interest me (ie. teaching methodology, etc) and in gleaning snippets here and there.So my gleaning is as follows:

 
What you describe is entirely consistent with the way Nakazato "teaches". In other words, my experience is he will sit there and watch, and only intervene if a basic movement is incorrect. This sounds obvious - that corrections would only be made when a mistake is made - but I think it goes deeper than that, to not wanting to completely lead a student, but merely to address things AT THAT CURRENT LEVEL, and that any progress (apart from help with the current level) is actually at the student's own initiative or as a result of the student's personal interpretation. In my limited experience Nakazato has OTHERS demonstrate (indeed supposedly never did show his own kata very much as example) and it's from interaction with seniors (and, crucially *observation* of seniors) is how the student learns, before any intervention by the head instructor.

 
A snippet to back this up was in Zenpo's dojo, there is still the bench that Zenryo (of course dead more than 40 years) used to sit on and observe class in a similar manner. He would therefore "oversee" a training session.. as compared with Zenpo's method, which would be the evening classes: a modern western style class work-out. Now, of course this is from a combination of snippets from Zenpo and Dan, and we must remember that Dan only caught a few months of sporadic daytime training from Zenryo before his death. So I don't know if Zenryo always did do this but he did tell me once that Zenryo never actually said ANYTHING to him (!).. Therefore the vast majority if not virtually all Dan's training was with Zenpo, this *after* Zenpo had spent his couple of years or so with Walt Dailey in Pennsylvania and had supposedly become fascinated with the Shotokan method. It was precisely this very Shotokan-like method that attracted the Shotokan nidan Dan Smith to train at the Jagaru dojo in Seibukan in the first place. He told me this was what he had been looking for and found it to be be pretty much the only place that did it that way. (assuming here: courtesy of Zenpo)

 

So what I'm saying is it seems that Zenryo's method would have been similar to what you are describing of Tatsuo, and is consistent with what Nakazato does now and - as directly as I have been able to get it from JN - says Kyan did. Nakazato said Kyan taught the kata but not much else; no drills etc.. These I believe would have been "the moves": essentially neutral in intent and performance.. it was up to the student to develop any training regimen/ weights/makiwara etc. So, it seems within the Kyan line the apparent exception is Zenpo, who changed the regimen to a modern systematizing (and, crucially, standardizing) in line with Japanese methodology... But my understanding is this was not the "traditional" way it was taught, but of course we really only are able to say  "I was taught this and my teacher said he was taught this by xx, and I haven't changed it".. so while I would say this is the way I personally think Kyan also taught and it makes sense to me personally and it makes all these things fit (like why folks kata is different, apparently) I cant say for sure everyone else did.

One thing i would say is that before all the methodological changes, it makes sense to me this was all done in a very traditional master-student way and hence if one eventually adopted the same role as one moved from student to master one would indeed have followed the traditional methods.. which sounds like just sitting there observing, making the odd correction when necessary.. not leading a class in the way we might now..


 
well, as they say: my 2c!
cheers!
love harry

 

footnote: The manner in which Tatsuo influenced the manner in which Tom Lewis taught in his dojo.