At 11:33 PM 5/30/02, Chris wrote:
I would love to know the source of that statement.
Funakoshi's 20 Precepts. There are a few differences in different translations but essentially they deliver the same message. The one Ed referred to is Precept # 17 but you need to look at them all and read them in context.
But it still does not compute, and although I am probably not going to survive the argument I must go forward.
Its only a discussion forum, not a battleground :)
A high stance in combat has no central rooted balance. The practitioner is too easily taken to the ground or forced off balance. That is not to say that in combat one should move inches off the ground. But clearly with a lower center of gravity one has a more stable platform. A compromise between mobility and stability is the root of maneuver warfare, and clearly combat in the martial art environment is the epitome of maneuver warfare.
It depends on the combat you have in mind. The discussion began on the use of low stances in modern Shotokan kata. In the earlier versions of the kata taught by Funakoshi Sensei, the stances were much higher. Check the 1922/5 publications still available as reprints for verification.
If you are discussing self-defense then we are talking about assault situations which are generally over and done with before a stance can be even considered.
If we are talking car park duels or even tournament kumite style then it is usual to see the mobility of higher stances combined with a transition into a deep stance to deliver a technique and then an immediate return to a mobile higher stance. IMO.
I personally have not trained for enlightenment, nor have a trained for purity...and I have never trained for the "art" of it. I have always trained for the "warrior" value.
Warriors are full time military personnel. Karate is a self-defense art for citizens and police. Warriors engage in battle willingly on command.
Karate is not a samurai art. There were Okinawan Bushi (Gentlemen Warriors) involved in karate but the art is a civilian not a martial art as such.
That mindset has led me to a number of conclusions I very rarely share with others. One of those conclusions is the real world usefulness of what I do. Training for the sake of training has no value in a combat situation. Only training for the real world has value. During an "incident" everybody does what they have trained to do. Everybody does what they have repeatedly programmed into their sub-conscious. It is the sub-conscious that allows for the "void". And the sub-conscious will only spit out what has been programmed in. The classic statement of "Garbage in-garbage out" applies here. The other principle I live by is "Train as you fight...fight as you train". With these two principles in mind I clearly can not believe your statement.
By your definition above, the only training you would engage in is realistic fighting. And that is not possible, even soldiers throughout the ages have practiced with wooden swords, stuck bayonets into dummies and bombed desolate areas.
One trains in drills to develop skills and applied these skills in simulated scenarios as realistic as safety permits. Drills can be extrapolated from kata and solutions to problems, ie responses to confrontation, can be prepared for those possibilities.
A beginner can not wait 20 years to make use of their training. They must be able to use it as soon as it is required. And clearly the history of forms practice is centered around repetition. One must conclude that the stance one will depend on is the one that has been practiced for 5 or 20 years. And that is the way you will fight when it is time.
The rub is in practicing the applications (function) not the kata (form). The solo practice of kata allow for technique to be improved and the application with a partner provides the 'specific' training. 20 years of kata without application is of little value when confronted with situations that have not been prepared for more fully.
The benefits of a deeper more rooted stance are evident, and they do not have anything to do with "training". A deeper stance allows for a more precise center of gravity. It allows for a smaller profile in combat, which provides less surface area to defend. It puts downward pressure on exposed limbs.
We are in disagreement here.
Lowering the weight making the possibility of being taken to the ground harder, and makes being the victim of a lock or throw more rare.
Agree in a grappling situation.
I still contend that we look at the final picture too much. In my research...lately...I have been trying to make connections to Chinese Quan Fa and the eveolution of Okinawan karate form China. In looking at the modern Kung Fu...deep, and oddly shaped.
Well haven't you noticed the differences in stances over the evolution of the kata? Perhaps you need to start with the evolution of the Okinawan Kata into it's modern day Japanese counterpart.
I can not help but wonder how one is suppose to train for years as a beginner, programming the sub-conscious with these "training stances" and then turn that off later as one becomes more advanced.
In any combative discipline,a certain amount of physical conditioning is necessary. The problem with kata and modern karate is that the form is emphasized to the detriment of the function. If the two were taught together then the kata would look a little different and the training methods change dramatically.
I believe that we do not have the originals, and it is clear that kata and various Okinawan stances/techniques have evolved so much that the same one is done 10 different ways through the community.
Yes, there are many interpretations..
I am sorry to disagree...and it still just might be me...but in my training I do not see that.
Modern training has lost a lot of its previous structure.. :(
Regards,
Bob
From: Ed
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [SRSI] Update.. Re: Jutte Kata Update..
Hi Chris,
It has been my understanding...and I may be ill-informed...that Funakoshi was responsible for the depended stance. That he believed that a deep, root stance was a core understanding.
Ed: Do you have a quoted source for the above statement you attribute to Funakoshi?
In fact Funakoshi said that "low stances were for the beginner, and high stances for the expert". Secondly, if you have ever watched Funaksohi on tape you will see his high stances. And please do not tell me they were high because he was short.
Stances are for training. The natural stance (high) is for self defense and application.
Regards Ed Hudson Chidokan
No comments:
Post a Comment