Recently
I have been re-reading friend, Geof Gleeson’s 1983 “Judo Inside Out”, one of the most interesting works I’ve ever read concerning martial
theory. Mr Gleeson is a Psychologist and
a Judo coach.
Mr. Gleeson, even though discussing Judo,
brings some very interesting insight to consider to karate skills, too.
Just a
warning, while there are many potential crossover lessons for many instructors
to gain from the book is quite intense from a judo level. Even one paragraph
might take a day to work out, so only the most driven will take the journey,
even with potential great rewards.
Especially his discussion on Technique and
Skill (page 20 and 21).
“First, I must make
some attempt to define and differentiate skill and technique. As a start may I offer a definition of
technique: it is the use of the body and its bits and pieces (arms, legs and
head) to transmit force to the opponent, in order to bring about some
predetermined effect, i.e. make him fall down, pin him to the ground or break
his arm. In order to appreciate and
understand the function of technique, it
is best learnt in the simplest of circumstances, i.e. in a non-varying
situation, standing or lying still.
Skill is the application and therefore the adaptation of technique to an
ever-differing situation; it is implicit that maximum consistency of success is
desirable when learning the necessary modifications.”
“In training technique and skill
must be learnt; the questions to be asked are when and how are they to be
taught? There is no finite answer, it
will depend on the nature of the learning group. However, what is important is
to realize that there is no sacrosanct order of presentation. Technique does not have to proceed skill (as
it always has done in the judo world); a simplified form of skill can be taught
first ,followed by technique. Not every
group need be taught the same way: the aspirations of individuals should decide
the form of teaching as it does the style of learning.”
How does a technique become a skill?
“In judo competition each individual
is trying to impose his skill upon the other, with the intention of winning (as
specified by the rules). For this to happen each competitor must be able to
assess what the opposition has, both in sense of attack and defense, and how
that will integrate with his own strengths and weaknesses. Most judo text-books, if they attempt to
describe how this is to be done, would give the analysis from the hit-man’s
point of view. I want to adopt the
opposite approach; I want to make the analysis from the targets point of view.
I choose this approach for the following reasons.
1. An efficient fighter always assumes
he is the weaker in skills (not the weaker in determination to win). It may not
be true, but in this way he will not underestimate the opposition.
2. Accepting an inferior – but
temporary – relationship makes the necessity of correct analysis more pressing
and essential to get right.
3. Being weaker than the opposition is
a common relationship often found in any fighter’s career, yet seldom
discussed. For some strange reason it is always suggested that the fighter
should assume he is the better man when working out tactics. I say strange
because in any championship there is only one winner, the rest are losers, so
there must be a lot more ‘weaker-relationships’ than ‘stronger-relationships’.”
“Because by definition
skill is the adaptation to an ever-changing set of circumstances, it is
impossible to describe any specific skill in general terms……..”
Change Judo to Karate, and judo competition
for karate competition or more
importantly, life threatening situation, and I believe Mr. Gleeson is saying
something very important to consider.
Even
before reading this book I was starting to understand much of the same idea
about how my karate worked. I developed my own principle about how kata
technique could be used.
I
called it the Unlocking Principle for me. Basically it
stated that for any movement a block/strike could have a
strike following and whichever combination was used resulted in a downing of
the opponent (explosive striking, locking or takedown).
A
little later I began 10 years of association with Tristan Sutrisno. From him I
first heard of the word bunkai. Not from my own training in Isshinryu nor the
many others I met at tournaments or then visited and trained alongside ever had
uttered that word.
The
Sutrisno paradigm for bunkai, I would later discover, was unique unto itself. But
the techniques used inserted into an attack, were also exceptionally effective
to eliminate the attack, A time later when the word bunkai came into common usage,
while I understood the word, the definitations offered were a different
paradigm than I had learnt. It time I came to understand what was being
suggested, not accepting those were also not valid answers, but they would
never be bunkai as I understood the word.
(
The Sutrisno family Shotokan also used other subsidiary studies to make the
underlying skills used in their bunkai study more effective. They are a
different topic.)
I
should also note that another very skilled friend, Ernest Rothrock, in the
Chinese Arts extensively asked me many leading questions about how kata
technique might be used. I realize how simple it would have been to give me demonstrations
suggesting answers, but that was not our relationship. What he was doing was
using those questions to lead my mind on kata application.
About
10 years after study with friends I began m initial studies on how technique
could be used. I did not refer to what I did as ‘bunkai’ for the most part, I
just worked at what was possible.
An
example would be 50 different ways to drop an attacker with the first movement
sequence from the Isshinryu kata Seisan.
Then
another quantum leap as I met and trained with Sherman Harrill over 10 years at
clinics I attended with him where he was showing possible uses for Isshinryu
kata technique and more. On his death I
collected my notes and discovered Sherman showed 800 for Isshinryu 8 kata/
principles guiding use.
Sherman
explained to me that there was only so much he could do in clinics where people
weren’t his students, where he didn’t know what they were capable of. Etc. Then
the reality there was never enough time to go further the rest stayed in his
dojo.
A
number of years later I was able to John Kerker, Sherman’s senior student, and continued
the education as explained many of what Sherman only suggested.
So
I learned much, O so much, from others. I conducted my own studies, never
stopping doing so.
Eventually
I realized that as many were using the term bunkai did not meet what I felt was
involved. I site as example where the Sutrisno
family Shotokan had decades of work on their bunkai study, it was not
introduced until dan level was reached. Kyu students did not stury bunkai,
instead a different paradigm was in use to develop the students capabilities to
a stronger level, only then did their bunkai for their kata become a study.
I
really felt there was much more that was needed than just showing how a kata
movement could be defined.
So
I began to look at the idea a different way.
What
I came to realize that the term bunkai (in all of its definitions) did not
explain the whole picture to me. So I developed my own vocabulary. My eventual understanding the difference was
1) Application Potential and 2)
Application Reaization.
Which
I now realize I have followed a Full circle beck to what Gleason was talking
about technique and skill. I also realize I have only scractched the surface
about how to develop Skill using a technique.
I
would like to close with a simple (and painful) example.
When
my studies in Isshinryu came under the tutelage of Charles Muray I began to
realize there was indeed a difference between technique and skill.
Charles
was quite a talented individual in kumite. For one thing when I trained with
him I can’t recall one time I could hit him, At the same time he could keep
away from my attack or crawl all over me at his will.
Nothing
I had learn would work, I had developed many techniques from all my
instructors, None of them worked.
He
explained what he was doing in kumite to me this way.
“
Vic, I imagine myself surrounded by an
invisible boundary line which is a 3 foot distance around my body, and that you
have a 3 foot boundary line too. Whenever your boundary touches mine I either
just slip back keeping my distance, or I explode over my opponent. I am always
in control as to what I do, retreat or advance.”
He
had explained that to me, it never worked that way when I fought him, though.”
Cementing
the difference between technique, boundary and true skill for me.
The quest continues!!
Appendix things that need to be said:
i. Credits- First I need to acknowledge
the Isshinryu of Tom Lewis,
ii. The fist used in striking is the
inverted vertical standing fist of Isshinryu karate. The striking is done with
the two lead knuckles, you are striking with the ridge of knuckles. Other
options involve the use of the thumb from the inverted vertical standing fist,
and the combination of the lead knuckle and the thumb in a simultaneous strike.
Do not add any tension into the
striking arm until the moment of impact. This will allow the arm to move more
quickly. The moment of impact, the impacting strike becomes the method to
tighten the strike. Immediately upon finishing the strike the hand relaxes on
the way out. This provides a secondary strike as the body snaps out to replace
where it was struck. In effect this helps the strike become a shaped charge
into the attacker’s body. Makiwara training increases this effect.
iii. The target of opportunity is the entire
arc available for the strike, beginning straight down and ending straight up.
Any point on that arc may be stuck. The actual choice depends on the desired
result.
iv. The manner of stepping is either
straight or curved. In my Isshinryu the manner of stepping always uses the
crescent step. That is how I was taugjht, but straight stepping is also used by
others in Isshinryu. Both methods work. In my tradition the step starts by
stepping in alongside the opposite leg, then it steps out from there. A
technique may be performed straight forward, straight back, or shifting into a
line of defense crossing the attacking limb.
One advantage to the
crescent step are found where the step into alongside the other leg, allow you
to compress the energy of your movement. Then stepping out is accomplished more
explosively conclude the stepping. This adds another force
multiplier.
The manner of stepping
also uses the knee release to drop the body weight into the movement. This
increases speed and power and of course is another force multiplier.
v. Replacement Stepping is used to step
away from a line of attack. The stepping leg moves first alongside the other
leg, then perhaps because of the attacker moving forward too fast, the other
leg steps back to conclude the crescent step. An alternate version has the 2nd
leg kick out to form the stance on a different angle, across the line of
attack. This can be accomplished by a slide shift if straight stepping is used.
The replacement
stepping also moves your centerline from where the opponent desires to strike.
This creates a new line to counter-attack. This also works as a force
multiplier.
vi. The starting position for the defender
in this study is with both hands down at their side. There are strategic
studies with different starting positions, but at this time a blind attack is
being used
vii. The reciprocal hand is raised while the
lead hand strikes. Not a part of the original upper body drills, it raises for
practical reasons. One of which is a possible blocking/jamming function,
another is practical placing that hand for secondary usage if the initial
strike fails due to serendipity. Raising the other hand also results in better
body alignment, another force multiplier.
viii. Force multiplier original definition :”A capability that, when added to and employed by
a combat force, significantly increases the combat potential of that force and
thus enhances the probability of successful mission accomplishment.’ In my
context a number of technique enhancements which increase the power of the
response. The more force multipliers which can be added to a technique the
increase of it’s destructive potential. They are a product of the training methodology utilized.
ix. The method of attack used by the
attacker is starting from a neutral stance they drive a punch towards the
defender with great vigor. A stronger attack might be a boxing lead punch
immediately followed by a cross. The stronger attack creates a better training
set.
x. Perfect form may
not be practical in defense, but in practice work to perform any technique as
perfectly as possible. Incorrect technique instead of being a force multiplier might turn into a force detractor. Also the more perfect
your practice, the more you have to draw upon.
xi. What you don’t
practice, you will not be able to rely upon!
